Needlessly Loose Translation Choices

Its not an issue at all. It was not written by John and was certainly not written in the context of spiritual warfare. John is operating with a theme Luke was not using.

*and I am not denying the range of the word. But based on context, your rendering is highly improbable

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Your rendering has John contradicting himself. You have not refuted. To do so would to to destroy his established themes. Show me proof of evil people, lovers of the dark, who also loving Jesus. Just not as much as evil.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Only one soil accepted the gospel. The other were pretenders. The rest heard ακουσωσιν, but only the 4th ραπαδεχονται. See Mark's version.

Im Matthew's account only the 4th were said to understand (συνεις). Only the are lovers of God.

The rich young ruler wanted eternal life. No indication he lived God. He loved his wealth.

Woman at the well. On what grounds to say she loved Jesus, but choose the darkness over Him, because her love of the darkness was greater? There is nothing there to suggest such.

Romans 9 scripture you suggested shows jewish pursuit of the law. Not love for Jesus. Your arguments are how you say, "an empty sack".

You are reading way too much into scripture to see things that are not present.

I also like how you use the phrase "case closed". Like you have to some authority to declare such. You are using liberal tactics that you accuse several other people of who disagree with you.

So anyway, back to my challenge. Show me a place where someone loved the light (Jesus) , but loved the darkeness more.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Are believers to walk toward the light or are they to walk in the light?

Perhaps you are suggesting unbelievers can in some manner walk toward the light?

Again, are not unsaved told to repent (turn around)?

Sometimes your presentation seems to hold that just anyone ar anytime in any manner and in any way get God’s attention and be saved.

Is this what you consider sound?

 

Ok

I figured I had your view correct.

Btw, when you posted to MCree stating the second soil was understanding, that is mere intellectual ascent and not core value change brought by the work of the Holy Spirit. There was nothing of life sustaining given to that soil by the farmer. The same is found when Paul testified before Felix.

Beside exposing your view and showing it as incorrect, you continue to misrepresent salvation in the post to McCree.

What is puzzling is the consistent demand for others to change, yet when you are repeatedly shown the error of your statements you repeat the error.

That is not logical.

 

Demonstate anything you said from scripture. You account of Mark contradicts Matthew which says only 1 soil understands. Mark also says only soil accepted . You are ignoring the very words of scripture. You have also yet to demonstate that this woman loved Jesus, but loved the darkness more. That was the challenge. Which account says the rich young man was seeking God? They all say he was seeking eternal life. That is not the same thing. The young man was shown to love wealth, not God.

You are reading things into Scripture that are not written.

Stop saying case closed. You do not have any qualification to declare such. You are doing nothing but grinding your theological axe. Everyone who knows actually knows Greek, who has posted here, are disagreeing with you conclusions? Why do you think that is? Is it more likely that we are all wrong about the translation process and that all major translations are makimg horrible mistakes (NASB included) or maybe.....just maybe....Van is wrong??? Which is more likely?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Where does it does it say "clear understanding"? It doesn't. You are reading that into the text. The only soil that "understands" is the fourth. To receive the message audibly with joy does not mean you understand what you have received. Only the 4th understood. Matthew is clear about that. You are attempting to read somthing from Scripture that is not there. Matthew does not say that the 2nd soil understood.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Post 128. You say he was seeking God for eternal life. Your own words van. Where does it sat he was seeking God?

When I asked for an example of someone who loved Jesus, but loved the darkeness more, you used the woman at the well as an example. It's Van vs. Van now. You not only seen to cause John to contradict John by a reckless rendering, but you contradict yourself.




Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You need to read the passage sir. All 4 soils ακούω but only one soil is said by Matthew to understand. Which soil does Matthew say συνιεις ? Only the 4th soil. Matthew said it not me. Mark says only the 4th soil παραδέχονται. Matthew and Mark disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Van was challened present support for his support that John3:19 indicated people just loved the light less than Jesus. He offered the woman at the well. Which he now seems will to retract. He offered the parable of the 4 soils. Which failed miserably. He offered the rich young ruler who sought eternal life. Seeking eternal life does equate loving God. He also offered a passage of Romans of Jews pursuing the law. Law does not equal Jesus or love.

The needless loose translation. Of Van produced a contradiction between John 3:19 and 3:20. Van is also unable to provide proof to support his rendering of 3:19 with other passages. I would would advise Van to leave the transaltion process to people who can read Greek.

*clarification...van wants 3:20 to read "love less" instead of "hate" in order to not contradict his version of 3:19

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk