TULIP from the 2021 NRSV Updated Edition

[Charlie24]

How can one preach from something that has not yet been written? (Like..???)

And while Paul no doubt used OT references (of no doubt) he certainly didn't have scrolls of Mat. Mark and Luke lying around. He even said that the gospel he preached was not taught to him by people (and that would include the apostles in Jerusalem).

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)... I'm sure you know the rest...


Just to be clear I have never said that the Word of God was not contained in the Bible.

But I would ask that this particular discussion be continued in the thread that I created for such.

Thanks,
Rhema

Paul had already been given the revelation from Christ. Although he had not revealed that revelation in his letters, he had it in his knowledge. He received it long before the 12 apostles.

Eph. 3:1-4
"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

This mystery given to Paul was the meaning and understanding of the New Covenant in Christ's Blood.

When the Council at Jerusalem took place In Acts 15, the 12 apostles were trying to figure out what to do with the Gentiles that were being saved, if they should be held to the Law of Moses or not, Paul had already received the revelation from Christ, had already been on his 1st missionary journey to the Gentiles, and knew what was to be done. But Paul didn't have the authority as the 12, and had to submit himself to the 12's decision.

Paul was light years ahead of the 12 in knowledge of the New Covenant. This is the knowledge he already had shortly after his conversion and revealed to all in his epistles.

 

[Rhema]

Paul had already been given the revelation from Christ. Although he had not revealed that revelation in his letters, he had it in his knowledge. He received it long before the 12 apostles.

......

Paul was light years ahead of the 12 in knowledge of the New Covenant. This is the knowledge he already had shortly after his conversion and revealed to all in his epistles.

So you're saying that Jesus did a flat out crappy job in teaching his apostles.

Okeay??? ......

That's a .... perspective...

Rhema

 

[Dylan569]

1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Are you saying those (anyone, whosoever) believes in Jesus have NOT been "appointed, destined" for salvation?

Your exact sentence in your post reads: "Everyone, or anyone who believes in Jesus is "appointed" for salvation." and then you quoted John 3:16. The biblical teaching is that "Everyone, or anyone who believes in Jesus had already been "appointed" for salvation." If you had quoted 1 Th. 5:9, in context there would not be a problem, but you based your quote on John 3:16. Those who had been appointed, destined, foreordained for salvation became believers and the biblical order must be kept to be accurate.

 

[Charlie24]

So you're saying that Jesus did a flat out crappy job in teaching his apostles.

Okeay??? ......

That's a .... perspective...

Rhema

LOL, no, and I don't appreciate your placing words in my mouth, Rhema!

Christ chose the great apostle Paul to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant to the world.

That's why He gave Paul so much space in the NT Scripture to do so.

Over time the 12 got there, and in fact learned much it from the apostle Paul.

 

[Dylan569]

That's true and I agree, but let's see what was "destined/appointed" for those in Acts 13:48.

1 Tim. 2:3-4
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

First we must establish that God wants all men/women to be saved. There can be no doubt here that God wants ALL men/women to be saved. But all men/women will not be saved because of free will and the God given choice to accept or refuse His sacrifice for sins.

Now let's take a look at how God provides that salvation.

When you were saved, Dylan, before you were born, before God created this universe, through His foreknowledge He knew the very day you would be born into this world, and the very day you would believe and accept Christ as your Savior

He provided for you a day when you would hear the Gospel, that moment in history was designed specifically for you. It was not by chance that you were there at that appointed time to hear that Gospel, or that the person who provided that Gospel for you did their part.

"and as many as were ordained/appointed to eternal life believed."

The same thing took place in Acts 13:48. It was not by chance that Paul and Barnabas were there preaching the Gospel, it was not by chance that those particular people were there to hear that Gospel.

It was God's appointed moment for those particular people to hear the Gospel, it was the provision by God for those who would believe to be saved. This moment was predestined before the foundation of the world, just as your moment was predestined.

"and as many as were ordained/appointed to eternal life believed."

As many in that crowd whose moment had come for salvation, totally provided by God through His foreknowledge, believed and were saved.

Charlie, I have already answered this in post #40 on this past Thursday. You need to do a study on the biblical concept of God's foreknowledge, in this thread: Post #15 on last Monday.

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie, I have already answered this in post #40 on this past Thursday. You need to do a study on the biblical concept of God's foreknowledge, in this thread: Post #15 on last Monday.

We're going to disagree either way. You are convinced and so am I, and we disagree.

This is why I have emphasized that it's not being correct in doctrine that saves the soul, thank God.

It's our faith in Christ apart from our doctrinal beliefs that saves the soul.

 

[Rhema]

LOL, no, and I don't appreciate your placing words in my mouth, Rhema!

My apologies. I ought to have ended with a question mark.

Christ chose the great apostle Paul to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant to the world.

Christ chose the Twelve to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant to the world. (Okay, the Eleven.)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:16-20 KJV)

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.​

(Acts 2:42 KJV)

Was Paul anywhere there? No.

That's why He gave Paul so much space in the NT Scripture to do so.

That's a bit like saying that the Catholics must be right because God gave them 1,500 years of time, instead of the mere 500 years for the Protestants.

I strongly doubt (and would encourage you to reconsider) the presumption that "word count" equates to truth. And I just cannot understand the Christian mindset that believes the words of Paul are more important than the words of the Messiah Himself, the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Over time the 12 got there, and in fact learned much it from the apostle Paul.

Which is to say that Jesus was a lousy teacher and the Eleven were clueless.

But "much"? The Apostles learned MUCH from Paul?

Where? Not even the book of Acts supports this absolutely outlandish claim. BUT, show me the proof and convince me otherwise. It shouldn't be hard.

Paul himself said that he hardly interacted with any of the Apostles:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.​

(Galatians 1:15-20 KJV)

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.​

(Galatians 2:1 KJV)

So then just how could the Apostles learn much from a guy they never spent time with?

Who would have known Jesus more? His own brother James? Peter, his "right hand" in the ministry? Or some guy having visions? All I'm asking is for a reasonable perspective.

Perplexed,
Rhema

PS: And it's a rather dang shame that the author of Acts didn't actually record the reasons why Paul and Barnabas had such a dispute.

 

[Charlie24]

My apologies. I ought to have ended with a question mark.


Christ chose the Twelve to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant to the world. (Okay, the Eleven.)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:16-20 KJV)

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.​

(Acts 2:42 KJV)

Was Paul anywhere there? No.


That's a bit like saying that the Catholics must be right because God gave them 1,500 years of time, instead of the mere 500 years for the Protestants.

I strongly doubt (and would encourage you to reconsider) the presumption that "word count" equates to truth. And I just cannot understand the Christian mindset that believes the words of Paul are more important than the words of the Messiah Himself, the Son of God, Jesus Christ.


Which is to say that Jesus was a lousy teacher and the Eleven were clueless.

But "much"? The Apostles learned MUCH from Paul?

Where? Not even the book of Acts supports this absolutely outlandish claim. BUT, show me the proof and convince me otherwise. It shouldn't be hard.

Paul himself said that he hardly interacted with any of the Apostles:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.​

(Galatians 1:15-20 KJV)

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.​

(Galatians 2:1 KJV)

So then just how could the Apostles learn much from a guy they never spent time with?

Who would have known Jesus more? His own brother James? Peter, his "right hand" in the ministry? Or some guy having visions? All I'm asking is for a reasonable perspective.

Perplexed,
Rhema

PS: And it's a rather dang shame that the author of Acts didn't actually record the reasons why Paul and Barnabas had such a dispute.

If you can't understand, then you can't understand.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt Paul was given the revelation from Christ while the 12 were confused that the Gentiles could even be saved.

That's a fact of Scripture. Paul knew this long before they did.

Arguing with you is like arguing with one of those fence posts out there in the pasture.

 

[Curtis]

But "much"? The Apostles learned MUCH from Paul?

Gal 1:11 For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man's gospel [a human invention, according to or patterned after any human standard].
Gal 1:12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah). (AMP)

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[Rhema]

If you can't understand, then you can't understand.

Sorry Charlie, I understand quite a lot more than you realize.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt Paul was given the revelation from Christ while the 12 were confused that the Gentiles could even be saved.

That's a fact of Scripture. Paul knew this long before they did.

And yet Peter recounts a well documented vision with evidentiary proof that the Gentiles can be both saved AND baptized in the Holy Spirit well before Paul ever said he got to Jerusalem, the uh... FACT of Acts 10.

Arguing with you is like arguing with one of those fence posts out there in the pasture.

And you would have experience to know this how? (Argue much with fence posts? )

I'm Just posting scripture (and would wish you'd read it with the blinders off....)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

(Acts 15:7 KJV)

So Peter was lying.... (almost forgot... ???? )

Kindly,
Rhema
PS: It doesn't look like Paul got around to the gentiles until chapter 13:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.​

(Acts 13:46 KJV)

And then Paul attributed the prophecy of Isaiah to himself !!!!

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.​

(Acts 13:47 KJV)

... a sentiment which Paul repeated in chapter 22. Step back and take a broad view. His speech to the Hebrews was going pretty well until Paul went and said this:

And he (God) said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.​

(Acts 22:21 KJV)

Then the riot broke out.

 

[Rhema]

Gal 1:11 For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man's gospel [a human invention, according to or patterned after any human standard].
Gal 1:12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah). (AMP)

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Well thank you for the scripture, Curtis, but nothing you've quoted says anything about Paul teaching MUCH of the Gospel to the Twelve, as if the entirety of Jesus' ministry went for naught amongst the Twelve and they were clueless until Paul came along.

The Acts 28 Christians believe this, though, that only Paul really understood what Jesus taught.

God bless,
Rhema

 

[Charlie24]

Gal 1:11 For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made known by me is not man's gospel [a human invention, according to or patterned after any human standard].
Gal 1:12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah). (AMP)

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptu James said this to the Council in Acts

Sorry Charlie, I understand quite a lot more than you realize.


And yet Peter recounts a well documented vision with evidentiary proof that the Gentiles can be both saved AND baptized in the Holy Spirit well before Paul ever said he got to Jerusalem, the uh... FACT of Acts 10.


And you would have experience to know this how? (Argue much with fence posts? )

I'm Just posting scripture (and would wish you'd read it with the blinders off....)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

(Acts 15:7 KJV)

So Peter was lying.... (almost forgot... ???? )

Kindly,
Rhema
PS: It doesn't look like Paul got around to the gentiles until chapter 13:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.​

(Acts 13:46 KJV)

And then Paul attributed the prophecy of Isaiah to himself !!!!

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.​

(Acts 13:47 KJV)

... a sentiment which Paul repeated in chapter 22. Step back and take a broad view. His speech to the Hebrews was going pretty well until Paul went and said this:

And he (God) said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.​

(Acts 22:21 KJV)

Then the riot broke out.

I've already explained this but you'll have none of it. That's fine with me.

It wasn't the inner most circle of Peter, James , and John that Christ chose to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant.

It was Paul that was given around 1/3 of the NT Scripture to do that.

That was because the details of that information was given to him to give to us.

Paul was the chosen for that task, as Christ told Ananias in Acts 9:15-16,

"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."

Paul suffered more than the rest because he was given more than the rest in knowledge.

 

[Curtis]

Well thank you for the scripture, Curtis, but nothing you've quoted says anything about Paul teaching MUCH of the Gospel to the Twelve, as if the entirety of Jesus' ministry went for naught amongst the Twelve and they were clueless until Paul came along.

The Acts 28 Christians believe this, though, that only Paul really understood what Jesus taught.

God bless,
Rhema

1Co 3:10 According to the grace (the special endowment for my task) of God bestowed on me, like a skillful architect and master builder I laid [the] foundation, and now another [man] is building upon it. But let each [man] be careful how he builds upon it,
1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is [already] laid, which is Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). (AMP)

 

[Rhema]

It wasn't the inner most circle of Peter, James , and John that Christ chose to reveal the meaning of the New Covenant.

So Jesus had no idea what he was talking about when he commanded the "Twelve" to spread the Gospel ??
That Jesus commanded the Twelve to spread a Gospel about which they did not understand the meaning ??
And how would Jesus not know this?? (That they had no idea about the meaning fo the new Covenant.)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, ... And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:16-20 KJV)

I've already explained this but you'll have none of it

Scripture has already plainly explained this to you, but you'll have none of it.

That's fine with me.

And I hope that's fine with your master. As for me, I am just not as courageous as you are to deny (before men) Jesus and the Gospel that Jesus commanded the disciples to teach to all nations BEFORE HIS ascension. I see that as not only reckless, but even dangerous.

In peace,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

1Co 3:10 According to the grace (the special endowment for my task) of God bestowed on me, like a skillful architect and master builder I laid [the] foundation, and now another [man] is building upon it. But let each [man] be careful how he builds upon it,
1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is [already] laid, which is Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). (AMP)

Thank you Curtis.

Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:​

(Romans 15:20 KJV)

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Dylan569]

"@Charlie24 - The word so sloppily slung around as "ordained" or "destined" or "appointed" is τάσσω (G5021)."

I'm sure that anything I present will be "sloppily slung around." How could it be any other way?

The bottom line is that they were "appointed" to eternal life because they believed (the Word of God/vs, 44) that Paul and Barnabas preached.

Charlie, when I see such statements as you have written being stated by so many, I can't help but wonder, 'Is this ignorance of basic English grammar something coming out of the government school system, or does such twisting of grammar just exist in order to embrace a theology that is not stated in the verse, or is contradicted by it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, with any standard English translation of Acts 13:48, can you come up with: "The bottom line is that they were "appointed" to eternal life because they believed"! Correct English grammar blocks such a perversion of the verse.

 

[Dylan569]

Brethren, I know I can come across as unkind or unloving in many of my replies. It comes from such frustration at seeing the rules of grammar and interpretation so casually ignored as if accurate transference of God's truths is really insignificant. Since scholars in the Hebrew and Greek through the centuries have striven to present us with accurate English translations, how can we just toss aside their work as if it is insignificant? Why worry about accuracy of the translations if we aren't going to put our best effort into the doctrines presented in God's word?

Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart
"Just as the principles of grammar enable the student to correct errors in his customary speech, the laws of hermeneutics serve to rectify many mistakes of interpretation. They remind the interpreter of numerous duties respecting his work that he had neglected, although he may have known them; and they teach him certain features of interpretation that he had not before known. Most people are honest in their understanding of the Scriptures, but their mistakes spring from ignorance of the simplest principles that ought to guide the interpreter. The masses of the people do not even know that there are well recognized canons of interpretation." page 15

https://icotb.org/books/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2Pe 1:20-21 NRSVue

If the written word is what was spoken by God, isn't imperative that we are honest with ourselves to work at understanding what God spoke?

Basic English Grammar

English Grammar Rules

This is a quick English grammar overview for anyone confused or curious about the basics of English grammar. You can download the PDF here. Index

www.englishgrammar.org

An English Sentence Analyser

English Sentence Analyser

www.lexisrex.com

At 82 I must consult various helps because I have forgotten "rules", or I need help understanding such things as what the old English in the KJV "believeth" truly means and why the literal translations read "believing" instead of the simple "believe"? A couple years ago I had to research rules of English grammar to grasp something that had not been a common understanding in my mind for many years and I speak of John 3:16 specifically. This sort of study I need often to make sure I am not erring.

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie, when I see such statements as you have written being stated by so many, I can't help but wonder, 'Is this ignorance of basic English grammar something coming out of the government school system, or does such twisting of grammar just exist in order to embrace a theology that is not stated in the verse, or is contradicted by it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, with any standard English translation of Acts 13:48, can you come up with: "The bottom line is that they were "appointed" to eternal life because they believed"! Correct English grammar blocks such a perversion of the verse.

Ok, just disregard that Christ came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

There are several others you will have to ignore. But if you don't ignore them, then you'll begin to understand that something is seriously wrong with Calvinism.

As I have said earlier, I'm no longer going to push this with the Calvinists, they are justified by faith in Christ just as I am, they are my brothers and sisters. I have learned that I no longer have an argument with them.

 

[Rhema]

Since scholars in the Hebrew and Greek through the centuries have striven to present us with accurate English translations, how can we just toss aside their work as if it is insignificant?

Not insignificant, just wrong. Because they didn't know any better.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.

have striven to present us with accurate English translations

How could one even begin to present an accurate English translation if one is clueless about the dialect in which a manuscript is written?

It comes from such frustration at seeing the rules of grammar and interpretation so casually ignored...

But you don't know Greek. I've asked you directly and on more than one occasion if you could read Greek, and your silence speaks VOLUMES. And if one starts to base one's interpretation on the rules of English grammar, then you'll likely impale yourself on what is known as an artifact. And (if I recall correctly) when the King's English was explained with regards to the antecedent noun of a modifying clause (a thing that doesn't quite exist in Greek given the rule of gender matching) you even rejected that rule of English grammar.

So before complaining about others, you might want to double check your own work and proofread it a couple of times. You've denigrated the Liddell Scott Lexicon (which at least allows me to link in source proofs) while promoting Thayer's (which was obsolete at the date of publication) and the BDAG, a rather insular and biased lexicon, living in its own Evangelical Bubble. Surely you'll also trash Kittel's TDNT as well, and likely the Cambridge Greek Lexicon. So be it.

the laws of hermeneutics serve to rectify many mistakes of interpretation.

Whenever I see someone post about hermeneutics, I can rest assured that they are merely throwing out a big word to bluster others from noting their true lack of education and inherent cognitive impairment; as if anyone is intelligent enough create an unbiased hermeneutic.

There's a blind spot in hermeneutics that its proponents seem almost physiologically incapable of seeing, as if these "laws" or systems of analysis and interpretation don't, in and of themselves, shape and alter the resulting interpretation.

Hermeneutics ignores its equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that the act of measuring alters that which is being measured. In essence, the application of laws of interpretation (this Hermeneutic thing) alters the resulting interpretation by the imposition of the rigid structure and laws that are applied, creating what should be known as a Hermeneutic Bias. No matter how dressed up in academic terminology, it's still a bias. And putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.

Why worry about accuracy of the translations if we aren't going to put our best effort into the doctrines presented in God's word?

Why worry about any of it if you are fundamentally wrong about what God's word is ??

Do you think Christ was teaching classes about hermeneutics to his disciples? And was oh so worried that they'd forget to use accurate rules of grammar? I propose something radical... that we let the words of Christ speak for themselves.

When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you are to defend yourselves or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to say."​

(Luke 12:11-12 NRSVA)

And if accurate rules of grammar were so critical to scripture, then Revelation should be thrown out summarily.

A couple years ago I had to research rules of English grammar to grasp something that had not been a common understanding in my mind for many years and I speak of John 3:16 specifically. This sort of study I need often to make sure I am not erring.

If you're not looking at the Greek manuscripts, you might be fooling yourself. But I can allow that you're trying to do your best.

God's peace,
Rhema
And with regards to John 3:16 you are most welcome to present your translation as I do here:

ουτως (IN THIS WAY) γαρ (FOR) ηγαπησεν (LOVES) ο (THE) θεος (GOD) τον (THE) κοσμον (COSMOS) ωστε (THAT) τον (THE) υιον (SON) αυτου (OF HIM) τον (THE) μονογενη (ONLY PHYSICALLY BORN ONE) εδωκεν (HE APPOINTED*) ινα (IN ORDER THAT) πας (ALL) ο (THE) πιστευων (BELIEVING ONES) εις (INTO) αυτον (HIM) μη (NOT) αποληται (MIGHT PERISH) αλλ (BUT) εχη (HAVE) ζωην (LIFE) αιωνιον (ETERNAL).​

* Liddell and Scott -

A. II. 5. appoint, establish, of a priest​

 

[Bethel]

God makes CHRISTians

Calvin makes Calvinists.