Featured John 3:16 ...whosoever...

Not even close on some of those renderings.

 

Every rendering was in accordance with the contextual meaning, and within the range of meanings given in the Lexicons. The actual issue is it does not mesh with the mistaken doctrine of some.

 

No, I'm sorry to break it to you...but no.

 

Folks, note the "taint so" posts. This is all they have, denial. Translations that foster mistaken doctrine are ambiguous. John uses the Greek word usually translated "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind. And if anyone says sending His Son to die on the cross is not sacrificial love, then they are wrong.

John 3:16 transliterated and arranged according to English sematics except
will not perish was disarranged to display the Greek source word.

Gar Theos Egapesen Kosmon Houtos
For God sacrificially loved fallen mankind in this way,

Edoken Autou Monogenes Huion Hina Pas Pisteuon
He gave His one of a kind Son so that every one believing

Eis Auton Me Apoletai All Eche Aionion Zoen.
Into Him not will perish but will be having eternal life.

 

And about eight other senses for cosmos.

That's not the point and you know it.

Inserting His "sacrificial love for fallen mankind" is not in the Greek. You are adding commentary. Preachers can sermonize about John 3:16 and relate it to ther passages and come up with your addition in their message. But your insertion is not in the text itself.

 

First John uses kosmos to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Second, the Greek can be translated sacrificially loved fallen mankind.

This is not commentary, it is word for word translation in accordance with the context and semantic range of meanings for these words. You disagree because of your mistaken doctrine.

 

Huh? Run that by us again with a better translation in proper English.

 

Anytime an opponent addresses how something is said, rather than what is said, you know diversion is on the agenda. "...semantics, except that "will not perish" was disarranged (not will perish) to display the Greek source word."

The meaning of John 3:16 can be translated as, "For God sacrificially loved fallen mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that every one believing into Him not will perish but will be having eternal life."

 

This is true...just like God loving mankind so much that he saved it from the great flood. If one studies the whole Bible they would know that the ark didn't house every man, woman, boy, and girl on earth but it saved only 8. Yes, God sent Jesus to save fallen mankind by saving the believing ones (elect).

Even if one views kosmos in a truly universal sense in John 3:16, deep study of the scriptures (especially starting at Genesis 6-9 and Romans 5) would show that Christ's atonement was particular (not for every individual). Kosmos then would be seen as universally corporate not individual.

 

Yes Robustheologian, our differing understanding of the meaning of John 3:16 is driven by the particular doctrine we hold.

In your post, the believing ones are believing because they have been altered by irresistible grace, otherwise they would be unable to overcome their total spiritual inability. And you know, I believe that view is unbiblical.

OTOH, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches God individually elects for salvation through faith in the truth, thus the believing ones are elected after God credits their faith as righteousness.

And of course, you believe my view is mistaken.

Returning to John 3:16, notice the rendering I provided does not say God loved fallen mankind so much. But Jesus does demonstrate God's love for mankind (Titus 3:5 -NASB)

 

I agree with your avoidance of "so much" especially since that's not what "houtos" means. I also agree that Jesus most definitely demonstrates God's love for all of mankind. He is the savior of all...but more so of the elect (the believing ones) — 1 Tim. 4:10.

 

Or...you know...the original text...

Translations have one job, to translate the original language into modern vernacular. Period.

That's simply not true. John uses the term κοσμος a couple of different ways. In the 57 verse occurrences in the Gospel of John there is a variety of meanings.The most common meaning is that κοσμος just refers to the world, to those in the world, to people. It doesn't inherently mean "fallen mankind." You're imputing a meaning onto the term that isn't there.

Well here is a significant problem..."sacrificially loved" and "fallen mankind" don't appear in the original text. You've made these extra words up. The term ἠγάπησεν is an aorist active indicative (3rd person singular) that indicates God loved the world. The actual inflected term occurs elsewhere in the Gospel of John. Particularly in 13:1 we have a particularly interesting use since the participle of άγαπη (ἀγαπήσας) occurs just prior to the use of this inflected word. John is using a word play. He notes that God loves those in the world and He does so to the very end. The term means a complete and total love...not this idea of "sacrificial" love. Though John might well have that in view in 3.16 you simply cannot assume it. Nor should you ever impute it onto the text.

The second problem with this interlinear based attempt at translation is, again, the aforementioned use of κοσμος which simply means world. It doesn't mean "fallen world" or "fallen humanity." It just means world.

The rest of your transliterated work has similar significant problems too...but I don't care to engage with that. I believe I've shown the difficulty of your approach. Here's the challenge, when we have actual knowledge of Greek we understand the task of translation differently. If for no other reason than we know that transliterations never properly accord meaning.

Basically what you've provided is a theological interpretation (or amplification) of Scripture. That is okay but you've also attempted to assert this as John's actual meaning. It is not.

 

You have got to love them folks. Now one claims the lexicons are wrong, that kosmos is not used by John to refer to fallen mankind. Go figure.

 

Van, how do you determine the meaning of a word when it has such a wide semantic range? What reasoning do you use to arrive that kosmos in Jn 3:16 refers to fallen mankind?

I won't deny that kosmos may have that connotation. But there are other denotative and connotative meanings that work just as well here. So what criteria do you use to make the interpretive decision?

 

No, they do not. Calvinists deny John 3;16 means what it says, and to accomplish this effort, they seek to redefine kosmos as referring to elect here, non-elect there and so forth. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world - fallen mankind - otherwise they would have no sin to be taken away.

 

You haven't provided a lexical definition. Secondly, you are inferring something that no legitimate lexicon validates. I just looked over the discussion in BDAG as well as Lidell-Scott and neither provide an option to nuance the term as you have.

So unless you have some kind of highly specialized, advanced degree in New Testament Greek...I think its safe to say you're wrong.

Also, you haven't said a word about my critique of your mistranslation of "loved."

For what its worth, I agree with your theological view of John 3.16. I am not a Calvinist nor Reformed. That said, I deeply disagree with your interpretation and attempted amplification of the Greek of 3.16.

 

What if I were a Calvie that didn't hold to the interpretation you just enumerated but rather kept the word kosmos in its canonical and biblical theological function of God blessing the nations through Israel which is embodied by the Son (a concept used of Israel), Jesus. Thus kosmos means that God loved not just Israel but every nation, people, tribe, tongue, and so on. Considering that the audience is Jewish (a view growing in popularity) and the purpose to prove that the identity of the Messiah to be Jesus (cf. Jn 20:31), this fits the redemptive-historical argument the author would be making.

 

That's what I presented to Van in a sense. Jesus saved fallen mankind through the elect....like the ark saved fallen mankind through the 8 on board.

 

That's not exactly the same view, though. I tend toward biblical theology rather than systematic (let the reader understand the difference). Thus my interpretation skews toward a historical redemptive view. And I think the trajectory of Scripture has the idea of God blessing the nations through Israel.

 

Thayer's entry: "...; of the benevolence which God, in providing salvation for men, has exhibited by sending his Son to them and giving him up to death, John 3:16...."

So agapeo includes sacrificial love within its semantic range.

Kosmos " the inhabitants of the world: ... particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race ... John 3:16...."

Now will any of the Calvinists post from a lexicon where kosmos and agapeo do not include those meanings? Nope.

And so we return to the obvious, Calvinism denies God loves all mankind, that Christ died as a ransom for all. And so they claim something is wrong with the translation. Go figure.