But John, it has everything to do with the Historico-Grammatico hermeneutic. To determine what a word means in Scripture, and to be accurate, in any literature, one must ascertain how the word was used and understood at the time the writing occurred. Your "connotation" has no weight on the matter since it is based on your personal experience which is over 2000 years older and in a completely different society, etc. Yes, the original usage and understanding of the word may be
the same or similar to your contemporary usage, but it is also possible they are much different.
IF I imposed my personal understanding of the words "abide" and "remain" I would probably choose "abide" which to me has a more endearing element to it. However, I cannot do that especially since the situation here is that Scripture is God-breathed and thus every word has been used according to the perfect decision of the Holy Spirit to convey to us ONE meaning. It is our responsibility to make sure we learn what that meaning is by searching for information which would tell us how the hearers/readers at that time in history understood that word, phrase, etc. That's why those of us who have gone through formal training purchased language study (Hebrew and Greek) books in order to give us that needed information, e.g., Moulton and Mulligun's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament
, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised
by Harold K. Moulton, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research
by A.T. Robertson and other such reference material.
And lastly, we are in 100% agreement in regard to the NIV. It is NOT a trustworthy translation. The translators were committed to using the Dynamic Equivalence method of translation vs. the Formal Equivalence method which is consistent with the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible.