"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

Hmmm... to say you're simply accepting what the words teach without any interpretation while simultaneously interpreting kosmos to be "the entire human race" is to ipso facto deny the very claim you're trying to make... But I digress...

Nope... The word translated by some "Whosoever" is actually a participle properly translated "all the ones believing."

The Archangel

 

it does not mean "all the ones believing" in this verse or others but hos who, which, what, that

or pas individually each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything or collectively some of all types

epikaleō was translated call when renaming people

 

It really does take more than a lexicon and a parsing tool to know Greek... And, I might add, epikaleo does not appear in John 3:16.

Here is the passage in Greek:

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliterated for those, like you, who don't do Greek: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,

Whether this portion is translated as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would go against the Greek grammatical rules related to gender agreement.

Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The Archangel

 

Ah yes, John 3:16 the Calvin ointment spoiler.

It takes MANY human authors to undo it.

 

I too understand "world" κοσμον (John 3:16) to refer to mankind. So please show me in the NT were it cannot possibly have that meaning.

 

First off, a dictionary (or lexicon in this case) isn't the determiner of meaning, context is. Authors use words differently than other authors do. The lexicon gives a range of meanings (at least, the good lexicons do).

The BDAG is the so-called "industry standard" when it comes to the Greek lexica. The BDAG lists 8 meanings within the semantic range of the word:

κόσμος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+)
① that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning
② condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order
③ the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe,
④ the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world

ⓐ ...In this line of development, κόσμος alone serves to designate the polytheistic unconverted world Ro 11:12, 15.—Other worlds (lands) beyond the ocean 1 Cl 20:8.—Many of these pass. bear the connotation of
ⓑ the world as the habitation of humanity
ⓒ earth, world in contrast to heaven
ⓓ the world outside in contrast to one’s home ​

⑥ humanity in general, the world

ⓐ humankind because of the things that cause people to sin
ⓑ of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love ​

⑦ the system of human existence in its many aspects, the world

ⓐ as scene of earthly joys, possessions, cares, sufferings
ⓑ the world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, i.e. lost in sin, wholly at odds w. anything divine, ruined and depraved ​

⑧ collective aspect of an entity, totality, sum total

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 561–563. (Truncated for space, etc.)
​

So, as you can see, "mankind" is one of many meanings within the semantic range of κόσμος. One place where it cannot mean "mankind" is John 21:25: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (ESV, emphasis mine) It would be absurd in this context to suggest "mankind" was containing all the books that would be written.

I would suggest that the word κόσμος in John 3:16 refers to all of the created order that is groaning under the curse of sin (Romans 8:18-25), which includes mankind. Of course a general reference to mankind does not mean all without exception because in John 3:16, those who do not perish are the ones who are believing.

The Archangel

 

Ok, according to that 1910 lexicon it would appear that I am wrong.

And you did not give me one NT text where that Greek word is used where it could not possibly have the meaning of mankind. One text. I do not think what I had asked was unreasonable.

 

Did you not see this in my previous post:

The Archangel

 

No, I missed it.
. . . And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even mankind itself could not receive the books that should be written. . . .

 

Except your "translation" here doesn't work. χωρέω (which you've translated "received") isn't used that way by John in that way. Matthew uses it as "receive," but I cannot find an example of John using it that way.

And of the 78 uses of κόσμος in John, there are many more examples of how κόσμος cannot be translated as "mankind."

The Archangel

 

But it can. And I did. John uses that word three different ways. And the way John used that word, I rendered "receive," Peter's use of that very word, and is translated, "should come," in the phrase "should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9. [to repentance - receive]
That very word in that usage only occurs twice in the NT.

Pick another case.

 

But you're missing the point. It doesn’t matter so much how Peter is using that word in 2 Peter because Peter didn’t write The Gospel of John.

And, the construction is different. Peter is using the word with a preposition and it’s an aorist infinitive; John is using a future infinitive form. The construction matters. The author's usage matters. Can two authors use the word the same way? Sure, but just because one author uses it in one way does not mean the other author's usage must follow suit.

Because Peter uses χωρέω with εἰς it is part of a prepositional construction. John uses it as a simple infinitive. Also, John's usage is transitive and Peter's usage is intransitive, and that will change the translation options available. You can’t just go through each example and install the word you wish. The underlying grammar matters and will qualify or disqualify translation options. Yours, here, are disqualified.

To revisit "world" here is another explanation:

World is used in John’s Gospel in three senses. (1) It may indicate the created order (see 11:9; 17:5, 24; 21:25). (2) More generally it is often used in the sense of “the world of mankind,” and as such has a neutral meaning. (3) However, especially in the second half of the Gospel, the world is equated with those people who are aligned with the power of evil in opposition to God. While it is true that the major focus of attention in verse 10 is the world of men, it is necessary in some languages to distinguish between the two different emphases in this verse. The first clause refers to the Word being in the world, that is to say, in a particular place. It is further identified as the world which was made through the Word. This meaning includes the people who are in the world, but in the last clause the world obviously refers to the people in the world who did not recognize and acknowledge Christ as the Word of God. Accordingly, in some languages the first two instances of world may refer to the physical world, but the third instance of world must be translated “people in the world.”

Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 17.​

The Archangel

 

Oh, so the same grammar does not have the same meaning. Only John and Peter using that very word that very way does not really mean the same.

". . . And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even mankind itself could not receive [χωρησαι] the books that should be written. . . ." John 21:25.

". . . The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all to receive [χωρησαι] repentance. . . ." 2 Peter 3:9.

This must be just too convenient to actually be true, I guess.

 

Do you even know what the underlying grammar is? Do you know the difference between a transitive use and an intransitive use is?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

". . . And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even mankind itself could not have received the books that should be written. . . ." John 21:25.

". . . The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all to have received repentance. . . ." 2 Peter 3:9.

That is better.

 

Again, and again...

The grammar here with the word χωρέω (I don't know why it's being rendered with a space...) is not the same. In John 21:25 it is an Future Active Infinitive; In 2 Peter 3:9 it is an Aorist Active Infinitive. The root may be the same, but the nuance isn't. Also, in 2 Peter, the infinitive (not quite the same as a verb) appears with the preposition εἰς, in John 21 it appears without the preposition. Peter's use is both figurative and intransitive. John's use is related to its function with the accusative case ("the books" in 21:25) and tells us about containment, not about acceptance.

κόσμος, on the other hand, in John 21:25 is not a stand-alone word. It appears as: οὐδʼ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία. αὐτὸν serves here as an intensifier to τὸν κόσμον. John is using "world" here in a way that doesn't reference mankind; he's referencing a place--the world or universe. Since the accusative use of "world" and the use of "itself" are both singular, and because of the way John constructs the sentence itself, it is must unlikely that John is referencing all mankind in this context. Had he wished to do so, he likely would have used the plural form of ἄνθρωπος.

The Archangel

 

I have a couple of questions (for you and for Calvinists too).

1. How many sins did Adam commit before he was judged?
2. Did Adam's sin bring universal judgement or just him? Are all guilty of Adam's sin or just experiencing the judgement? What about all the people who died from Adam to Moses when law came condemning individuals? Did people between Adam and Moses die? What "sin" did these people commit, since the law hadn't been given, and the only law was not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden, which was closed and no one had access to?
3. What was the universal judgement for Adam's sin?
3. Does Christ's atonement bring universal resurrection?
4. How many sins does Jesus atonement forgive for everyone? For the elect? One sin or many sins?
5. Was Adam's judgement of death limited only to an elect group like Calvinists think Christ's atonement is limited?
6. Are the elect born guilty of Adam's sin? How many sins did Adam commit?
7. Are the elect completely forgiven or just forgiven for their own, individual sin? Does Christ's atonement wash them from their own sin or from Adam's sin too?

See what I want people to start understanding is that if Adam's sin was singular, and his judgment universal, then forgiving even a SINGLE person who was guilty in Adam would forgive the one sin and immediately resurrect and forgive each and every person who was guilty in Adam, because the one sin we were all guilty from would have been forgiven. If Christ's atonement was individual rather than universal like Adam's judgement, then it couldn't forgive Adam's universal judgement.

Rev 20:11-12 NASB 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.​

Uh oh... it looks like the great white throne judgement will be an individual judgement based on each person's individual deeds... not based on the universal corporate judgement of Adam.

A better solution is to recognize that Adam's sin was singular and his judgment universal. God judged the whole universe (all people, animals, plants, even the earth itself) with death as a result of Adam's sin. But Jesus came along and by The Law was proven righteous. Is a universal judgment of death just if there is even one, righteous person? No. The universal judgment of Adam must therefore be repealed, and then each person judged individually because a single righteous person exists! What happens to all the dead people who died as a result of Adam's judgment if Adam's judgment is repealed? They are all resurrected. But are they off the hook as the universalists suggest? No. Because what then follows the universal resurrection of all is the great white throne judgement where all are judged as individuals.

Rom 8:19-23 NASB 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for [our] adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.​

Which scriptures talk about the redemption or atonement for plants, animals, and the earth? Who will die for them to set them free from corruption and death? Does't Christ's atonement cover them as well? If so, then I would suggest a universal component to Christ's atonement that is not being considered by Calvinists. Since these were judged in Adam's corporate judgement, the only way these get restored is by a repeal of the universal judgement.

Isa 65:25 NASB 25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.​

Wow, this prophecy sounds exactly like things were before the Fall and the curse... almost like the curse was repealed.

 

Both John 21:25 and 2 Peter 3:9 exclusively use the verb form χωρησαι which is Aorist Active Infinitive.