That's a collective plural, so another way to put it is: '...among all of you.' That gets away from the inner vs outer issue which isn't the idea. The point is it is already at work right there.
"Would you like some fries WITH that TEXT?"
People use the phrase "that's not what I'd meant..." where they find that what they have said has been misinterpreted.
The intended sense of their words having been misinterpreted, where their hearer had failed to first attempt to consider, if also not to seek out first, the nature or sense of things under which said words were spoken, to begin with.
That right there is your repeated failure.
That right there is both your recurrent pattern, and it's equally recurrent erroneous result.
For the Greek by itself is often simply not enough when attempting to determine the nature or sense of things under which what words have been spoken or written, have been.
The nature, or sense of things under which said words were used, when they were, is crucial.
Context = "with" plus the "text" in question: that which surrounds, accompanies, or is also a part of, the text in question.
Your reliance on the Greek often does help you get the intended sense of the individual words.
I easily concede that, where warranted.
Your problem, then?
You too often end up reading into things, understandings foreign to the nature or sense of things under which those words in question were uttered, to begin with.
Because you OVER RELY on BOTH the Greek and your OWN TOO SOON formed conclusions.
Result?
Understandings not only foreign to the text, but understandings that appear sound to you only due to the too soon sense of things in which are looking at things from.
Also, understandings that you have so run with by the time you present them, that by the time you do present them, their resulting weeds have grown so high a wall in front of the eyes of your understanding, that all you are able see, is your error, as truth.
As a result, your errors end up appearing sound only to you and anyone who is often proven just as negligent and or clueless of all the above, as you consistently prove you have been.
In this, it is no surprise who agrees with your errors, where they do.
Objectivity absolutely demands I ever be willing to concede any point of yours I find sound and without hesitation, if I myself wish to remain a bit freer from ending up at your same above kinds of problems.
At the same time, it is this very willingness on my part to apply the principles I have herein laid out, whenever I read your posts, that has allowed me to practically read your mind through your results, back to your errors through them, and that I have herein been able to describe, with pin point accuracy.
Your response?
You will take personal offence.
Prohibited once more, by your own hand, from learning anything of use by it, with which you could begin to allow yourself to begin to free yourself from your above errors.
There really is no room in learning for allowing oneself to take personal offence.
All it shows is that its' owner has violated the above in this also; where said owner could have allowed their self to become curious instead, with the underlying structure behind not only how words communicate meaning, but also, just as fascinated about how we, their receiver, are perceiving them, in the very moment in which we are taking them in.
You're not exactly stupid.
Rather, your erroneous approach ends you up looking like you are; despite, and to the great detriment of your very obvious fascination, with the things of the Bible.
But again, one learns about a thing, from it, in its own waters - not in another's "adventures in Scripture" - the endless parroting of men forever parroting men, that is your equally obvious, ever endless over reliance on books "about" for your borrowed sense of things.
Get - in - THE - Book!
Neh. 8:8; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Cor. 4:13-14; 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
