Burden of Proof

[Brother Les]

by JTownsend
I am not dismissing your interpretation, and I don't think Arduro is either. People were just replying to how you came across in writing... and as we all know, it's much more difficult to properly convey your meaning and intonations in writing than in person.

Such a friendly thread.

by Aduro »
It may help to not beg the question of his error when your motivation is entirely self-serving, as you have a theory that depends on a specific interpretation of the text that has only existed since you invented it. At the very least, you could offer the different interpretations of other experts and not rest solely upon your own opinion.

by dlspence_58
Apparently we have to filter all of it through JL Vaughn who knows better than all. Why he even wrote a piece of fiction entitled, "Covenant Creation," that we're supposed to accept as fact because he is an expert.

[JTownsend]

JL,
I asked if you wanted to restate your question or try to clarify it. Do you? Do you want to reiterate your point?

Productive conversation... or name calling? What's it going to be?

[JLVaughn]

Jeramiah,

I asked if you wanted to restate your question or try to clarify it. Do you? Do you want to reiterate your point?

Productive conversation... or name calling? What's it going to be?

I thought that was a rhetorical device on your part. To support your claim that I am dealing with "trust issues" and that Aduro really does like me.

We have all grown up being taught as dispensationalists. We have a lot of dispensational baggage in our understanding. I believe Thayer does also. I want to weed out this phony modern literalism and try to understand Scripture as the ancients, the original audience, did or should have.

Thayer's other examples were

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

I am inclined to agree with Thayer's example for 8a, but I believe it is ambiguous given the general context. Romans 11 starts with a discussion of the Jewish remnant. World in vs. 12 might refer to them instead of Gentiles.

For 8b, John 1:10-11 has a parallelism between "world" and "His own." This sets the context for vs. 29, 3:16-17, and 6:33, 12:47. World means the first century, Jewish/old covenant people. That is John's use of kosmos.

Paul, being a Greek-speaking Jew, could very well have a very different concept of "world." In 1 Cor. 4:9, it appears to be all men everywhere. In 2 Cor. 5:19, Paul might be using it in the same manner as John.

Even though these examples are clearly restricted to people, Thayer's sub-categories of people do not match his examples, or are at least ambiguous. Thayer gave no examples for his other definitions. That he did so poorly with these makes the others suspect. We can be confidant that "world," kosmos, means people. But it is or at least can be restricted to a group of people and we so far have no examples that it refers to the physical planet.