ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by godrulz

You call me 'idiot' while displaying a gross ignorance of first year Greek studies?!

I am staring at an Interlinear by Zondervan. It is based on the reliable Nestle's Greek NT (also based on Westcott and Hort, etc.). The Greek word is not 'pas', but 'pantas'. Perhaps you are using a different Greek text (nope) or confusing a root word from a concordance # with the actual related word in the text?


(Vine) 'pas' is an adjective meaning 'all'. Without the article it means 'every', every kind or variety....used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning 'everyone' or 'anyone'.

'pantas' is the accusative (case), masculine (gender), plural (number)....hence 'all men' is grammatically defensible (cf. mood, voice, etc. of verbs).

One cannot understand the nuances of word usage and grammar based only on the root word 'pas', which you wrongly state is in the Greek text. You deny 'pantas' is in the NT...wrong again...easily refuted...

Is it easier to name call 'idiot' than to take a course to dispel ignorance?

Wescott and Hort? Your kidding me right? These guys dont have a clue. And if your basing your eternal life on what they say the bible says, boy, I'm sorry for you.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

He cannot think for himself, he is a worshipper of men, and not Jesus.

I thought for myself first (took 4 years theological study also to equip to handle the Word). How dare you say I worship men and not Jesus. To seek confirmation from an expert is wisdom, not worship. You made an elementary error in your pseudo-understanding of Greek. Will you retract this or continue in your ignorance and arrogance?

This is like you saying 2+2= 5. When I quote a math text or expert saying 2+2=4, you accuse me of worshipping the math expert or not thinking for myself? Grow up, jerk!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"

Great exegetical distortion:doh:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Godrulz,

That's cool. I can understand why. Just that the context of Jesus' words do not allow men to be inserted. I really hope you can see that. Something to ask God about you think? Cause if true, that changes the complexion of that verse drastically.

A grammatical word study of 'pantas' is more fundamental than the context. The context does not fit your view, and supports the majority view.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Wescott and Hort? Your kidding me right? These guys dont have a clue. And if your basing your eternal life on what they say the bible says, boy, I'm sorry for you.

Their text is reliable and respected. It does not mean I agree with their personal views on every point. Chances are your Bible was influenced by their translation.

What evidence do you have to outright dismiss their textual criticism and scholarship? I suspect you are speaking out of ignorance and arrogance...did you translate from the Greek into a recognized version?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

You call me 'idiot' while displaying a gross ignorance of first year Greek studies?!

I am staring at an Interlinear by Zondervan. It is based on the reliable Nestle's Greek NT (also based on Westcott and Hort, etc.). The Greek word is not 'pas', but 'pantas'. Perhaps you are using a different Greek text (nope) or confusing a root word from a concordance # with the actual related word in the text?


(Vine) 'pas' is an adjective meaning 'all'. Without the article it means 'every', every kind or variety....used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning 'everyone' or 'anyone'.

'pantas' is the accusative (case), masculine (gender), plural (number)....hence 'all men' is grammatically defensible (cf. mood, voice, etc. of verbs).

One cannot understand the nuances of word usage and grammar based only on the root word 'pas', which you wrongly state is in the Greek text. You deny 'pantas' is in the NT...wrong again...easily refuted...

You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.

The word 'pas' appears 60 times in the book of John alone!

pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything


You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you.

 

[drbrumley]

Wrong Godrulz!

Context is what dictates the subject. It makes no difference what the majority says. Esp, when we are talking about words not even in the text. It was inserted.

30Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." 33This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

It is as plain as day.

 

[drbrumley]

Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

If he doesnt know how much to beleive , well proof is in the pudding.

Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

That's just a couple, Need I document more?

 

[drbrumley]

In effect the plan is stated as follows, “We have succeeded in completely depersonalizing the bible, having shattered into scores of fragments, and have recomposed it in a rational manner.� THE FOUNDATION IS LAID IN OUR DAY Many of us now living have seen the supernatural upsurge of new Bible versions. Each one contradicts the best English version ever produced, (THE KING JAMES VERSION - KJV) and every one contradicts the other in a mad scramble to reach the minds and the money of the people of God.

Thats Wescott and Hort. Money talks, you know the rest.

 

[drbrumley]

Suffice to say Godrulz,

Dont even talk to me about Greek texts and words. Go ahead and put your faith in Wescott and Hort. You will rule the day you did that.

If context doesnt matter, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.

The word 'pas' appears 60 times in the book of John alone!

pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything


You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you.

Grab an interlinear...'pantAs' is in Jn. 12:32. I do not dispute the other uses of 'pas'.

'pantOs' is another declension of the adjective 'pas'= singular, neuter or masculine, genitive

YOU ARE WRONG...and though I am weary of your pretenses...I will be happy to be patient as you get up to speed...my goal is to shed light for understanding, not create heat for division.

Here is the declension of 'pas, pasa, pan...stem= pant-): adjective= 'all'...


Masculine/feminine/neuter, singular/plural: nominative, genitive/ablative, dative, locative, instrumental, accusative, vocative...

pas, pantos, panti, panta, pantes, panton, pasi, pantas

pasa, pases, pasei, pasan, pasai, pason, pasais, pasas

pan, pantos, panti, pan, panta, panton, pasi, panta

Not every form is necessarily used in the NT. Since you are calling me idiot, and making inaccurate statements about what words are in the NT Greek text...please explain the above declensions and the significance of the cases including verses and historical usages. If you cannot put up, then shut up. Your credibility is on the line. What else are you wrong about? Be teachable if you are to teach.

I doubt you have studied other languages (French, German, etc.). If you did, you would have understood these elementary concepts and not made statements contrary to the Greek text or grammar.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Suffice to say Godrulz,

Dont even talk to me about Greek texts and words. Go ahead and put your faith in Wescott and Hort. You will rule the day you did that.

If context doesnt matter, we have nothing to discuss.

I have been one of the strongest proponents of context on these boards. Remember my rallying cry: "Context is King!". Who said context does not matter. Read me in context, pulease! I am suggesting that you need an accurate translation and interpretation of each word, sentence, and paragraph to even elicit what the context is. If you are wrong about the meaning of a word, it will jade the correct understanding of the context. Exegesis, not eisegesis. Inductive, not deductive.

I am not trusting Westcott and Hort. I actually do not know much about their issues other than one was Anglican and their work is a respected, credible source. They are merely one of several legit. translations to use. I suspect they have influenced many or most English versions. They do not differ significantly from whatever translation you use. What is the text used by NKJV (I suspect you use Enyart's favorite)?

Whatever interlinear or text you use, it should confirm my view on the word 'all' in Jn. 12:32. This is not a disputed text with many variations (to the best of my knowledge). Sozo does not know what he is talking about in relation to the Greek word in the text. Your interpretation is another matter. The word is not in dispute, just your understanding of the passage.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong Godrulz!

Context is what dictates the subject. It makes no difference what the majority says. Esp, when we are talking about words not even in the text. It was inserted.

30Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." 33This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

It is as plain as day.

I do not dispute the judgment aspect. His lifting up was related to the type of death on the cross. It is an allusion to the lifting up of the serpent on the pole in the OT, where everyone who looked to it (believed) were healed/saved. You are reading judgment from v. 30 into v. 32...the grammar supports 'all men/everyone'. The modifier is not back to judgment.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

If he doesnt know how much to beleive , well proof is in the pudding.

Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

That's just a couple, Need I document more?

Isolated quotes out of context do not mean much. I stated it does not matter if we agree with everything these men believed. We must deal with the accuracy of their translation/grammar. A secular expert on Greek must also follow the same grammatical rules regardless of their belief system.

'pas, pantos, pantas' etc. are mathematical and fixed, regardless who translates.

cf. Thayer's lexicon is very good despite the fact he was a Unitarian (we disagree with his theology). At times (Col. 2:9, etc.), he affirmed accurate grammar even though it contradicted his false religion. This is commendable.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by drbrumley

In effect the plan is stated as follows, “We have succeeded in completely depersonalizing the bible, having shattered into scores of fragments, and have recomposed it in a rational manner.� THE FOUNDATION IS LAID IN OUR DAY Many of us now living have seen the supernatural upsurge of new Bible versions. Each one contradicts the best English version ever produced, (THE KING JAMES VERSION - KJV) and every one contradicts the other in a mad scramble to reach the minds and the money of the people of God.

Thats Wescott and Hort. Money talks, you know the rest.

Source? Deal with their text vs ad hominem arguments. Are you sure you are not mixing up B.F. Westcott (good) and W.W. Westcott (bad ? occult)? Are you KJV only?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo

You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.

I'm so tempted to make this the POTD, but I don't want to waste it so early.

It would surprise me if you were not an Open Theist, Sozo. I expect Open Theists to accuse others of the very thing of which they themselves are guilty. And are you a politician as well? The way you so baldly stated a blatant untruth would make either Kerry or Bush proud.

Here are the nearly 90 occurrences of pantas in the textus receptus (Stephens 1550). Note that Jn 12:32 is among them. And by the way, pantos only occurs about 30 times in the Greek NT. Isn't that embarrassing?

Mt 2:4,16 4:24 8:16 12:15 14:35 21:12 22:10 26:1
Mr 1:32 2:12 5:40 6:39
Lu 1:65 4:36 5:9 6:10,19 7:16 8:54 9:23 12:41 13:2,4,28 17:27 17:29 21:35
Joh 2:15,24 12:32 Ac 4:33 5:5,11 9:14,40 10:38,44
Ac 11:23 17:30 18:2,23 19:10,17 21:21,28 22:15 26:29 27:24,44 28:2 28:30
Ro 3:9,22 5:12,18 10:12 11:32 16:15,19
1Co 7:7 14:5 15:25
2Co 2:3,5 5:10 9:13
Ga 6:10
Eph 1:15 3:9
Php 1:7,8 2:26
Col 1:4
1Th 3:12 4:10 5:14,15,26
1Ti 2:4
2Ti 2:24
Tit 3:2
Phm 1:5
Heb 13:24 1Pe 2:17
2Pe 3:9
Jude 1:15,25
Re 13:16

I could see making your statement if there were only 2 or 3 occurrences and you just happened to miss them. But how do you miss 89 verses, Sozo? It didn't take very long to run those down, and I didn't even go to cemetery, Sozo. Did you use the word "ignorant"? If I recall correctly, you also used the word "idiot." I wonder: Do you have the clarity of mind to be ashamed of yourself, or at least embarrassed?

Originally posted by Sozo
You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you.

:darwinsm:

 

[natewood3]

Hilston,

Thank you for making that correction....you tell me if you see the word "pantAs" in these Greek texts:

Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω Ï€Ï?ος εμαυτον

Textus Receptus GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω Ï€Ï?ος εμαυτον

Westcott/Hort GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω Ï€Ï?ος εμαυτον

I am pretty sure ALL three say "pantas." However, that word isn't even in the NT...kind of strange, don't you think?

 

[Sozo]

Hilston:

Which word is used παντα or παντας?

Are you sure you are not referring to pantav?

No matter how you slice it, the word "men" does not belong in the text.

The original word is pav (all); pantav was used out of interpretation, but does not appear in the text. An assumption was made that it refers to men, but that is pav it is, an assumption.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to natewood3 and Sozo:

natewood3,

Thanks for keeping this discussion in line with its title. Your comparison of the three text families demonstrates even further how Open Theists will stop at nothing and never pass up an opportunity to rip on those who oppose their view. drbrumley wants to jump all over godrulz for making reference to the Critical Text, when there isn't even a textual dispute about Jn 12:32. The Byzantine, USB and the TR all agree. This is simply and sadly political posturing by theological inbreds. Just like Bush, you'll never get an Open Theist to admit he was wrong. Just like Kerry, we should never expect logic to have anything to do with the positions Open Theists espouse. And just like politicians in general, on the one hand they defend each other and use double-standard nepotism toward one another. But on the other hand, they don't care to publicly correct one another when one of them makes an embarrassing fatuous claim about something so basic as the 89 parsings of one of the most common words in the Greek scriptures (1,070+ occurrences in its lexical form!!!). Their double-standard nepotism and theological inbreeding just encourages the proliferation of more and more foolishness and error.

Sozo,

Is that a retraction? Or just standard Open-Theist intransigence? Anyone reading this has no doubt it's the latter (except your Open Theist sycophants). Is there an apology forthcoming for your false accusation of ignorance? Of course not. That would be an admission of error. Is there even a hint of shame in you for having falsely charged someone with being ignorant about something you yourself were ignorant of? Of course not. Such a foolish overstatement and unfounded name-calling come as no surprise from a theology that gives God a pass for doing the very same things.

Instead, what do you do? You try to deflect your guilt with your "any way you slice it" tripe. Oh, I see. Now the details don't matter, cuz "any way you slice it," Sozo is still right. Sometimes I wonder why I like hanging around here, but then someone like Sozo comes along and reminds me: It's just so hilariously entertaining. If I could, I'd change the thread title to: "Bwah ha ha ha! Open Theism makes me pee myself with laughter!!!"

:darwinsm:

Flame on flame-out.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Sozo

Christine...

The word "men" was added to the text, and does not belong. Jesus was speaking of drawing all judgment to himself, not men.

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die."

A word for word translation reads:

Now judgment is of this world; now the prince of this world shall be cast out: and I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw to myself. But this He said, signifying by what death he was about to die.

Sozo:

I am aware that the word "men" is not in the text. I mentioned that to Turbo when we talked off TOL the other night. Often, as it's been said, words are added for clarity. The question then become who are the "all?" I don't think God would draw unbelievers to himself, he'd only draw the called or elect.