What in the "World" does that word mean?

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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