I don't know that at all. I responded to what you said. You telling me I am wrong proves my point ... that "world" and "all" mean whatever John intended them to mean, not what you declare it to mean. Furthermore, you were factually wrong. John does not use "world" always to refer to "sinful humanity" (unless all doesn't mean all).
It most certainly can. Words mean whatever the author intends them to mean. Part of interpretation is deciding what a "context" is, and deciding whether or not the word has a different connotation. True, but you contrasted believers and unbelievers with respect to God's love in your statement. Listen, Webdog, you blew it on your writing. Two people saw exactly the same thing and responded to it the same way independently. I knew it wasn't what you believe because I have seen enough of what you say to know that you simply didn't speak clearly. I don't think you thought about what you were saying. You said something that was absurd. It's not big deal. You simply mispoke.
If you will Pastor Larry, let us back up for a moment please.
Web was speaking in a general sense as to the relevance of the term 'world' in it's consistent phrasing relating to man and not geography or geographic locations.
It (the term 'world') was never historically understood in a context of believers, believers world view or system. However it is consistently related to the unsaved and wicked and their world view or system.
It is also the same reason you will not find any quality lexicon denoting 'world' as representing any group of believers or system of believers views.
The main point to the above is this: regardless of it is specifically relating to a people or system - both deal with spiritual make up of those it is referring to. - wicked, unsaved, and godless. (thus the 'world' system is defined from that standpoint just as it does the condition of people group John used the term 'world' to describe ).
What Web took from an old post of mine delineates between the uses of the term 'world' or phrase 'whole world' via context and specifically denotes the fact of the condition being referred to as it's core application to it's meaning
The OT defined what and how the term 'world' is used.. never was it for God's people.
You Will find scripture telling us -
1. to be IN the 'world' but not OF the 'world'
2. If we were of the world the world would love us but we are not of the world
3. You are not of the world even as I (Jesus) am not of the world
and on and on and on..
... here you have a case of trying to make an argument and yet failing to see the drastic consequences you just introduced. If you disagree that "world" can mean both believers and unbelievers, then you are asserting that God loves either believers or unbelievers, not both.
