Question re: John 3:16

[Zenas]

In William T. Boyd's The Most Exclusive Club, on page 160, this statement is found:

The most quoted verse in the scripture; 3:16 has also been misquoted
nearly every time. The word “world” (kosmos - Strong’s #3625) here
does not mean all of the earth. It was normally used to define the populated
area around the writer’s location. When Joseph came to
Bethlehem in response to the decree from Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1)
it didn’t mean all the people of the earth had to come to the [sic] his own city
– only the residents of the area of Judea.

The problem with Boyd's argument is, in my view this: to support his view, he refers to the use of the word "world" Greek oikoumene in Luke 2:1. But, that word is not the same word used in John 3:16 "kosmos."


Strong's: oikoumene

1. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
2. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
3. the whole inhabited earth, the world
4. the inhabitants of the earth, men

Strong's: kosmos

# the world, the universe
# the circle of the earth, the earth
# the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
# the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

Boyd's argument for Luke 2:1 makes sense, as not all the inhabitants of the world would be expected to travel to be taxed. But that view doesn't hold for John 3:16, because no one is traveling or being taxed. And there is no other restrictions in the context as far as I can ascertain.

We also have the use of the word "whosoever." It seems Boyd's view is "whosoever" is an Israelite and believes, etc. Not just any inhabitants in the world - kosmos.

My question is: Does God indeed love the world or just Israel's descendants?

A related question: Have all those Anglo-Saxon missionaries - and those that supported them - that dedicated their lives to sharing John 3:16 to the non-Israelites, wasted their time and efforts?

[wmfinck]

In truth, I cannot agree with Strong's errant definition of the Greek word κόσμος. The word κόσμος basically means society. Please see Clifton Emahiser's paper on John 3:16, which I contributed to. Once it is realized that κόσμος truly means society, a lot of New Testament passages fall right into harmony with the context of the Bible and all the promises to the Patriarchs and the wider Adaminc race.

Below is an article from my book, The Records of Luke, from Appendix C, on the word κόσμος:

κόσμος (2889) appears 102 times in the books of the New Testament which are attributed to John, 51 times in Paul’s epistles, and only 29 times elsewhere (Moulton-Geden), and while due to differences among mss. the NA27 may not agree totally, this is an accurate reflection of the frequency of the word’s usage. Of these last 29 times, three times the word appears in Luke, at 9:25; 11:50; and 12:30; and once in Acts at 17:24. L & S define κόσμος: “order... good order, good behaviour, decency...the form, fashion of a thing...of states, order, government...II. an ornament, decoration, embellishment, dress...III. a regulator...IV. the world or universe, from its perfect order...mankind, as we use ‘the world’, N.T.” This last definition, where Liddell & Scott (L & S) show how the various New Testament translators and commentators perceive the term’s usage there, deserves further scrutiny.
Other words translated “world” in the A.V. are αἰών and αἰώνιος, which are literally “age” and “lasting for an age”, temporal and not spatial terms, which may give further insight into the flexibility of the definition of “world” in the translators’ minds, and also οἰκουμένη (3625) a word which appears in the N.T. but 15 times, of which 8 are in Luke’s writing. Here the term is rendered either “inhabited world” or “inhabited earth” and is found at Luke 2:1; 4:5; and 21:26; Acts 11:28; 17:6; 17:31; 19:27; and 24:5.
L & S define οἰκουμένη “the inhabited world, a term used to designate the Greek world, as opposed to barbarian lands...so in Roman times, the Roman world...”. Strabo, the geographer, who died about 25 A.D. and so he wrote not long before Paul, described the οἰκουμένη in his 17-book Geography. It included practically all of the lands inhabited by the White races - and not only the Romans, but the Parthians, Scythians and others of Asia, and all of northern Africa. Diodorus Siculus, writing about 40 B.C., referred to the lands about India as the “limits of the inhabited world” (τῆς οἰκουμένης) in his Library of History, at 1.19.7. This was the οἰκουμένη - the “world” in which the race of Adam inhabited (Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26) - the physical “world” in spite of the fact that Strabo and others knew very well of lands - inhabited by alien tribes - both in southern Africa and to the east of India - which were not considered a part of the οἰκουμένη, nor could they be included in the κόσμος.
It should be quite evident that if the οἰκουμένη was the portion of the physical world inhabited by Adamic man (and note the word’s use at Luke 2:1, where it denotes only the Roman portion of that), the κόσμος describes the order, decorum, and arrangement of the οἰκουμένη. While the οἰκουμένη was the physical world, the κόσμος was its society and embellishment. Of course, the heavenly bodies were considered by the Greeks and Romans to be only another part of that embellishment, and much more a part of their “world” than we perceive them to be of ours today. Support for this idea that κόσμος is “society” is found in the May-June 2004 issue of Archaeology Odyssey, on p. 26 in an article entitled “Is Homer Historical?” by one Gregory Nagy, and while I can’t agree with the author’s opinions concerning Homer and his writings, the definition of κόσμος found in the article on p. 31 is a good one. This is certainly a far departure from the universalist theologian’s view of the “world” as the planet and everyone in it, which is surely not an accurate view when compared with the ancient texts. Because I have not an accurate word to describe κόσμος effectively in English, I have left it merely transliterated, “cosmos”. If compelled, I would by necessity translate the word “Adamic world” or “Adamic society”. Anything more or less is intellectually dishonest.
The related verb, κόσμέω (2885), is “to order, arrange...to deck, adorn, equip, furnish, dress...” (L & S) and appears twice in Luke, at 11:25 where it is to ornament and at 21:5 where it is to adorn.
________________________________________________________________________________
Here I must note that in my one-volume work The Christogenea New Testament, I did relent and translate κόσμος as society almost everywhere it appears, where in some other cases it is order.
________________________________________________________________________________
If anyone sees that the Greek fonts in this article are garbled, please inform me at info@christogenea.org, with a link to the article.

[Dan]

Dear Zenas:

I am not a Greek scholar, like Brother Bill, but, I will add my 2 cents to the topic of this thread, anyway.

You asked: "Does God indeed love the world or just Israel's descendants? A related question: Have all those Anglo-Saxon missionaries - and those that supported them - that dedicated their lives to sharing John 3:16 to the non-Israelites, wasted their time and efforts?"

I would have to say that Yahweh is concerned only about His own special breed of people, i.e. the children of Israel, as He states in Deuteronomy, chapter 7, verse 6: "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." And, yes, the deluded Anglo-Saxon missionaries thoroughly wasted their time and effort trying to convert those who were not of Yahweh's chosen. Simply turn to Matthew, chapters 10 and 15 and read where the Christ defines clearly His mission is directed only toward the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." He expressly forbade his apostles to go beyond that. Again, in John 17, verse 9, Yahshua Christ states: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." Christ is clearly delineating Yahweh's chosen seedline from the rest of the world, the non-Israelite.

Those few verses should point you in the right direction. There are many more passages throughout the Old and the New Testament which assert this very same principle. The entire Bible, from beginning to the end, pertains only to the Adamic race; and, those of the Israelite lineage in particular.

Sincerely,

Dan

[Zenas]

Thank you both for your replies. I will study the verses provided and give further thought to the ideas presented. Since running across these teachings re: the house of Israel and 12 Tribe history, through Steven M. Collins's works, et al, parts of Scripture that were once confusing now make much more sense. After over 30 years of the Scofield Reference Bible / John Nelson Darby brainwashing, it is refreshing to be free of the error of Zionist influence. However, I am still attempting to put together the pieces for the panoramic view, so to speak.

If God is truly "concerned only about His own special breed of people, i.e. the children of Israel," then we've surely neglected our own house, haven't we? I'm embarrassed about the many times I've thought I was "right" only to find out later how wrong I was. Can't tell you how many times I've taught on John 3:16.

_____

I recently spent some time in a rather remote area of the Philippines. While there, I visited with an American missionary and his family who invested 12 years of their lives with the Filipinos. Their son, whom they were obviously quite proud of and who wasted his time risking his life with the US Marines in Iraq was coming soon to take his turn. Given what I have learned these past few years, I could not help but wonder if they have not wasted their time? I didn't even try to educate them as to the reality of the reasons for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Seems to me it was they who needed to be proselytized, not the Filipinos. I also have close friends in Thailand and can say the same for them. What are they doing in Thailand, while their own children can't even live in their own country, the US? Those who support these missionaries in their respective foreign lands are struggling themselves, in many cases, to make ends meet back in the US, and yet think they are "doing the Lord's work" by supporting these families and reaching the natives of Thailand and the PI.

That may seem a bit off topic, but why be half-way around the world trying to reach others, [non-House of Israel people] when back home in your own backyard, the enemy - the so-called jews - are plundering your Anglo-Saxon nation, destroying your Anglo-Saxon families and generally kicking your Anglo-Saxon arse?

Thanks again for you input. I look forward to further discussion.

[PILGRIM]

Yes, Zenas, isn't it an amazing thing when Yahweh decides it is time for the scales to begin to drop from the eyes and you begin to be shown the truth that has been hiding in plain sight all along? I believe at least part of the reason we are here is to attend "school", so to speak, and even the errors and wrong paths happen to add to our "education". When you go through this process it becomes clear that only Yahweh CAN enlighten and until He does there is nothing to be done but flounder in ignorance.

[Zenas]

__________________________
Basically, if CI teaching is in fact correct, the gospel is only for those descendants of the 12 Tribes of Israel?

Or for only those 12 Tribes members in the "world" at the time of Christ's dwelling on earth.

If so, what about those whose lineage has been diluted?

What is the fate of all the non-12 Tribes descendants?

I can see many complications arising from such doctrine. These complications, unless they can be explained adequately, may be why CI has so much resistance among other whites and non-whites alike.

[Dan]

Well, naturally, CI is going to find resistance among the non-Adamic peoples. That is to be expected. And, of course, even the majority of Adamites are also going to resist it, as well, because they have been systematically conditioned from birth by the mass media and the educational and political institutions to embrace miscegenation or else face persecution and exile. So, that leaves only a handful of Adamic-White people who will ever be susceptible to the truths found within CI in the first place.

In answer to your question, and, I like to try to simplify things in order to make CI more palatable to the general populus, but, if you are White, and, show "blood in the face", that is, you are of a ruddy complexion and are able to blush, it would be safe to say you are of Adam's seedline and are a child of the covenant. There is probably a more exact way of measuring this, but, in a nutshell, that's the way I understand it. Maybe Pastor Finck or Pastor Visser or someone with more knowledge than I can weigh in on this matter and give us both more understanding.

Praise Yahweh

[Les]

Yes, I also used to use the "blood in the face" meaning of the word Adam, but then sometimes liberal whites tell me I am wrong and that non-whites like asians and blacks also blush, just that it is "harder to see".

From what I have experienced, and having listened to William's and Sword Brethren's radio shows, I can not remember ONE case of a non-Adamite being ashamed or embarrassed to show that feeling in their faces like us.

The meaning of 'ruddy' may be a better example, as Adamites show their blood flowing (veins) more easily...

I should re-read some old books/literature. I may get stopped sometime and asked to explain.

Which reminds me, a few times there have been inquiries in the chatroom about suggested reading material.
I guess we should start a thread topic for that.
I'd include Haberman''s Tracing our Ancestors, Thomas Obrien's "Verboten", and Judeo-Christianity by Bob Hallstrom.
I think Jack Mohr passed away, and his material not easy to get, though he eventually turned away from Dual Seedline Christian Identity.
Mohr's material informed me, his books/pamphlets "woke me up", just like our favourite talkshoe programs

TALKSHOE RADIO SCHEDULE
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=172

[Dan]

Howdy, Les:

I guess I should have been more explicit and stated the obvious, that one has to be of northern European descent, i.e. Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic or Germanic in heritage. It's true some mongoloid and negroid peoples can blush to a limited extent. But not like an Irish or a German person can. Man, they can get red as a beet. I use the Hebrew definition for "adam" in Strong's Concordance (119): 'to show blood in the face; flush, or, turn rosy; be made red (ruddy)'. Couple that definition along with being of northern European descent and you pretty much have all the bases covered.

There are some people I have encountered here and there who use a "one drop" rule. That is, if you have one drop of non-White-Adamic blood in your personal geneaological history, then, you are a mamzer and are unacceptable. But, most can only trace their family tree back several generations, if that. So, determining if one has "bad seed" in their genetic lineage could be difficult to determine, at best. I say: If they look White, talk White and act White, then, they're White. If they show "blood in the face", then, they're Adamic. Other than that, I don't know how one would measure it, unless there is some kind DNA analysis available. I mean, if you go back 500 years in any given individuals personal geneaology, we're talking about over a million ancestors. That's alot of people to have to determine if they were all lily White or not.

Dan

P.S. I notice there's a guy on the scene goes by the moniker "Pastor Dan". I'm thinking maybe I better change my name on here so as not to be mistaken for him. Although, I haven't noticed him posting on here. I'm not familiar with the man's work or ideas.

[Zenas]

______________________

What, or how, would you tell an Anglo-Saxon missionary to a non-white nation, [all (Anglo-Saxon) missionaries are to non-white nations, aren't they?] that he is/has been wasting his time?

This A-S missionary is going to come back with a defense that he has seen fruit of his - the Lord's - work and that many souls have been "won" for Christ. How would you reply?

One has to admit this idea of the wheat and the tares and the sheep and the goats referring to race and not believers and unbelievers, is quite a concept to get one's mind around. Some souls are out - whatever that may entail - no matter what. Not going to go over well with some missionary people I know. No doubt bringing up the subject could very well lead to the end of our "friendship." Most people can't help but shoot the messenger. Not that it matters much anyway, most of these "friends" can't handle discussing any topic except from the perspective of the general consensus or the consensus reality people. Interesting isn't it, no subject with me is taboo, but for most people, many subjects, unless approached from a particular view, are forboten. The cognitive dissonance is too great a force.