Question re: John 3:16

[JamesTheJust]

15 Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel.

16 All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced;
they will go off into disgrace together.

17 But Israel will be saved by the LORD
with an everlasting salvation;
you will never be put to shame or disgraced,
to ages everlasting.

18 For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

19 I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob's descendants,
'Seek me in vain.'
I, the LORD, speak the truth;
I declare what is right.

20 "Gather together and come;
assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save.

21 Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22 "Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult.

1 "Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!" declares the LORD. 2 Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: "Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done," declares the LORD. 3 "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing," declares the LORD.

5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will raise up to David [a] a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.

6 In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land."

None of these scriptures can be interpreted as any but the Israelites when taken in context! Anyone who even tries is one of those false shepherds who is not feeding the sheep but is scattering them instead. I would not want to be in their shoes. WOE unto them! Salvation is for Israel and Israel ALONE and these versus make that abundantly clear.

I have little patience for these LYING universalists who are seeking numbers for filthy lukers sake. And I have even less patience with false prophets filled with false love for those who YHWH NEVER called; neither in the Old Testament nor the New. They are LAZY and inept and their lying tongues must be and will be silenced.

[matthewott]

Thank you James...YOU DA MAN!!

[Zenas]

____________________________________

Bill, when time allows, kindly give your reasons for translating "world," Greek - kosmos, [Strong's 2889] in John 3:16 as "Society."

16 For Yahweh so loved the Society, that He gave the most-beloved Son, in order that each who believes in Him would not be lost but would have eternal life. 17 Indeed, Yahweh has not sent the Son into the Society in order that He would condemn the Society, but in order that the Society would be saved through Him.

Vine's has kosmos defined primarily as: order, arrangement, ornament, adornment and B) is used to denote the earth, B)c) by metonymy, the human race, mankind, and others. [1984 pg. 1245]

Thayer's is similar to Vine's and gives eight basic meanings - none of which, as far as I an see, show Society as a possible meaning, as defined by Websters, and translated as such in yours.

Webster [2nd Ed. 2002] has society defined as: 1) a group of persons, etc, forming a single community. 5) an organized group with some interest in common.

My guess is because Christ plainly stated that he was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," that this "house of Israel" comprises a Society, and thus supports this translation.

The reason I ask, is because this verse, and this word - world/kosmos has been and is used by universalists to justify their missionary outreach to the "world."

Your comments much appreciated.

[matthewott]

Keep in mind, Zenas, that the earlier Webster dictionaries defined "man" or "mankind" as "white society". It has only been in the last century that that definition has been perverted. The univeralist definition applied now is the same as for "human" or "humankind".

[Zenas]

_____________

Hi matt; yes I am aware of Webster's definition.

this definition is of Society.

[matthewott]

I understand. I'm just pointing out the obvious in reverse. That up until 100 years ago, "man" was acknowledged by the known world to be referring to civilized whites, thusly a white Society. Conversely, in biblical times, Society was acknowledged by the known world to mean the civilized white world, Adamic man. The same goes for the word "world" in biblical times. All true literature at the time was only produced by whites, so all references to the "world" could only mean "the known white world" or "the lands inhabited by whites". So it only makes sense that all three of these words are basically interchangeable.

But I'm sure you understood that already....

Yah Bless,
Matt

[Zenas]

_____________________________________

But I'm sure you understood that already...

Not really: this, for instance, is easily forgotten:

All true literature at the time was only produced by whites


We whites, or at least I do, tend to look [at least I use to] at non-whites as being "created equal" because we didn't understand the Declaration of Independence meant "all [white - Adamic] men are created equal." When I first moved to Asia over a decade ago, when conversing with Asians, I at first thought, "Well, once I explain this [a particular problem] to them, they will understand it as I do and we will get this resolved with a fair and equitable solution." Wrong, and how wrong I was. Asians don't think like Caucasians and - the important part - never will, because they can't. The vast majority of Asians can not think in the abstract. We whites take it for granted and can solve complex abstract problems without giving the process a second thought. Asians can't do that. Asians never say, when a logical solution to a problem that requires abstract thinking is offered, "Gotcha." Especially one that involves foreseeing potential future problems. They can't look ahead and anticipate the collateral problems their solution involves. When you try to explain it to them, they get a blank look in their brown eyes, [and all Asians have brown/black eyes, and black hair.]

This goes for the simple day-to-day issues that crop up daily to the complex.

It is very frustrating to deal w/Asians unless and until one understands this basic premise: Asians can not think in the abstract. That is why there are so few Nobel Prize winners, [not that the NP is worth having, mind you - after all, Barry Soetero received one for Peace, so how worthwhile are they?] among Asians in literature. They can't formulate abstract concepts with their minds to imagine plots, themes, characterizations and the many other elements needed to produce a work of art in literature. There are no Asian Shakespeares.

The ability of whites to think critically in the abstract is one of the major DNA differences that set Anglo-Saxon-Celts-Scandinavians apart from all other races, and is the reason we whites have accomplished and achieved so much when compared to non-whites. If that makes me a racist, then I wear the label proudly for being able to point out and accept the obvious w/o guilt.

[matthewott]

The ability of whites to think critically in the abstract is one of the major DNA differences that set Anglo-Saxon-Celts-Scandinavians apart from all other races, and is the reason we whites have accomplished and achieved so much when compared to non-whites. If that makes me a racist, then I wear the label proudly for being able to point out and accept the obvious w/o guilt.

Right on Zenas! Up until diving head first into DSL CI, I was the quintessential universalist who loved everyone. Even after going to an city catholic school where I was one of three white boys in my entire class, and was the target of ire for many of the blacks. I was so far ahead of them in my curriculum, I didn't even use the same books...I was basically in a class by myself! Years and years of seeing the obvious differences still didn't make me a "racist" because "racism" is BAD! Because the catholic church taught "love your enemy"! Though every fibre of my being told me that there was no way I could be related to all the other races, I still "went with the flow" and tried to be the best "human" I could be. I always knew there was "more to me" than the world was letting on, and for a long time I thought it was "just" a mental or spiritual difference. White Supremacy never jived with me as I was under the impression Yahweh was NOT involved with it. When I found CI, it grabbed me immediately by the short and curlies and smacked me in the face a few times. Now, I can't imagine NOT being a racist! Praise Yahweh!

[Zenas]

________________________________

After becoming aware of the "jewish question" I looked back over my personal and business life and realized those individuals that had given me the most problems and cost me the most money, were all jews.

At the time I was being financial taken advantage of, and then eventually financially raped, the race of the raper never entered my mind: I was race blind. But then, later, after the scales came off, it was all too obvious. Wolves in sheep's clothing they were.

A warning, from someone who has learned firsthand at great expense: these creatures are not like us. It is in their very nature to do harm.

[wmfinck]

Well, without getting into the lengthy discourse between Matthew and Zenas, I will try to answer Zenas' original question. But to do so, I will supply my definition from my book, The Records of Luke, on page 219 in Appendix C under 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 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, κοσμέω (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.

Let me note that in my full books of Luke and Paul, when I made them in 2003 and 2005, with all of the notes available, I decided to leave κόσμος untranslated at that time, for the reason given above. However for the Christogenea New Testament, I decided to translate the word "society" in most places, and "order" in at least one (maybe two).

Hope this helps!
Bill