The flaw in the reasoning here is taking the English understanding of "may", as in "possibly" or "potentially", which is a modern understanding, and trying to interpret scripture in light of that understanding, rather than looking at the grammar and usage of the time, in English, or other languages. Elizabethan English differs in usage, syntax, grammatical structure ec. from modern English. The same for King James English. It is hard for translators to sometimes find the right word to convey the sense of the original language, without introducing ideas and implications that are not in the original languages. That is why a multitude of translations, as well as thought and prayer must be engaged before drawing hard and fast conclusions.
We see too much hasty interpretations being drawn solely for the purpose of propping up bad theology, and trying to defeat Calvinism, simply because it is Calvinism. The poster who responded to you is seriously guilty of just such bias, hasty interpretation, and agenda-driven posts. His motivation is not Truth for Truth's own sake, but rather the bludgeoning of Calvinism, and Calvinists, to advance questionable and sloppy interpretation, arrogant supposition, and a desire to dominate the discussion without allowing his views to be scrutinized, nor allowing his bad behavior to be similarly scrutinized. Witness the frequent flooding of the threads with pronouncements and assertions by him, so that his name appears as the last and latest in every active thread.
