John 3:16 doesn't say what you think it says

[Christambassador1968]

The most famous verse in the bible. But for 42 years, I had the wrong understanding of this verse. This is going to offend people but I'll take this verse back to its original greek.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I will utilize the strongs exhaustive concordance to come up with the answer to what John 3:16 says. First I look up the word world. Let's see how the word world isn't the same. In the book of Ezra, Ezra's description of world is much different than John's description.

Ezra's description: 8398 tebel tay-bale' from 2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:--habitable part, world.

John's description: 2889 2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world. In my strongs hardcopy of the concordance also gave me 1577 as well.

1577 1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.

So John says church, the body of believers.

so the word "for" sets a condition...

GOD so loved

Loved. There are two words for love in scripture

agape 26. agape ag-ah'-pay from 25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:--(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

like the love of a king for his subjects or a father for his children.

then there's Phileo.

phileo 5368. phileo fil-eh'-o from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as 2309 and 1014, or as 2372 and 3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness):--kiss, love.
So...now...
For GOD so Agaped his church, that he gave his only begotten son...

Does GOD love some and hate others? -Yes!
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
So who GOD calls, he loves also, because he gives his elect his law.

So there is GOD's elect and vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

So there are people who are born to live their lives and then go on to hell. then there are GOD's elect. Romans 8:29-30:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (emphasis mine).

 

[Chinchilla]

The most famous verse in the bible. But for 42 years, I had the wrong understanding of this verse. This is going to offend people but I'll take this verse back to its original greek.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I will utilize the strongs exhaustive concordance to come up with the answer to what John 3:16 says. First I look up the word world. Let's see how the word world isn't the same. In the book of Ezra, Ezra's description of world is much different than John's description.

Ezra's description: 8398 tebel tay-bale' from 2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:--habitable part, world.

John's description: 2889 2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world. In my strongs hardcopy of the concordance also gave me 1577 as well.

1577 1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.

So John says church, the body of believers.

so the word "for" sets a condition...

GOD so loved

Loved. There are two words for love in scripture

agape 26. agape ag-ah'-pay from 25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:--(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

like the love of a king for his subjects or a father for his children.

then there's Phileo.

phileo 5368. phileo fil-eh'-o from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as 2309 and 1014, or as 2372 and 3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness):--kiss, love.
So...now...
For GOD so Agaped his church, that he gave his only begotten son...

Does GOD love some and hate others? -Yes!
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
So who GOD calls, he loves also, because he gives his elect his law.

So there is GOD's elect and vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

So there are people who are born to live their lives and then go on to hell. then there are GOD's elect. Romans 8:29-30:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (emphasis mine).

I always prefered John 3:18 over John 3:16 it's much more clear .

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I always prefered John 3:18 over John 3:16 it's much more clear .

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I agree and sadly most people stop quoting this passage of scripture right before that part.
Selective bible reading indeed.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The most famous verse in the bible. But for 42 years, I had the wrong understanding of this verse. This is going to offend people but I'll take this verse back to its original greek.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I will utilize the strongs exhaustive concordance to come up with the answer to what John 3:16 says. First I look up the word world. Let's see how the word world isn't the same. In the book of Ezra, Ezra's description of world is much different than John's description.

Ezra's description: 8398 tebel tay-bale' from 2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:--habitable part, world.

John's description: 2889 2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world. In my strongs hardcopy of the concordance also gave me 1577 as well.

1577 1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.

So John says church, the body of believers.

so the word "for" sets a condition...

GOD so loved

Loved. There are two words for love in scripture

agape 26. agape ag-ah'-pay from 25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:--(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

like the love of a king for his subjects or a father for his children.

then there's Phileo.

phileo 5368. phileo fil-eh'-o from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as 2309 and 1014, or as 2372 and 3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness):--kiss, love.
So...now...
For GOD so Agaped his church, that he gave his only begotten son...

Does GOD love some and hate others? -Yes!
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
So who GOD calls, he loves also, because he gives his elect his law.

So there is GOD's elect and vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

So there are people who are born to live their lives and then go on to hell. then there are GOD's elect. Romans 8:29-30:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (emphasis mine).

I would like to know how it is you can claim to know what I think John 3:16 says?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Because this is Traditional Theology, I will preface this by saying my conclusion is what the Early Church taught and has been maintained for millennia.

However, we aren't here to argue - or even to seek our own interpretation. If you wish a robust discussion of that type, you might prefer General Theology? That way everyone is free to respond as they like to your OP and the discussion won't need to be limited, nor will anyone risk any staff action.

(If you or anyone has questions about the purposes of different forums, feel free to ask. Most forums have a Statement of Purpose sticky at the top explaining their rules, etc.)

####################​

With that said, I don't know why Strongs implies that kosmos really means ekklesia? It sounds like interpretation.

If St. John had meant ekklesia, he would have said ekklesia.

The ancient Church teaches that not only does God love human beings, but that He loves all of creation and will restore it in the end.

So according to our Tradition, it really means kosmos/world ... literally.

 

[A_Thinker]

With that said, I don't know why Strongs implies that kosmos really means ekklesia? It sounds like interpretation.

If St. John had meant ekklesia, he would have said ekklesia.

That was my question ... and my point also.

 

[ewq1938]

The most famous verse in the bible. But for 42 years, I had the wrong understanding of this verse. This is going to offend people but I'll take this verse back to its original greek.

There is nothing new in this post and you failed to show that 3:16 is being misunderstood or was mistranslated.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

[QUOTE="Christambassador1968, post: 72943002, member: 410380"John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I will utilize the strongs exhaustive concordance to come up with the answer to what John 3:16 says. First I look up the word world. Let's see how the word world isn't the same. In the book of Ezra, Ezra's description of world is much different than John's description.
[/QUOTE]I like the greek.
Let's look at "world" in that verse:

John 3:16
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλὰ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

word for word literal from greek:
Thus for loves the God the world/κόσμον<2889> so-that the Son [of Him] the only begotten He gives that every the one-believing into Him not should be perishing, but may be having life age-during

Strong's Number G2889 matches the Greek κόσμος (kosmos),
which occurs 187 times in 152 verses

Out of the 152 verses #2889 is used in the NT, it is used in only 3 verses of Revelation. [I find that pretty astounding!!]
2 of those in conjunction with "the Book of Life"

Revelation 11:15
And the seventh Messenger sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of the world/κόσμου<2889> are become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ;
And He shall reign into the ages of the ages.
Revelation 13:8
and all who dwell on land will worship it,
everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world/κόσμος<2889> in the Book of the Life of the Lamb Who was slain/slaughtered.
Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the abyss[fn] and go to destruction.
And the dwellers on the land whose names have not been written in the Book of the Life from the foundation of the world/κόσμος<2889> will marvel to see the beast,
because it was and is not and is to come

 

[1am3laine]

I was also taught that in John 3:16 it said "should NOT perish" NOT would not perish. Meaning some would believe JESUS was the Son of GOD and still perish.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was also taught that in John 3:16 it said "should NOT perish" NOT would not perish. Meaning some would believe JESUS was the Son of GOD and still perish.

An interlinear I use shows 2 different ways to use that form of #622 [which is, as far as I can tell, the only verse in the NT that uses this exact form of the greek word.]
Someone with knowledge of the greek is welcome to address this.....

It could also mean "not should be perishing/not may be being destroyed/ἀπόληται<622>"

622. apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

It is close to the greek word used for "destroyer" in Revelation 9:11 [ironically, the same month and day as the attack on the WTC in NYC........]

623. Apolluon ap-ol-loo'-ohn active participle of 622; a destroyer (i.e. Satan):--Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11
and they have over them a King — the Messenger of the Abyss —
a name [is] to Him in Hebrew, Abaddon,
and in the Greek He hath a name, destroyer/Ἀπολλύων<623>

 

[Loren T.]

Oh, Good grief, this again?
"So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"

When Jesus said that he that does not hate his mother and father they can't be his disciple, (Luke 14;26 do you think he meant that we are to literally hate our parents?
God preferred Jacob over Esau for a certain job, (to be the father of a nation) the verse has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[A_Thinker]

Oh, Good grief, this again?
"So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"

When Jesus said that he that does not hate his mother and father they can't be his disciple, (Luke 14;26 do you think he meant that we are to literally hate our parents?

Can't "hate them" and "honour them" at the same time.

God preferred Jacob over Esau for a certain job, (to be the father of a nation) the verse has nothing to do with salvation.

Exactly ...

 

[All4Christ]

The most famous verse in the bible. But for 42 years, I had the wrong understanding of this verse. This is going to offend people but I'll take this verse back to its original greek.

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I will utilize the strongs exhaustive concordance to come up with the answer to what John 3:16 says. First I look up the word world. Let's see how the word world isn't the same. In the book of Ezra, Ezra's description of world is much different than John's description.

Ezra's description: 8398 tebel tay-bale' from 2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:--habitable part, world.

John's description: 2889 2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world. In my strongs hardcopy of the concordance also gave me 1577 as well.

1577 1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.

So John says church, the body of believers.

so the word "for" sets a condition...

GOD so loved

Loved. There are two words for love in scripture

agape 26. agape ag-ah'-pay from 25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:--(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love.

like the love of a king for his subjects or a father for his children.

then there's Phileo.

phileo 5368. phileo fil-eh'-o from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as 2309 and 1014, or as 2372 and 3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specially, to kiss (as a mark of tenderness):--kiss, love.
So...now...
For GOD so Agaped his church, that he gave his only begotten son...

Does GOD love some and hate others? -Yes!
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So why did GOD love Jacob and hate Esau? Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
So who GOD calls, he loves also, because he gives his elect his law.

So there is GOD's elect and vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

So there are people who are born to live their lives and then go on to hell. then there are GOD's elect. Romans 8:29-30:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (emphasis mine).

I’ll reiterate what Anastasia said and suggest that you read the Statement of Purpose for this forum. If you want debate or individual interpretations rather than traditional interpretations, I recommend General Theology.

————————————

That said, if the hard copy truly says Ekklesia, then the current version has changed. It says 2889

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsjoh3.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm

Check this out as well:

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/3-16.htm

 

[Christambassador1968]

I’ll reiterate what Anastasia said and suggest that you read the Statement of Purpose for this forum. If you want debate or individual interpretations rather than traditional interpretations, I recommend General Theology.

————————————

That said, if the hard copy truly says Ekklesia, then the current version has changed. It says 2889

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongsjoh3.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm

Check this out as well:

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/3-16.htm

I'd like to sat that I'm not here for debate. the word of GOD isn't up for debate. I've studied under many pastors over the course of 42 years.. I am 50 now. I was seven when I first heard about Christ Jesus. I won't waste my or anyone elses time in otherwise senseless debate. Usually what happens during debates is REALLY a battle of wills. I don't speak from opinion rather hard, solid concrete study of words back to their original greek, particles of speech, greek figures of speech and ancient middle eastern culture to absolutely understand what the writers are saying.
But debates are done by folks that want to impress others about their knowledge. I'll just say what I have to say and let the people decide what they want to believe. I won't degrade this forum, you, I or anyone for that matter by arguing about GOD's word. I don't say this in anger or malice either.

 

[Anhelyna]

Oh dear

I'll echo my Ambassador sisters - ~Anastasia~ and All4Christ

Please please before you post in this thread again read the Statement of Purpose https://www.christianforums.com/threads/traditional-theology-statement-of-purpose.7859802/

 

[prodromos]

I don't speak from opinion rather hard, solid concrete study of words back to their original greek, particles of speech, greek figures of speech and ancient middle eastern culture to absolutely understand what the writers are saying.

Yet you have completely ignored the cultural and linguistic context of the Hebrew passage quoted by Paul in Romans 9:13. Hebrew uses very black and white expressions which when translated to languages with variety of expression will easily be misinterpreted. The same expressions are used when describing Jacob's relationship with his wives Leah and Rachel, yet if Leah is "hated" by Jacob how is she able to fall pregnant to Jacob multiple times? Would you expect Jacob to repeatedly lay with a woman he supposedly "hated"?

 

[hedrick]

I was also taught that in John 3:16 it said "should NOT perish" NOT would not perish. Meaning some would believe JESUS was the Son of GOD and still perish.

This is a misunderstanding of the English syntax. "should" here is the modal form of "would." That syntax wouldn't be used very often in modern speech. The meaning is the same as in more modern translations such as "that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (NASB, similarly NIV)

One problem of using KJV or translations that follow it (e.g. ESV) is that you need to understand King James English. NRSV uses a different modal form, which I'm not sure I would do today: "so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

The differences in translation here aren't differences in understanding, but in English wording.