It's misleading to take one small part of a definition and claim that is what a certain word means. Post the WHOLE definition from now on.
I'm wondering why you are telling me to do this, when in your Post #543,
you yourself didn't take your own advice, but rather placed only ONE of the definitions for each of these words (whereas, I've pointed out in past posts, the two words can be either a "positive" or a "negative" DEPENDING ON CONTEXT...
...yet
you only supplied ONE definition for each instead of the WHOLE DEFINITION so ppl could see this for themselves how the words are used within their various contexts
in very distinct ways [one could say, OPPOSITE ways,
depending on WHO it is that's DOING the "TAKE[-ing]" and "LEFT"[/leaving] thing]):
ewq1938:
"taken" = "taken away to safety" like the people raptured before the wrath of God comes;
"left/rejected (the word's meaning in the Greek)" = "left" on the earth to suffer wrath of God in their mortal bodies"... just as in Noah's day.
--
https://christianchat.com/threads/what-are-you-thoughts-on-annihilation.201874/post-4683908
Again, the words' DEFINITIONS (these 2 words ^ ) DEPENDS on CONTEXT... meaning, as to WHO IT IS that is doing the "TAKE" and "LEFT" thing, and TO WHAT ENDS.
(In past posts, I've mentioned that it is the ANGELS / REAPERS who will "collect ye FIRST the TARES" in such CONTEXTS--meaning, at the time-slot surrounding Christ's Second Coming
to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age... the CONTEXT of Matt24:36-51 / Mk13:32-37 / Lk12:36-48 [and Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50... the passage which the disciples BASED their LATER QUESTION to Jesus in Matt24:3, and Jesus' response entails two chpts: chpts24-25])
But my point is, if you are going to insist that *I* put the ENTIRE DEFINITION (even WHEN the CONTEXT of a particular VERSE calls for ONE of the definitions / usages, and not the others)...
then you yourself should think about:
1)
you yourself DOING THE SAME!!,
or else... quit insisting that I must do something that you yourself have violated in this very thread, regarding this demand of yours;
or
2) reconsider
why, in some posts, I may have
zeroed in on
one definition (and endeavored to "explain" such, in said posts),
just as you had in your own Post #543 (i.e. to make a point about
"CONTEXT," right??)
... but at least BE CONSISTENT!
[eye... mote / beam thing...
]