What in the "World" does that word mean?

I have provide evidence, which you disagree but can't refute that the term world can and is used to refer to a class of mankind (Rom.11:11-12).

You are missing my point entirely. It is the Jews that developed this closed soterilogical application not Jesus. However, Jesus had to respond to his audience and how they used and understood terms. This was a deep cultural problem that led up to Acts 15 but really never was settled in the first century among Jewish believers.

My point is that Jews regarded "world" in soteriological application to be synonymous with "Gentiles" as demonstrated by the Jewish rabbit Saul of Tarsus in Romans 11:11-12. Whether you agree with my view of Romans 11:11-12 you can't disprove it and you can't disprove the real cultural problem that limited salvation to Jews only excluding gentiles. Hence, by using the the term "world" in such a soterilogical context was a rebuke to Nicodemus as it included what Jews excluded.

One important principle of sound hermeneutics is to ask "who is being addressed" and you must assume that language is meant to be understood and in order to understand each other those talking must know how terms are defined and used by those they are addressing or there is no communication. So, it is important to know the theological use and meaning because Jesus is addressing a Jewish theologian.

Of course, it is your right to disagree. However, just because John uses the term "world" in one context to mean inhabited world does not mean he uses it in another context to mean that or to mean every human ever born from adam to the last living man.

I did not say that. He loves ALL classes of mankind not merely "certain" thus, the whole world but not every human being ever born or will be born - it does not say that either.

If "world" in both verses 16 and 17 are interpreted to mean "all races, all classes, all genders" of mankind there is no inconsistency.

 

But not this.

 

The clause after "God so loved he world" is a hwste clause. The hina clause then follows that. You have to exegete the hwste before the hina..

Well, of course. It is polysemous.

 

For the record, here is you OP title, which is about meaning:
What in the "World" does that word mean?

 

Sure I can refute you. The problem is that you are another one of these guys that posts a whole essay every time, and then dares your opposition to refute it. I simply don't have time to refute everything you write. But I will work with you a little bit below.

Jesus was flat out changing the narrative on Nicodemus, not "responding" to him. Nicodemus was totally at sea because Jesus was not responding, but was taking the narrative into totally new areas. "Born again? What's that???"

Don't you hate it when people say, "You can't refute this"??? I'll just say that you cannot prove that v. 12 in Rom. 11 does not include the Jews. I would take more time, but you keep writing these long essays (and then saying, "Aha, you can't answer me.").

And again, Jesus is changing the whole narrative of the Jewish theologian. Nicodemus was lost in more ways than one. He couldn't even wrap his brain around "born again."

John's doctrine included "God is love" twice in 1 John. I can't comprehend how the God who is Himself "love" (a noun, not a verb there), does not love all of His creation. It is His very nature to love. But all of a sudden He hates the non-elect? Where in the Bible does it say, "God is hate"? You see, it is precisely this kind of thinking that prevents me from ever embracing limited atonement.

I'll go with the Chinese Union Version on this one.

 

So you didn't mean you would discuss meaning when you wrote the word "mean"? Should I apologize for thinking you meant meaning when you didn't? (You and Bill Clinton.)

 

"In this manner God loved the world".

In this way he loved humanity........out of love, God did something; ὥστε (therefore, so that, accordingly, which resulted in....sending the μονογενῆ ....then we are to the hina clause, which is the purpose clause

God's love resulted in send of the Son with the purpose of "so that" πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων will not perish.




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Folks, I'm going to bow out now. I have a senior recital to go to in a short while with my wife. Just a note: BAGD (I don't like BDAG) has over 3 columns on kosmos, and none of the meanings give license to interpret it as "some people but not others."

 

Even that takes reading all your early posts. I found the title misleading as well. You did clarify later. With John being a translator and diving into meaning of each word, I can see him going where he did.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Squirm away, but it's too late to change your very clear OP. I won't apologize for taking your OP title literally.

 

He honestly may have forgotten. A lot of posts since then, and he is busy. John seems to always try to deal with others honestly....even if he is wrong .

So, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt....more than I do others.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The wife's not here yet, so I'm going to answer this false charge.

Look, you're saying it's all about "usage" and not "meaning." Then you call me dishonest for sticking with "meaning." That's ridiculous. "Meaning" and "usage" are all wrapped up together. If you discuss meaning you have to discuss usage. If you discuss usage you are discussing meaning. There are entire books about this. I recommend the landmark Biblical Words and Their Meanings by Moises Silva, or Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek by my son's mentor, David Alan Black.

As the saying goes, "Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs." If you are younger than 40, I was studying meaning and usage before you were born in college, seminary, and then at the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese Language (1981-1983). And you dare to call me "dishonest" for discussing "meaning" and not "usage." You can't discuss one without the other.

P.S. And in post #83 you are talking about meaning.

 

This occurred right after my post. My use of the BDAG did not suggest Κόσμος referred to just the elect....or Jews alone ...or whoever. Perhaps it was not directed at me. But I think I am the only one who mentioned BDAG as well...and I quoted it directly.

Enjoy your time with the wife.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk