Featured John 3:16-18

Sure.

• Does John 3:16 support the belief that God so loved some men from every nation (kosmos) that he sent His son ... like those described in Revelation 5:9 where Jesus purchased for God with His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation?

• Does John 3:16 also support the belief that God so loved all mankind (kosmos) that he sent His son ... for the reason described in Ezekiel 18:32, that God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone and calls all men to repent and live.

• Does John 3:16 also support the belief that God so all of creation (kosmos) that he sent His son ... a creation described in Genesis 1:31 as "very good".

IF John 3:16 does support the belief that God sent His Son because He so loved the WORLD (some from every nation) and (all mankind) and (all of creation); then:

• Does John 3:16 teach that "whoever believes" will not perish, but from John 3:18 we know that "whoever believes" is not "everyone" because not everyone will believe; He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already.

Started a new Topic just for this: Son of JOHN 3:16 :)

 

That's because they are asking John 3:16 to answer a question it does not deal with.

 

Yeah, good on the new thread, because I still don't follow. Is there a conundrum here? What am I supposed to be seeing that I'm not?

 

Do I need to understand Greek?
I wasn't aware that I did.

I figure that if I find a faithful translation and trust the Lord for it, then I cannot go wrong with sticking to my own native tongue.

As for the "KJV", I don't see any problem comparing the TR Greek to the Late Middle English of the AV...
It looks fine to me.

I appreciate the commentary, but I have a Bible and I can understand it just fine.
I didn't always, but over the years it's getting better and better by God's grace.

I know a lot of people find value in commentaries, but I look at them as written by men, most of which cannot even agree among each other.
I also figure that if I rely on the Lord and what He's given me ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27, 2 Peter 1:3 ), then what more do I need?

But I do appreciate the thought, SBG.

 

Not in that passage, no.

 

We're neither, although you would call us "Calvinists".
We both started out as "Traditionalists".

 

" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." ( Romans 9:13 ).

According to the Greek ( the word is "μισέω", transliterated as "miseō" ), it literally means "hate":
Romans 9 Interlinear Bible
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom9.pdf

" I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,
3 and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." ( Malachi 1:2-3 ).

According to the Hebrew, it also means "hate":
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/mal1.pdf

 

I grew up in Independent, Fundamental Baptist churches from the age of 12, when I first believed on Christ,
so I was influenced by what was taught in those for over 25 years.

My influence was basically "Traditionalism" right down the line, point-for-point.

 

Agreed. The comparative sense of "hate", when it comes to Jacob and Leah, and us and family (as spoken of the Lord), is easily shown simply by comparing scriptures. But there's no denying that God said that he hated Esau.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the Gnostic/Calvinist twist imposed on Romans 9, as A) Esau was not arbitrarily hated, and B) the quote is from Malachi in reference to the nation (and suddenly our Calvinist friends drop the race-Vs-individual tune they were singing in John 3 and now reverse it by applying it to individuals in Malachi 1) - so there's no need to run to the Greek lexicons to counter Calvinism.

We must stick with the text God gave us, so in that I agree with @Dave G

 

But note the provided qualification that he loved…Rachel more than Leah (v.30). The comparative term more implies that he did love Leah. That defines Leah was hated (v.31) as a comparative expression: relative to how much he loved Rachel, his love for Leah seemed like hatred. That also defines Christ’s words: Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate [by comparison to his love for him] not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The actions taken in obedience to Christ: such as reading the word of God despite the interdiction of one’s parents, or attending church despite the interdiction of one’s parents, etc. seem like the works of a man that hates his parents – which parents will readily claim in order to give you a false guilt – although he doesn’t: he just loves God more. That the hatred spoken of by Christ cannot be intrinsically defined hatred is clear from the fact that Christ also says that his follower must hate his own life also but obviously his follower is following Christ in order to save his life because he loves it: Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it (Luk 17:33). But the actions he takes: such as refusing to take the mark of the beast despite the threat of death again seem like the actions of one that hates his life: he just loves Christ more than himself, and ultimately he means himself good, and he means his family good!
That cannot be said of God's feelings towards the nation of Edom, which is what Malachi 1 is about, he says that he expressed that hate by: laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness (Mal.1) and Idumea, the land of Edom, turns to burning pitch in the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 34). That's not loving someone "less" - that's unsheathed loathing. There are no verses mitigating that. There's no verse saying he loved Jacob "more", as is said of Rachel.
Dump the lexicons when they go against the plain text.

 

First of all and with all due respect, you didn't reply to my post...

I showed you where the Greek and Hebrew both translate it as "hate", and it seems not to have registered with you.
If you don't wish to answer that, then I understand;

Secondly, based on other Scriptures and what they say, I understand Luke 14:26 to mean "love less", because other Scriptures point-blank tell believers that they are to love their neighbors ( Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Matthew 7:12 ), their children ( Titus 2:4 ) and to honor their mother and father ( Exodus 20:12, Matthew 19:19, Ephesians 6:2 ).

I find the context to be plainly declared here:

" He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." ( Matthew 10:37 ).

 

Because "hate" there means "hate", at least to me.

There's more to it than just the Greek, SBG.
There's the overall context of Scripture defining and shedding light on other Scriptures.

No Christian who hates their spiritual brother has the love of God dwelling in them ( 1 John 3:17, 1 John 4:20 ).

 

Perhaps you may find this of some benefit, George:

*Should:

used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose.
"in order that training should be effective it must be planned systematically"

Should | Definition of Should by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Should

 

Knowing the original languages does not make an expert interpreter.

 

I'm sure you know that I wasn't making the point that should never denotes purpose.

I don't see how that dictionary definition is supposed to counter the verses presented. You were making a similar point back in post #145. 1Thessalonians 3:4 is plainly a prophecy, not a normative statement.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Does the should there mean that the mark would somehow magically change the moral norm of killing a killer? No. should is simply would there.

Perhaps you may find this of some benefit, @Dave G :

Remember, it's the King's English, it's British.

"
British vs. American Usage
As noted, in general usage, "should" implies an obligation or something that ought to be done, and "would" implies something that is possible. However, in formal British English, there is an alternative use for "should," which reverses its meaning compared to American English. In formal British English, a person might say:

• I "should" like a cup of tea before I go to bed.

In this case, "should" does not mean a sense of obligation or something that ought to happen. Used as such, its meaning is closer to the word "would," as in something that is possible. Indeed, in American Engish, a speaker would say or a writer would write:

• I "would" like a cup of tea before I go to bed.

This means that being given a cup of tea is something that might happen, but it might not, This, then, is actually the meaning a person is conveying if she is using formal British English."

The Difference Between 'Should' and 'Would'

The should in Acts 2:47 is a false argument, even though the language lends itself to the Calvinist system.
A bad argument is a bad argument.
I disagreed with @SavedByGrace's bad argument against Calvinism, even though it purposed to bolster my position, because it was a bad argument. Acts 2:47's should has nothing to do with the purpose of God in some mysterious eternal decree. It's simply a description that follows the thought that God would add to the church those that would get saved, written in British English.