What in the "World" does that word mean?

[Reformed1689]

That is a better argument. The subject vs. direct object argument of κόσμος vs. κόσμον you used earlier was not a good one. Κόσμον belongs to the subject and verb combo, ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς.

That same Κόσμος then becomes the subject of the next thought. The form does not demand a difference meaning here. "The world" is refering to the same group/thing in all 3 instances.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes, when I got home I looked a little closer into it and yes, all three instances in that verse are referring to the elect.

 

[kyredneck]

If the World is the elect in John 3:17 it would be the same in v16.

Agree. It means the same throughout the gospel of John, kosmos = the old covenant arrangement, the arrangement at that time.

 

[Revmitchell]

There seems to be a sense from the anti-calvinist position that the Calvinists are wrong simply because the New Testament uses the word "World" often. I want to look at the book of John alone and propose quite a few different meanings of the word world. This is based on context. In short, the "word" world does not always mean "every individual person."

The word "World" can mean:

1. The entire universe or created order such as John 1:10
2. The physical earth. John 13:1
3. The world system. John 12:31
4. All unbelievers. John 7:7
5. A large group. John 12:19
6. The general public. John 7:4
7. Large groups both Jew and Gentile. John 1:29
8. The non-elect. John 17:9
9. The elect. John 3:17

Yea, none of this has been argued on this board before. The op is a straw man argument.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yea, none of this has been argued on this board before. The op is a straw man argument.

It is not a straw man argument. And, as usual, you add nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not a straw man argument. And, as usual, you add nothing useful to the discussion.

Bub, no one on this board is arguing that world only has one meaning throughout scripture. So yes it is a strawman. Further, your argument has been made on this board over and over and over again on this board. As far as adding to the discussion your op adds nothing to the conversation since it is a strawman. You are a young fella and a newbie. Its best you settle down, develop some relationships on this board before you get as squirrly has you have been. Stop pretending people don't know the arguments you make. These topics have been gone over on this board for years. I assure you, you cant come along and teach anyone anything new. Especially with that arrogant attitude.

 

[Reformed1689]

Bub, no one on this board is arguing that world only has one meaning throughout scripture.

Interesting because I have seen that argued MULTIPLE times since I have been here.

 

[kyredneck]

The word "World" can mean:

1. The entire universe or created order such as John 1:10
2. The physical earth. John 13:1
3. The world system. John 12:31
4. All unbelievers. John 7:7
5. A large group. John 12:19
6. The general public. John 7:4
7. Large groups both Jew and Gentile. John 1:29
8. The non-elect. John 17:9
9. The elect. John 3:17

Did you come up with these on your own or are you following a script? This is complicated, like Dispensationalism is complicated. Are you a Dispie?

 

[Reformed1689]

Did you come up with these on your own or are you following a script? This is complicated, like Dispensationalism is complicated. Are you a Dispie?

Sorry, I forgot to attribute the list to Dr. Steven J. Lawson. However, it is not complicated. Not even a little. It is simple context.

 

[kyredneck]

However, it is not complicated. Not even a little. It is simple context.

One word having 9 different meanings in a single document is not just complicated it's confusion. Is Lawson a Dispensationalist? Are you?

 

[Reformed1689]

One word having 9 different meanings in a single document is not just complicated it's confusion.

As has already been pointed out, What in the "World" does that word mean?, we are talking about what the word refers to not an actual definition.

 

[kyredneck]

As has already been pointed out, What in the "World" does that word mean?, we are talking about what the word refers to not an actual definition.

The 'old covenant arrangement', it fits fine in all the passages from John.

 

[1689Dave]

There seems to be a sense from the anti-calvinist position that the Calvinists are wrong simply because the New Testament uses the word "World" often. I want to look at the book of John alone and propose quite a few different meanings of the word world. This is based on context. In short, the "word" world does not always mean "every individual person."

The word "World" can mean:

1. The entire universe or created order such as John 1:10
2. The physical earth. John 13:1
3. The world system. John 12:31
4. All unbelievers. John 7:7
5. A large group. John 12:19
6. The general public. John 7:4
7. Large groups both Jew and Gentile. John 1:29
8. The non-elect. John 17:9
9. The elect. John 3:17

Warfield also included the New Heavens and Earth (#2 above) thinking it to be the world Jesus saves. Wherein he saves the entire kosmos along with the redeemed.

 

[kyredneck]

we are talking about what the word refers to not an actual definition

The word 'world' defined by 'the Maker' of the world, from the gospel of John.:

20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Jn 18

 

[John of Japan]

So the verse reads this way?

For God did not send his son into humanity to condemn humanity but that humanity might be saved through him.

I don't think so. Especially since the manuscript uses two different forms of Kosmos in that verse.

You know what, I never, ever, participate in these Cal/Arm discussions. But I simply have to weigh in here. Your argument is nonsense. The different forms you refer to are: two accusatives and one nominative. The accusatives are that form because they are direct objects, and the nominative is that form because it is the subject of the hina clause in the second half of the verse. Their forms do not affect lexical meaning in the slightest!

And what in the world "manuscript" are you talking about? Did you actually read the passage in a manuscript (a hand written document)? Or did you simply read it in a Bible translation. Come on, man, I know you are more intelligent than this.

I could say a lot about your supposed meanings in Post #1, since some are a huge leap of faith, but like I say, I don't like to participate in these. I'll leave that to someone else.

Carry on--but don't be ridiculous.

 

[McCree79]

You know what, I never, ever, participate in these Cal/Arm discussions. But I simply have to weigh in here. Your argument is nonsense. The different forms you refer to are: two accusatives and one nominative. The accusatives are that form because they are direct objects, and the nominative is that form because it is the subject of the hina clause in the second half of the verse. Their forms do not affect lexical meaning in the slightest!

And what in the world "manuscript" are you talking about? Did you actually read the passage in a manuscript (a hand written document)? Or did you simply read it in a Bible translation. Come on, man, I know you are more intelligent than this.

I could say a lot about your supposed meanings in Post #1, since some are a huge leap of faith, but like I say, I don't like to participate in these. I'll leave that to someone else.

Carry on--but don't be ridiculous.

Later in the thread David and I discussed the subject vs. direct object argument. He withdrew the argument after reviewing the passage.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Later in the thread David and I discussed the subject vs. direct object argument. He withdrew the argument after reviewing the passage.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Okay, thanks. Carry on!

Edited in: I looked back at where he answers you in #21, and do not see where he withdrew the argument. My objection stands. His point is still linguistically ignorant (not that he is ignorant), and I'll wait to see if he withdraws it.

 

[McCree79]

Okay, thanks. Carry on!

Edited in: I looked back at where he answers you in #21, and do not see where he withdrew the argument. My objection stands. His point is still linguistically ignorant (not that he is ignorant), and I'll wait to see if he withdraws it.

I took it as a withdrawal. He admitted there was no difference in meaning and didn't dispute my claim.

Maybe he will clarify for us.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

Okay, thanks. Carry on!

Edited in: I looked back at where he answers you in #21, and do not see where he withdrew the argument. My objection stands. His point is still linguistically ignorant (not that he is ignorant), and I'll wait to see if he withdraws it.

I took it as a withdrawal. He admitted there was no difference in meaning and didn't dispute my claim.

Maybe he will clarify for us.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yes it was a withdrawal, good grief...

 

[kyredneck]

good grief...

...it's about all you can say when dealing with some of the big egos around here...

 

[Yeshua1]

There seems to be a sense from the anti-calvinist position that the Calvinists are wrong simply because the New Testament uses the word "World" often. I want to look at the book of John alone and propose quite a few different meanings of the word world. This is based on context. In short, the "word" world does not always mean "every individual person."

The word "World" can mean:

1. The entire universe or created order such as John 1:10
2. The physical earth. John 13:1
3. The world system. John 12:31
4. All unbelievers. John 7:7
5. A large group. John 12:19
6. The general public. John 7:4
7. Large groups both Jew and Gentile. John 1:29
8. The non-elect. John 17:9
9. The elect. John 3:17

All depends upon context, and in many of the uses, it refers to those who will believe in Jesus and will receive eternal life!