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

According to what?

According to my information, they are not the same—one is Future one is Aorist. Perhaps there is a textual variant?

In any event, the preposition would have more of a effect on the grammar. The context in which the word appears is equally as important as the form. In other words, the parsing is not the only grammar to consider.

The Archangel



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes. The common reading of manuscripts of John agree against 3 manuscipts there.

 

I have found no such information. Where did you get yours?

The Archangel

 

Because we're getting far afield, I'll remind us that the word in question here is "World," not contain. The reading of "contain" in John 21:25 does not affect the translation of "world."

The Archangel

 

Gup20,

okay.

 

My Nestle-Anland is packed because I am moving. And the family 35 Greek text that I reference did not even cite the Codex Vanticanus (B). Which it should of. So I improvised and used Google. Found a PDF which gave 3 manuscripts listed as 01c B C*

http://www.tfinney.net/Views/tables/John-JWA-key.pdf

 

Every so often the Calvinists launch yet another attack on John 3:16. John usually used the term translated "world" to mean fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind. That is it, not eight different meanings. God gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life. Jesus became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, not some of it. God desires all men be saved. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.

 

In this scenario, Christ did not atone for sins at all. Because the sin of rejecting him is not covered.

 

= Christ did not pay for any sin on the cross if meant for all and all are not saved.

 

Still... the key here is world and John 21:25 is using the word as a reference to the physical, actual world.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Because if he paid for all the sins of all people, all will be saved. And we know better.

 

The facts still remain. We are arguing interpretations. The Greek is indeed translated "world." And the transliteration has come to mean the known universe. The usage in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, "whole world" in reference to mankind is a common understanding. The fact remains that mankind is a subset in the universe. So as the term is used in the NT, one can get away with the argument that none of the usages disallow the meaning of that Greek term in the NT to mean mankind. Because mankind is a subset of the universe. Understand? So you are likely very correct. It is commonly translated "world." But that argument, that it must always mean "mankind" in the NT, even being wrong, cannot be shown to be impossible, if being understood to be mankind as used in the NT.

 

Yet another deflection. Scripture says Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Scripture also says:
1Pe 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Note the result of Christ's death is the opportunity to "bring us to God." Everyone God chooses to place in Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ where the sin burden (what God holds against them) is removed. So what was bought was the right to remove anyone's sins, those to be saved and those never to be saved such as taught in 2 Peter 2:1-2. Thus Christ died for all mankind.

 

But he did not pay for anyone's sin. If his death extends to all, and all are not saved, he didn't pay for sin at all.

 

Why wouldn't they be saved if Christ paid for everyone's sin, including the sin of rejecting him?

 

It's not a spoiler to Calvinism. That is only the case if you take it out of context of the whole of Scripture.

 

It's no use in arguing with the logical inconsistency.