Plain, Simple, Un-adulterated Easy to Understand Truth

Sorry, it took so long.

OK so lets all get back to John Chapter 1:1-5
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God.

God and the Word are the same:



3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Simply put The word that was with God who is God is the creator.


4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Jesus is the light of men.

5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Commentary:

We know Jesus is the Word and Jesus is God and is Life which is the light of men. Jesus is shinning in this darkness. The darkness does not understand Jesus, the Word, The life, God.

Next:

6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

What does it say?

John sent from God. John who is sent form God is a witness to bear witness of the Light. Not the Word, the Word that was with God, who is God, who is Life is not called Light. We know this because of the personal pronoun “him”. John is not the Light. This Light who is the Word, the word that was with God who is God, the Life, the Light “lights every man that comes into the world.” Jesus was in the world that He made and the world did not know him.

(1) We have God, the Word, The Life, The Light, The Creator
(2) We have John,
(3) We have all men,
(4) We have the world that did not know Him

In verse 5 we have darkness that did not understand The Light, and in verse 10 we have the “world” that does not know” the Light.

My take is that the darkness and the world referred to here are the same. The context supports that.


Seems very clear to me. Anyone see anything different. Within these first 10 verses?

Here is the next set of verses:

11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Now we are introduced to more information. This Light, Word, Word that was with God, that is God, The Life went to His own. Whoever Own is The Word went to them. They did not receive Him, God, The Word etc.

But and a BIG But. “as many as received him” This tells us that the “his own” is a literary form of some kind. So how do we express this form by way of definition?

While the two verses clearly indicate that some of the all that make up “his own” did believe.

This may qualify in some sense as a “Heterosis nouns”. The two “pronominal adjectives” “his own” and “his own” again function as nouns or have the noun inherent in them. Vs. 11. In verse 12 the words “as many as” is also a “pronominal adjective” What is a pronominal adjective? It is a pronoun functioning in the capacity of an adjective. No big deal ok.

As we have it these pronouns qualify as a Heterosis of Nouns” . This my friends is what we call taking the language in a normal literal sense, not a wooden literal way. It lets the text speak for itself. It is the true form, genre, figure of speech. The definition of the “heterosis of Nouns” is “a plural for an indefinite number or one for many. In our case the former is the correct idea. We have “as many as” the plural for the plural “his own” of verse 11 which is an un-determined number or indefinite. If verse 12 had used a singular form then it would be “one for the many”.

OK here is a word for word translation “To the things he came and the people him”

Stay with me on this - I will go slow and try to be as clear as possible.

Verse 11: Kai is the first word = means “and”
Ta is the second word and it goes with “idia” Notice the a ending on the Ta and Idia. That puts them together OK. It is properly translated “his own” in a strict literal word for word it is “the things” Notice it is plural. This is important. “idia” or “things” is [ adjective, pronominal, or pronominal adjective, in the accusative case, and it is neuter and plural.] Also the two words “the people” agree with each other too. “The People” as you can see is Plural.

Now these people that are described as God’s own did not receive Him. What does it mean. They rejected Jesus. These people that are His own rejected God, The Word, The light, The Life, The Creator.

Now the next verse. We have established that these people who ever they are is a corporate group, Plural. It is all of them.

Look now at verse 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Without going into the minute details just take my word for it the word many is plural too in the Greek. Now to be in context the many of verse 12 would have to come form the all of verse 11. If that is the case and it is then the all of verse 11 is not absolute in meaning because it is conditioned by the definition of verse 12. There are many of the all that received the light that was to all of them. Some accepted it and others did not. We are just stating what the text says. Have you noticed I have not left the realm of these verses and quoted from other verses? I hope so.

We are letting the text speak for itself.

What do we have? We have God who is Light, Who came in to the world and who is the light of all men and who came to a people called His own and many of His own received Him of the all. At this point we do not have a clue as to the extent of the many that came to Him. All we know is that of the all many did receive him. We also know that the all in the text “all received The Light”. We know that the Light is God and that not all received the Light that they received. The rejected it. But some did not and received it.

13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here we are introduced to new information. The “as many as” that received The Life are defined as “born”. We are told they are “born” (1) not of blood, (2) not of the will of flesh, or man, but (3) of God or will of God.

This being “born” is contrasted with the “blood / flesh / man” thing which is described as a birth brought on by the will of man of which it is not. So the contrast is the “as many as” received the Light are described as being born by the will of God. This being born is contrasted to the born of blood, / will of flesh / man. We have two sources of birth, one of God and the other of Man. The “as many as” are both born of the will of man and the will of God because they “received the Life, Light, Word, God.

Going on what we have. Man wills the birth of flesh. The flesh that is born because of the will of flesh / man appears in these verses not to have a choice in the matter. The ones being born as a result of the will of the flesh / man are not in a position to be considered as the “as many as” are with respect to this other birth that is of the will of God. The birth that is of God is on the basis of the “as many as” received the Life, Light, Word, God. So we have a clear distinction and clear definition of each birth. One the person has no choice - the will of man birth - but the birth that is of God “will of God” is on the basis of “as many as” received the Light, Life, Word, God.

We have a very clear understanding that the birth of flesh by the will of flesh has not say in the matter. However, we are clearly told that the birth that is of God or the will of God is on the basis of "as many as received the Light". A very clear difference. One no choice, the other a clear choice.

What we have in this exposition of these verses is a pure clear exposition of the text in context without any inclusion of outside commentary. I have kept it in context and according to the grammar and form. No one can accuse me of violating proper grammatical rules in any way.

It is what it is.

 

I take it you are not capable of engaging me in the exegesis of John 1:1-13 as I have demonstrated above.

My former answer is sufficient. Now it is time for you to get off your ban wagon and engage the real debate about the text of John 1:1-13. I don't think you can, but I will reserve judgment until later. So far you are just throwing out smoke screens to avoid dealing with the text.

 

The light that lights all men we know from the text as I have clearly stated is not salvation. All we are told is that it is the light of men.

What are the facts in the text? You have ask several questions that are not supported within the immediate context. If we take the immediate context as I have demonstrated and forget about all our training, theology, what does the text say.

Here it is again: The Word came into the world, This word is called (1) Life, (2) God, (3) Light. So Word, Light, Life and God are the same.

So how do we understand the statement "lights all men" We understand it according to the words we have. We are not told in the context anything other than what is in the context. So that is what we go with. We are not considering anything else at this point.

Your questions read into the context.

Here is the Greek transliterated, "ha zooaa aan to phoos toon anthroopoon" Word for word in English. "The life was the light of the of men". You will not that later in verse 7 the author now states that "the light" is the subject not the predicate. That being the case "the light is not the save as the life and word and God. The light in verse 4 is "light". Verse 9 helps us to understand the significance of "light". The author clearly tells us the meaning and scope of the light that is given to all men. Here it is. Are you ready: It is the only true answer in the context.

Pay very close attention:

verse 9 word for word "Was the light, the true, which enlightens every man, coming into the world."

This verse is the answer as stated above to your question. No interpretation’ needed just accept what it says. What does it say. The light, the true, which enlightens every man." That is it.

What does the word "Enlightens" mean? This word is a Present Indicative Active Verb in the third person plural. It is because it identifies with the plurality of its object, "all men". It defines itself. It does not need any explaining, it means what it says. What does it say? The Light (God, Word, Life Etc") is actively enlightening all men that are coming into the world. Now that is powerful stuff.

In Short: God is Light, God is enlightening all men who are being born into this world. Of these that are enlightened "as many as received Him are the children of God. The receiving ones are the believing ones in the name of Him. Then the believing results in being born by God's will because they received unto believing.

Oh, What a Savior. Praise The Name of The Lord.

There again is your answer plain and simple.

 

Hi Rippen,

You will notice that I refused to make any statement about pro or con in dealing with the language of the text.

(1) I did not introduce into the context outside thinking.

(2) I let the text speak for itself

(3) The end result of the text speaking for itself is clear. It is not Calvinist, Arminian or other. It is what it is - Biblical Truth. I have not and will not make it say what it does not say.

It means what it says. I have kept it in the NORMAL LITERAL realm of understanding the genre and grammar of the text and I have not violated any rules or common sense of genre and grammar. I have aptly backed up all the data within the context correctly.

I can not come to any other conclusion within the context other that what it says.

What I have done is pure exigesis. My feelings are not involved, my views are not involved. It is what it is. The statemens are clear.

Note this:

If we isolate it to the Hebrew Blood line we have to deal with the "all" and the "as many as" The end results even if we restrict it to Israel's posterity would not change the meaning of "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." There really isn't any way around this statement. It is clear and needs not interpretation.

In all cases we need to force ourselves to stay within the context of the construction of the text. When we do that we have the pure truth of that context. Considering other Scripture is the proper thing to do only after we are openly and clearly honest with the context at hand.


The request of the equivalent of "man" / "men" I will post in following this post. I will demonstrate to you why we accept it as is.

Tried to post earlier but the system was down: Here is the remaining answer to the question concerning "man/men" as it is writtine in verse 9 - the last two words.

I want to say I have enjoyed this discourse. I hope you have.

Anyway here is the remained of the understanding on the grammar conerning "every man" or all mankind.

“All Men” The word all is an adjective. It has basically 20 different ways it is spelled depending on the Case, Gender, and Number. The one in the text we are dealing with is “Panta” “anthroopon” All Men.

Panta is (1) Plural; (2) Neuter and (3) by itself either (a) Nominative or (b) Accusative because they are spelled the same.

Nominative
Genitive
Ablative
Dative
Locative
Instrumental
Accusative

The determining factor as to weather it is Nominative or Accusative among several factors is the position in the statement and the works associated with it. In this case “anthroopon” dictates that it is the “accusative” case and the spelling of “panta” agrees with “anthroopon”. That locks it in. Anthroopon is masculine and it is “fore sure” Accusative in case. The spelling makes it so. “on” on the end of the word. The neuter “all” with the masculine “men” is normal.

Because the subject is singular the word all and men (plural for sure) is spelled in the singular. This is done to show agreement with the relationship to the noun it modifies or the relationship between the noun and the verb and the object of the verb, in this case “all men”. It is called the rule of concord. All spellings of the word “all” weather in the singular or plural is always plural.

With respect to the “men” “man” thought the word all by itself is “man”. However, when the word “all” which is plural all the time joined with the work “man” means “all of mankind”. Remember the spelling of the “all men” or “all mankind” is so on the basis of agreeing with the noun it modifies or is related to. In this case it is “light” “Phos”. So the meaning of the text is clearly stating “all of mankind”. This single light which is God, The Word, The Life enlightens “all mankind” or “all men”

We further understand and are informed that this is the case with what follows. The “as many as” received of the “all mankind” further defines and cements the construction.

Let me say it another way, if we press the singular spelling of “anthropon” to mean what it would mean were it standing alone with out the other words it is related to then we are forcing on the grammar / syntax false understand and rules. If we are going to accept the proper understand of the way the language is understood by it use of declension, gender, and number then we are forced to accept that “all man-kind” means “all of mankind” which is further modified by “coming into the world” and even further modified by “as many as”. There really isn’t any way around the clear meaning of the text other than to accept that it says “all mankind” is enlightened.

This then is a true statement. All the question that arise from this clear statement are after the fact not because of it. The facts stand on their own and are solid.

 

For The Record:

My OP

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world.
At or upon the last day when all Calvinist are passed from this life you will face God and this verse will be there as your judge.

(1) You have all the right in the world to miss interpret what I say. I can not solve your personal processing of information. That problem is a matter you have to deal with.

(2) As you can see the 5 (five) words are not in the OP. I think you meant to say that the 5 (five) words was what you perceived me to mean.


(3) So, what did I mean by this statement. Here is the exact statement:

"At or upon the last day when all Calvinist are passed from this life you will face God and this verse will be there as your judge."

There are different view of Eschatology. Some Calvinist are pre-millennial and some are A-millennial and some may be in-between or other views. How am I suppose to know what you are unless you tell me.

Everyone has a last day and all have it according to their view of Eschatology. The word judge can have many meaning based upon one's theology. I don't know your theology. Example: In my theology there is the judgment of Christians and there is the Judgment of the Lost in simple terms. Some see judgment as general and all taking place at the same time at the end of the age.


Which are you? Or is yours different from the two mentioned? You tell everyone on the forum what yours is. I don't know.

The intent of the statement was to emphasize that I feel my view is correct and that whatever kind of end you find yourself in these words will be there to judge you - saved or lost.

In my understanding I see them as showing Calvinist they are wrong in their understanding of Scripture weather in a lost or saved state. Only you know if you are lost or saved, I do not judge your soul, that is God's department and sole responsibility.

I don't know what else to explain to you. If you can not accept what I say then I would suggest that you do not participate in this discussion.

In that you are a Calvinist, did I get that right - perhaps you would like to engage in this conversation concerning John Chapter 1 verses 1-12.

Can you or do you have the ability to lay aside this "whatever it is" that is bugging you and engage in meaningful discussion? Only you can determine that. So you are kindly invited to join in and engage the context of these verses.

I have no interest in your demise and your wrenching over some idea you perceive to be - so I am kindly asking you to let go and re-focus and join in on the real discussion.

Because I am so confident in my view I can state with a convection that is solid that I know I am right and when anyone your or others regardless of your theological view will know that what I said is correct. The position you take and I take becomes our Judge. How will you be judged concerning this view? Will your view be judged as truth or will it be mine. I firmly believe my view is correct and your view is not correct.

I would bet you feel the same way about my view.

So lets move on and engage the text of John 1:1-12

You are welcome to jump right in.

 

The definition of "fwtizei" "phootizei" f=ph w =oo "enlightens" in verse 9 is defined in verse 7.

"this man (John the Baptist) came for witness, that he (John) might witness concerning the Light (The Word, Life, Light, God). that all men might believe through Him.

The extent of enlightenment is "that all men might believe through Him." also defined in verse 9 as all that come into the world.

One clarification: I personally am not saying what it means, I am saying it means what it says. I agree with the meaning of the text and the meaning of the text is my understanding. I make the meaning of the text my meaning whereby I agree with exactly what it says. It says "light" The Light enlightens all mankind that comes into the world - why - "that they might believe". So the extent of enlightenment is to all mankind that comes into the world and the reason is that they might believe. That is the meaning and understanding.

That is the only answer I can give because it is the answer form the text. If I get outside what is said and speculate or interpret then I would be missleading you.

Gordon.

 

Verse 9 - the different Greek text and other versions as well

There arn't any varient reading of this verse as you can see:

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
hn to fwV to alhqinon o fwtizei panta anqrwpon ercomenon eiV ton kosmon

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
hn to fwV to alhqinon o fwtizei panta anqrwpon ercomenon eiV ton kosmon


Byzantine Majority
hn to fwV to alhqinon o fwtizei panta anqrwpon ercomenon eiV ton kosmon


Alexandrian
hn to fwV to alhqinon o fwtizei panta anqrwpon ercomenon eiV ton kosmon


Hort and Westcott
hn to fwV to alhqinon o fwtizei panta anqrwpon ercomenon eiV ton kosmon


Latin Vulgate
1:9 erat lux vera quae inluminat omnem hominem venientem in mundum


King James Version
1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


American Standard Version
1:9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.


Bible in Basic English
1:9 The true light, which gives light to every man, was then coming into the world.


Darby's English Translation
1:9 The true light was that which, coming into the world, lightens every man.


Douay Rheims
1:9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.


Noah Webster Bible
1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


Weymouth New Testament
1:9 The true Light was that which illumines every man by its coming into the world.


World English Bible
1:9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.


Young's Literal Translation
1:9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;

The English translations use synonym variances but the Greek texts are the same.

 

If they have a record of that statement have them e-mail it to me so I can examine it. I will apologize for any genuine un-kindness. I know they erased or removed several things but I don't have a copy of them. So if someone will simply e-mail the comments I will respond in kind.

Have a Blessed Day.

Gordon