Spiritually Dead or Spiritually Separated?

[Reformed]

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
The word indeed is nekros, indicating dead, or spiritually dead in context but again referring to separation. The word is used 132 times in various contexts.

For example, in the second chapter of James:
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

In each of the above four cases the word for death is nekros or as you say, corpse. "Faith, if has not works is "corpse."
Well no. If faith is separated from works, James says it is alone, "being alone," and therefore without works it is "a corpse"?? No again. If faith is separated from works there is no corpse, that is not the point. It simply means that the faith is useless. The works must proceed from the faith to be of any use. The faith is still there. It is not as a corpse, lifeless, non-existent. It is inoperable, unable to produce works or the right kind of works.

DHK,

First, you are incorrect about James 2:20. The word is not nekros it is ἀργή (argē). It means useless.

Second, your exegesis is flawed. James 2:17 literally means that faith is dead by its own standards. Nekros, always a physical term, is used for effect. One could interpret it in the vernacular "faith, if it has no works, is like a corpse. It is that dead."

Verse 26 is a play on words. Just the like the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James bring σῶμα (soma) into the sentence. Soma is a physical body. Nekros is a dead body. The connect is clearly made. Even when a corpse is not the object it adds emphasis to the object, in this case faith.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

First, you are incorrect about James 2:20. The word is not nekros it is ἀργή (argē). It means useless.

What are you reading?

James 2:20 θελεις δε γνωναι ω ανθρωπε κενε οτι η πιστις χωρις των εργων νεκρα εστιν
νεκρα from nekros or "corpse".

Second, your exegesis is flawed. James 2:17 literally means that faith is dead by its own standards. Nekros, always a physical term, is used for effect. One could interpret it in the vernacular "faith, if it has no works, is like a corpse. It is that dead."

It is dead, "being alone," being separated. Let the Bible interpret itself.

Verse 26 is a play on words. Just the like the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James bring σῶμα (soma) into the sentence. Soma is a physical body. Nekros is a dead body. The connect is clearly made. Even when a corpse is not the object it adds emphasis to the object, in this case faith.

There indeed is parallelism.
A body without a spirit is dead because they are separated from each other. That is what happens at death. The spirit separates from the body.
So when works are absent from "faith" the faith is dead. It does not stand alone.
The key verse is where James says:
Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works. Our works demonstrate our faith. They go together in the Christian life. The them of the book of James is practical Christian living. In daily living in the believer's life there is no such thing as walking a walk of faith without works.

 

[Reformed]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ktqoxo7uy38rqw1/arge.JPG?dl=0

The critical text interprets this word correctly.

 

[DHK]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ktqoxo7uy38rqw1/arge.JPG?dl=0

The critical text interprets this word correctly.

That may be your opinion. I certainly don't share it, and it doesn't invalidate the information I first gave you.
I quoted from the KJV, and looked up resource material from which the KJV is based on, the TR. It is obvious you would come to the same results if you used a simple Strong's concordance in some of your own research. Much or our resource material such as concordances, and other material is based either on the TR or the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

It doesn't matter whether or not the word is nekros. It is the word for death. We realize that. But in the Bible it represents a state of separation.

For example:
1. Physical Death:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--Physical death occurs when the spirit departs or separates from the body. Death is separation.

2. Spiritual Death:
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--Spiritual death occurs when sin separates a person from God. Reconciliation is needed. (2Cor.5:18-21)

3. Eternal Death:
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The gift of God is eternal life. Contrasted to eternal life is eternal death, or the wages of sin. Eternal death is separation from God for all eternity.
Death is separation.

There is also the Second Death, when all unbelievers will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev.20:11-15), and be separated from God in that ultimate judgment.

The Biblical meaning of death is almost always separation.

In Reformed's link it says:

--It is not a lifeless corpse, but a living corpse; one who is alienated from God. Even in this link this idea is expressed.

Walvoord and Zuck, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary say this:

Death is separation.

Which is directly the result of one already being in a state of spiritual death to God though, as one is spiritual dead in their sin natures, and THAT rsults in them being alinated from God!

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

That may be your opinion. I certainly don't share it,

Or...it may be what the text says.....you do not share that once again.

and it doesn't invalidate the information I first gave you.

yes it did.....killed it:thumbs:

I quoted from the KJV, and looked up resource material from which the KJV is based on, the TR. It is obvious you would come to the same results if you used a simple Strong's concordance in some of your own research.

and you came to the wrong teaching once again:sleeping_2:

 

[DHK]

DHK
yes it did.....killed it:

You don't know what you are talking about. His opinion, pitted against the Word of God, does not invalidate the Word of God. Again, here is the Word of God.

James 2:20 θελεις δε γνωναι ω ανθρωπε κενε οτι η πιστις χωρις των εργων νεκρα εστιν
His opinion doesn't change it.

 

[convicted1]

Argos is used as 'dead' in James 2:20...

argos: inactive, idle
Original Word: ἀργός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: argos
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-gos')
Short Definition: idle, lazy, thoughtless
Definition: idle, lazy, thoughtless, unprofitable, injurious.

Faith w/o works is lazy, idle, unprofitable, useless, worthless, &c. Nekros wasn't used in James 2:20...

 

[convicted1]

From Eph. 2:1, nekros is used to describe 'dead'...


Definition

properly:
one that has breathed his last, lifeless
deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
destitute of life, without life, inanimate

metaph.
spiritually dead
destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
inactive as respects doing right
destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/nekros.html

 

[DHK]

From Eph. 2:1, nekros is used to describe 'dead'...


Definition

properly:
one that has breathed his last, lifeless
deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
destitute of life, without life, inanimate

metaph.
spiritually dead
destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
inactive as respects doing right
destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/nekros.html

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
--The sea gave up the dead.
Who are they?

It refers to the lifeless corpse at the bottom of the sea, literally. It is simply emphatic to show that no matter how great the disintegration of the body may be, God will raise it from the dead in that day. The word here is nekros.
The body has been separated from the spirit (James 2:26) for some time now.
Now the spirit is reunited with the body (a glorified body), that stands before the Great White Throne. And all the dead (unsaved) will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will live an eternal death (being separated from God for all eternity. Death is separation. We can see it in two senses in this one passage.

 

[convicted1]

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
--The sea gave up the dead.
Who are they?

It refers to the lifeless corpse at the bottom of the sea, literally. It is simply emphatic to show that no matter how great the disintegration of the body may be, God will raise it from the dead in that day. The word here is nekros.
The body has been separated from the spirit (James 2:26) for some time now.
Now the spirit is reunited with the body (a glorified body), that stands before the Great White Throne. And all the dead (unsaved) will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will live an eternal death (being separated from God for all eternity. Death is separation. We can see it in two senses in this one passage.

Wasn't it you who initially posted James 2:20? Agros and not nekros was used. Agros means worthless, useless, idle, &c. I am NOT a greek scholar, so don't think I'm trying to come across as one. If you wasn't the one who initially posted James 2:20, please accept my apology.

Nekros is used in Rev. 20:13, which means 'dead'. Thanatos is used for 'death' in vs 14...

Definition

the death of the body
that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended
with the implied idea of future misery in hell
the power of death
since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

metaph.

the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,
the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell
the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

I am addressing your application of James 2:20 and it's use of 'dead'. That 'dead' is actually not death, but worthless, useless, idle, &c...

 

[Reformed]

James 2:20 from the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fecxixm1wmkps5e/James2.20.PNG?dl=0

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν

Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (1993). The Greek New Testament with McReynolds English Interlinear (27th ed., Jas 2:20). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

 

[The Archangel]

You don't know what you are talking about. His opinion, pitted against the Word of God, does not invalidate the Word of God. Again, here is the Word of God.

James 2:20 θελεις δε γνωναι ω ανθρωπε κενε οτι η πιστις χωρις των εργων νεκρα εστιν
His opinion doesn't change it.

So....

Now the "King James Version" is the "Word of God?" Are you suggesting that the KJV has corrected the text?

The "Nekros" reading is easily understood to be wrong. First it is a textual variant and in the minority of texts. Second, the mistake is easy to trace since nekros is used in surrounding verses. Third, James, in using argos, is doing a play on words which doesn't appear if nekros is used.

So, it is argos...

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

So....

Now the "King James Version" is the "Word of God?" Are you suggesting that the KJV has corrected the text?

The "Nekros" reading is easily understood to be wrong. First it is a textual variant and in the minority of texts. Second, the mistake is easy to trace since nekros is used in surrounding verses. Third, James, in using argos, is doing a play on words which doesn't appear if nekros is used.

So, it is argos...

The Archangel

You can take this to the versions forum where it belongs. I am not here to get into a Critical text debate. What I said still stands. His opinion on the text does not invalidate my initial post. It only asserts that he considers another text as more important. But this thread is not about textual criticism. My post was based on the KJV which is based on the TR, not on any other text.

The argument is invalid because it is like saying my translation is better than yours when in reality it isn't. It is just opinion. I am sure your opinion can be defeated in the versions forum. But not here. It is not the place for it.

 

[The Archangel]

You can take this to the versions forum where it belongs. I am not here to get into a Critical text debate. What I said still stands. His opinion on the text does not invalidate my initial post. It only asserts that he considers another text as more important. But this thread is not about textual criticism. My post was based on the KJV which is based on the TR, not on any other text.

The argument is invalid because it is like saying my translation is better than yours when in reality it isn't. It is just opinion. I am sure your opinion can be defeated in the versions forum. But not here. It is not the place for it.

But, of course, that's not at all what you conveyed. You said:

"His opinion, pitted against the Word of God, does not invalidate the Word of God"
​

Hence the question about the KJV and what would seem to be KJV-only-ism in your argument. Your statement (as quoted above) is itself a logical fallacy (begging the question) because you seek to invalidate his opinion by saying your opinion is right because your version is right, and because you refer to your version as "the word of God."

Further, your preferred version is clearly incorrect--and that is not a matter of my opinion. Every commentary and text-critical reference I've checked (and they are legion) note that "nekros" is not the word James used.

Your "opinion" about the use of nekros is proven to be invalid on several levels (which have already been stated). What you've done here is what you're accusing us of doing--holding to opinion. You merely prefer the KJV (or TR, if you wish) in this case when both are clearly demonstrated by massive amounts of scholarship to be in error in this case. Yet, you accuse us of offering only opinion, discounting either original or cited scholarship in favor of your own opinion when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

You ought to have, at the very least, the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy in this matter.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

A cited work:

Instead of ἀργή the Textus Receptus reads νεκρά, with א A C2 K P Ψ 614 1241 Byz Lect syr, h copbo al. Since there is considerable suspicion that scribes may have introduced the latter word from either ver. 17 or 26, the Committee preferred ἀργή, which not only is strongly supported by B C* 322 323 945 1739 it vg copsa arm, but may also involve a subtle play on words (ἔργων ἀργή [ἀ + ἐργή]). The singular error of P74 (κενή) was suggested by the preceding κενέ.

From:

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 610.

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

A cited work:

Instead of ἀργή the Textus Receptus reads νεκρά, with א A C2 K P Ψ 614 1241 Byz Lect syr, h copbo al. Since there is considerable suspicion that scribes may have introduced the latter word from either ver. 17 or 26, the Committee preferred ἀργή, which not only is strongly supported by B C* 322 323 945 1739 it vg copsa arm, but may also involve a subtle play on words (ἔργων ἀργή [ἀ + ἐργή]). The singular error of P74 (κενή) was suggested by the preceding κενέ.

From:

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 610.

The Archangel

"Suspicion" being the operative word. I don't take very kindly to textual criticism, knowing what I know of A and B. They contradict themselves and each other. The entire text is eclectic in nature.
The TR is what it says it is: "received," and "the majority" text.
It existed as a whole long before there was that elusive eclectic CT. I am not KJVO, but I do believe God has preserved his word in the what is commonly called the TR.

 

[Reformed]

You can take this to the versions forum where it belongs. I am not here to get into a Critical text debate. What I said still stands. His opinion on the text does not invalidate my initial post. It only asserts that he considers another text as more important. But this thread is not about textual criticism. My post was based on the KJV which is based on the TR, not on any other text.



The argument is invalid because it is like saying my translation is better than yours when in reality it isn't. It is just opinion. I am sure your opinion can be defeated in the versions forum. But not here. It is not the place for it.

I started this thread and Archangel has the absolute right to participate. I do not think it is right for you to suggest his comments be moved to another forum. You are free to disagree but it would smack of hypocrisy for you to offer your own interpretive thoughts while squelching his. We all need to have thick hides when debating.

 

[The Archangel]

"Suspicion" being the operative word. I don't take very kindly to textual criticism, knowing what I know of A and B. They contradict themselves and each other. The entire text is eclectic in nature.
The TR is what it says it is: "received," and "the majority" text.
It existed as a whole long before there was that elusive eclectic CT. I am not KJVO, but I do believe God has preserved his word in the what is commonly called the TR.

Hmmmm...

"I am not KJVO, but I do believe God has preserved his word in the what is commonly called the TR"
​

Po-TA-to, Po-TAH-to...

Now you're delving into the anti-intellectualism that so clearly marks the KJV only crowd. The rejection of textual criticism is quite laughable as, in the last 400 years, far better manuscript evidence has been discovered and examined.

To prefer the TR is one thing; to say that it is the preserved "word" of God is quite another--and that "other" thing is quite troubling.

The Archangel

 

[Reformed]

I am not KJVO, but I do believe God has preserved his word in the what is commonly called the TR.

Believe it or not your last comment is exactly the argument made by the KJVO sycophants. If you believe God has preserved His word only in the TR, then you are KJVO. If you believe that God has preserved His word in the Critical Text also then you are not KJVO. Do you believe God's word is preserved in the CT?