2 Peter 2:1 shows Jesus died for the non-elect

[Martin Andrews]

I believe the antecedent of "he" (noun, singular, masculine) in John 15:26 is "comforter" (noun, singular, masculine) in the immediately preceding context.

Yes, this is even though "πνεῦμα" is in the neuter. Grammatically, Jesus would have used "τo παρακλτov", and "εκειvo", to agree with "πνεῦμα", as we have it in chapter 14. Even the fact that Jesus uses "ἄλλον" (another, like Himself) and not "ἕτερον", (another, different to Himself), which also shows the Personality of the Holy Spirit, as well as His Deity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, there is. "Spirit" in the Greek is "πνεῦμα" which is neuter in gender. grammatically it would require the neuter pronoun, "αὐτὸ", which literally is "it", as it is in the KJV in Romans and John. However, because Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit as a Person (another Comforter like Himself), He does use the masculine, "ἐκεῖνος" (He), in John 15:26 for example.

So why have basically all modern versions never called Him as an it then though?

 

[TCassidy]

I understand that, but didn't jesus Himself also other timers qualified the Spirit as a he /Him though?

Already dealt with, above.

 

[Martin Andrews]

I understand that, but didn't jesus Himself also other timers qualified the Spirit as a he /Him though?

Yes, I have just mentioned this

 

[Martin Andrews]

So why have basically all modern versions never called Him as an it then though?

Because both Biblically and theologically, the Holy Spirit is a Person, as He "teaches, leads, prays, can be grieved, commissions, is called God, Lord,", etc. These cannot be said for something "impersonal".

 

[TCassidy]

So why have basically all modern versions never called Him as an it then though?

You'll have to ask the translators. But I suspect it's because gender in English means something entirely different than it does in Greek, and when the translations were being made they followed the rules of English grammar (using dynamic equivalence) rather than the Rules of Greek grammar (using formal equivalence).

 

[Yeshua1]

You'll have to ask the translators. But I suspect it's because gender in English means something entirely different than it does in Greek, and when the translations were being made they followed the rules of English grammar (using dynamic equivalence) rather than the Rules of Greek grammar (using formal equivalence).

Why not call Him as Jesus did though?

 

[Yeshua1]

Because both Biblically and theologically, the Holy Spirit is a Person, as He "teaches, leads, prays, can be grieved, commissions, is called God, Lord,", etc. These cannot be said for something "impersonal".

That is why he should not be called as an it!

You'll have to ask the translators. But I suspect it's because gender in English means something entirely different than it does in Greek, and when the translations were being made they followed the rules of English grammar (using dynamic equivalence) rather than the Rules of Greek grammar (using formal equivalence).

"THE SPIRIT ITSELF" OR THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KJV - PRINT VERSION
Seems to answer this well!

 

[Martin Andrews]

That is why he should not be called as an it!

"THE SPIRIT ITSELF" OR THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KJV - PRINT VERSION
Seems to answer this well!

I would not let the use of the neuter worry you, as it is purely a grammatical thing, agreement of gender. But as we have seen, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as a He as He is a Person as Jesus is. It is interesting that in 1 John 1:1, we see Jesus Christ referred to in the neuter gender: "Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς". "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life". No one would ever use this to say Jesus is not a Person!

 

[Yeshua1]

I would not let the use of the neuter worry you, as it is purely a grammatical thing, agreement of gender. But as we have seen, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as a He as He is a Person as Jesus is. It is interesting that in 1 John 1:1, we see Jesus Christ referred to in the neuter gender: "Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς". "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life". No one would ever use this to say Jesus is not a Person!

Those 2 cases would indeed show that despite being in the Greek as a neuter gender, really should always be as masculine for the Holy Spirit!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 9 PM Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

Those 2 cases would indeed show that despite being in the Greek as a neuter gender, really should always be as masculine for the Holy Spirit!

So you think God inspired the wrong word? What other parts of the bible do you think are wrong?

 

[Martin Andrews]

So you think God inspired the wrong word? What other parts of the bible do you think are wrong?

people don't really understand languages!

 

[TCassidy]

people don't really understand languages!

Well, that one certainly doesn't, but I suspect that may be because English may be his second language.

 

[MennoSota]

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

How to make a really good deep dish pizza! I think...

I doubt we could all agree on that either.

 

[MennoSota]

Poll: 35% Of Republicans Want To Impeach Obama | The Huffington Post

Sorry. Mods could you delete the link. I accidentally posted it. I wanted the gif, but pasted instead.

 

[TCassidy]

I doubt we could all agree on that either.

I agree. We wouldn't agree.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

This is what three of the leading Greek lexicons have to say on "ἀγοράζω", as used in 2 Peter 2:1

"figuratively: Christ is said to have purchased his disciples i. e. made them, as it were, his private property, 1Co_6:20 (this is commonly understood of god; but cf. Joh_17:9-10); 1Co_7:23 (with the genitive of price added; see τιμή, 1); 2Pe_2:1."
(Joseph Thayer who was a Unitarian and therefore did not believe in the need to even be saved!)

"buy, acquire as property of believers, for whom Christ has paid the price, with his blood, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 2. Pt. 2:1" (W F Arndt and F W Gingrich)

"to redeem, to acquire for one's self by a ransom or price paid; spoken in N.T. of those whom Christ has redeemed by his blood from the bondage of sin and death. 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23; 2 Pet 2:1" (Edward Robinson)

This is what I have said the Greek usage of the word means, but leading Greek scholars. It is very clear that the MEANING of "ἀγοράζω" in 2 Peter 2:1, is the SAME as 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23. Only those interested in the Truth as taught in Scripture, will accept this and stop trying to put personal doctrine above what the Word of God actually says.

This is one of my previous posts in response to another member who has yet to answer:

Certainly the blood of Christ is the basis of salvation, but no man is redeemed solely because Christ died for his sins. If that were true, preaching the gospel would be vain. Therefore, if these false prophets were bought with the precious blood of Christ, they were saved. If they were saved, they were ultimately lost. Your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1, then, proves more than you wish to admit. Furthermore, ἀγοράζω is also used in contexts having nothing to do with the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. I invite you to consult your Greek lexicons on this issue. Also, you now have redeemed men being cast into the lake of fire according to your view of the atonement.

This is really starting to get frustrating.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Ask TCassidy who opened the door with the elaborate message of how great the KJV is!

It is far superior to the Martin Andrews Version (MAV).