Featured What Does "All" Mean?

I see this is going nowhere friend blessings to you and Light from the Lord of Glory.:love2::love2::love2:

 

Yes, and we know that in Mark 1:5 that each and every single person in Judea and Jerusalem were baptized! For it says ALL so then everyone there were baptized! :thumbsup::love2:

In Mark 1:37 'All men seek you' means that every single person sought him! Since all always means all, then even those in Rome, Greece, Asia...every single one of them were seeking Jesus! What a revival it was too! The Apache's also sought him and traveled by canoe to Israel!!!!! They had to, after all, ALL sought Him!!!!!!!!!!

Here we have it again, in John 12:19 everyone in the world went after Him!!!!! Even Eskimos!!!

All is not always all.

- Blessings

 

The problem is you are trying to say God gave us just the ability to do good and evil and trying to get me to focus on that,

He gave us a free agency that makes all of us different. We all don't eat the same, talk the same, eat at the same time. We do all this within the bounds God place us in. I can just jump off a building and fly without making something that can help me.

A free agency was not created to give us the ability to do evil, but to love God on our own.

Adam had no inclination no ability to do it, because He had no knowledge of good and evil. Evil was introduced to Adam not by God, but by satan the murderer.

We have a free agency and we did sin and we are responsible.

I agree with free agency not that God just given us the ability to do good and evil.

May the God of light bless you and show you that a free agency wasn't given to us to give us the ability to do good and evil, but to do good.

It is satan that introduced evil into this world God's creation who wickedness was not created but found in Him.

 

That is a man's perspective not God's. If God said everyone went after Him then everyone did, but it is talking about the pharisees perspective. When God said He loved the world that He sent His Son than yes it is everyone.

 

He loved the age.

So you're saying everyone and all went after Him? Nothing in these texts limits it to Pharisees as you suggest. There were more than this who came after Him. Thus it wasn't only Pharisee's, nor your 'pharisees perspective'.

 

John 12:17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!”

The one you are talking about is simon and his companions perspective. You have both scriptures in your post

 

And thus all doesn't mean all. Did the whole world go after Him? No. It's an idiom, a figure of speech.

Use this in the balance of your interpretations.

When we see that He died for the sins of the whole world we interpret this in the same manner -- we know He saves His people from their sins -- thus whole world needs to be exegeted through this truth. It doesn't mean all as you imply, therefore as Scripture implies it is not every man, woman and child who has ever lived, but is of the elect, 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

 

False man's perspective isn't God's perspecteive you can limit what man sees as world and all, but not God.

He sees all, He knows all, it is foolish to limit God's perspective.

God loved the world everyone, heathens, sinners like me that He sent His Son not that they will be saved but whosoever believes in Him there is your limit shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

World is age, not each and every man woman and child.

Also, God has hatred towards some sinners. That is a fact in Scripture.

Whosoever believes in Him are His elect, His remnant.

It would be nice for you to write in a comprehensive manner for a change without you giving an excuse of inability. You write in a poor manner. Write plainly and take more time to do so.

 

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

When men say all or the world they are talking about all they are seeing and all they know.

They are not God, so trying to show them as a meaning that all men all is limited by mans perspective.

So to Paul he reaches all he knew of. We have our ends of the earth to reach

When the scriptures says Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

He is not talking about believers who are in the world and not of it.

When God said all men He is talking about everyone single person all He knows of.

When He said that He loved world that He sent His Son, He loved the world everyone heathens, sinners like me that He sent His Son, not that the whole world will be saved, the next line is your answer to who will be saved whosoever believes in Jesus.

It is a shame how men try to destroy the message of the Holy Spirit, by trying to say He meant something else. If the Holy Spirit meant something else He would of said what He meant. I like Spurgeon said about all men.

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are. Then comes the question, "But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so? " Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer. Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages,—"If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his beneficence?" It is God's wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God's wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God's wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made. He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so."

Spurgeon

 

I know you wish to believe all is all, but it is not. Yours is mere sentimentalism and is not Scriptural truth.

All is not all. World is not each and every man woman and child.

 

I don't agree with your world understanding. If God meant that He would of said that.

I agree that whosoever is the elect, but it still says He loved the world that He sent His Son only men try to limit that, God did not.

Luke 6:
Love for Enemies

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

And He did. World = age, not every man woman and child.

 

You don't make no sense world is a better translation age doesn't work.

Now I know why God had the Holy Bible translated when He did.

 

When did God have it translated, and from what? Date, time and God endorsed translation will suffice. This way we will know what is His accepted translation. Also, offer proof He translated it Himself as you've stated.

 

Th Holy Bible will be around longer than you translated the way it has been , and you will never be able to change it. It's in black and white and people will be fighting this translation age after age and it will be still transplanted the same.

It sad knowing generation after generation they will have to fight scripture because the truth will always be there to haunt them.

World, world, world.

I think you are fighting God, not men.

I believe God is in control when He had the Holy Bible translated so a heathen like me can read it and come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. That is why i believe God had the Holy Bible translated. I hate begging for just a crumb.

 

Nothing but emotionalism and conjecture and nary a Scripture.

Age, age, age. World never has meant in Scripture every person who has ever lived. It means age.

Once again:

Answer each line.

 

Age is not the translation it is world, generation after generation it will be true

"Now I know why God had the Holy Bible translated when He did."

You are misrepresenting me.

 

Yes. Now show us which Holy Bible it was that He had translated 'when He did'.

I've not misrepresented you, in fact I am calling you out to prove your statement. :wavey:

Date, version, and the time, so we know which one (Holy Bible) He endorses.

 

I have read the King James, The NIV, the NASB, the NEw King James James the new new NIV.

These are the only one's i can confirm. All of them taught me. I agree with them. I have a NASB with greek and Hebrew dictionary

You are misrepresenting me, because the only answer will be that I believe God was in control when they were being translated. He gave us what we need to know, You know there is no date or time or translation and you know what i meant by what i said by that