Wonder why they chose to translate that as "people" vs men or mankind or humanity.

Zobel said:

---

Wonder why they chose to translate that as "people" vs men or mankind or humanity.

---

I have not looked up the original Greek yet. Will do shortly.

The Greek word is anthropos. I used the NIV. Some translations translate it as men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropos

Zobel said:

---

Yeah it's just feels like kind of a strange choice. Probably to be gender inclusive. I don't think "all people" has the force or clarity of "all mankind" or "all humanity".

---

Agree. But the theme is the same. The Gospel is good news for all mankind.

Don't forget to keep Titus 1:1 in mind.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Don't forget to keep Titus 1:1 in mind.

---

Very aware of it. You and I have a very different interpretation of what elect
means.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah it's just feels like kind of a strange choice. Probably to be gender inclusive. I don't think "all people" has the force or clarity of "all mankind" or "all humanity".

---

Agree. But the theme is the same. The Gospel is good news for all mankind.

---

Actually it's a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others. 1 Cor. 1:23

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah it's just feels like kind of a strange choice. Probably to be gender inclusive. I don't think "all people" has the force or clarity of "all mankind" or "all humanity".

---

Agree. But the theme is the same. The Gospel is good news for all mankind.

---

Actually it's a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others. 1 Cor. 1:23

---

Luke 2:10 comes to mind.

Great joy for ALL the people.

That word all sure shows up a lot in Scripture.

Now that one is people - laos, the people. It has an article, so I would say that one should be (all) of (the people). The people being the people of God.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah it's just feels like kind of a strange choice. Probably to be gender inclusive. I don't think "all people" has the force or clarity of "all mankind" or "all humanity".

---

Just don't read the (lowest common denominator) Common English Bible. The PC stuff is too much for me personally.
" The translators' goal is to produce a rendering of the Bible at the same reading level as the USA Today newspaper.[10]" (Wiki)

What do you attribute your decision to? Being smarter? Better parents?

"people" is in the NIV even.

How come us guys gotta make lidat? Cuz God wen show everybody he get good heart fo help dem, an dass why he can take everybody outa da bad kine stuff dey stay doing. Tit. 2:11 (Hawai'i Pidgin)

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What do you attribute your decision to? Being smarter? Better parents?

---

Hearing the Gospel from an early age. Parental influence. Raised in the church. But there are those with the same background who have fallen away.

Do a demographic search of Christianity and notice there are more Christians where there are strong Christian influences. If the Reformed view of election is correct, I would expect to see as many Christians in every country. Including Muslim ones.

And to me, this is a mystery that we will never understand until we are in the presence of the Lord. My problem with the Calvinists/Reformed is not so much the theology, but the insistence on everything is just the TULIP way or you are wrong. And in my experience, the feeling you are not even a "real" Christian.

Reformed theology emphasizes election and predestination in a way that was never done for 1500 years. And is the relatively small minority view today. But yet, they are convinced they are right and will not tolerate other views.

I am not the one saying I know it all and am completely right. They are. Almost like they are trying to convert Christians to Reformed. I have Reformed friends who went to places like Ukraine to try to "convert" Orthodox Christians to "real" Christianity.

And I want to make it clear, you are not like that at all. Very gracious.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What do you attribute your decision to? Being smarter? Better parents?

---

Hearing the Gospel from an early age. Parental influence. Raised in the church. But there are those with the same background who have fallen away.

---

So how do you explain the fact that there are numerous people that had this exact situation as you and did not come to the same conclusion? Was their gospel presentation not as good? Parents too lazy? Church not as committed? Just not as smart as you?

Honestly just curious what it boils down to for the Arminian/Semi Pelagian view if our free will is the deciding factor.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What do you attribute your decision to? Being smarter? Better parents?

---

Hearing the Gospel from an early age. Parental influence. Raised in the church. But there are those with the same background who have fallen away.

---

So how do you explain the fact that there are numerous people that had this exact situation as you and did not come to the same conclusion? Was their gospel presentation not as good? Parents too lazy? Church not as committed? Just not as smart as you?

Honestly just curious what it boils down for the Arminian/Semi Pelagian view if our free will is the deciding factor.

---

And may I ask why there are not more Christians in say Muslim countries. We are looking at this from different viewpoints. You are thinking locally with your friends, families, etc. I am thinking globally as I think that is how God works.

I don't know how we would even be able to say how many Christians are in any country.

My short answer would be that I guess its extremely hard for people to receive the gospel in Iran. Whether or not you are a Calvinist or Arminian is besides the point - both groups believe that the proclamation of the Word of God is how people are ultimately saved. They aren't going to believe something they are not even hearing. Calvinists don't believe that you wake up one day and all the sudden a Muslim has switched sides. Obviously God can do whatever he pleases and doesn't NEED man to go and save people, but this is the method in which He has chosen.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know how we would even be able to say how many Christians are in any country.

My short answer would be that I guess it's extremely hard for people to receive the gospel in Iran. Whether or not you are a Calvinist or Arminian is besides the point - both groups believe that the proclamation of the Word of God is how people are ultimately saved. They aren't going to believe something they are not even hearing. Calvinists don't believe that you wake up one day and all the sudden a Muslim has switched sides. Obviously God can do whatever he pleases and doesn't NEED man to go and save people, but this is the method in which He has chosen.

---

So define unconditional election. Would not that mean wherever you are you know you are saved? Why do you have to receive the Gospel if you are elected unconditionally?

I guess you are saying they are predestined to be saved yet do not know it? It just does not make sense to me,

And again, I do not think anyone knows exactly how all this works. My anecdotal experiences with Reformed/Calvinist is that they think they do.

Took it to another thread
#FREEWILLFRIDAY

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know how we would even be able to say how many Christians are in any country.

My short answer would be that I guess it's extremely hard for people to receive the gospel in Iran. Whether or not you are a Calvinist or Arminian is besides the point - both groups believe that the proclamation of the Word of God is how people are ultimately saved. They aren't going to believe something they are not even hearing. Calvinists don't believe that you wake up one day and all the sudden a Muslim has switched sides.

---

You might be incorrect on this point:
https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/good-news-iran-million-new-christian-believers-lela-gilbert

UTExan said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know how we would even be able to say how many Christians are in any country.

My short answer would be that I guess it's extremely hard for people to receive the gospel in Iran. Whether or not you are a Calvinist or Arminian is besides the point - both groups believe that the proclamation of the Word of God is how people are ultimately saved. They aren't going to believe something they are not even hearing. Calvinists don't believe that you wake up one day and all the sudden a Muslim has switched sides.

---

You might be incorrect on this point:
https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/good-news-iran-million-new-christian-believers-lela-gilbert

---

Praise the Lord!

dermdoc said:

---

UTExan said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know how we would even be able to say how many Christians are in any country.

My short answer would be that I guess it's extremely hard for people to receive the gospel in Iran. Whether or not you are a Calvinist or Arminian is besides the point - both groups believe that the proclamation of the Word of God is how people are ultimately saved. They aren't going to believe something they are not even hearing. Calvinists don't believe that you wake up one day and all the sudden a Muslim has switched sides.

---

You might be incorrect on this point:
https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/good-news-iran-million-new-christian-believers-lela-gilbert

---

Praise the Lord!

---

Amen.
Definitely hope I am incorrect!

Thank you, I did have a wonderful day.

Zobel said:

---

Wonder why they chose to translate that as "people" vs men or mankind or humanity.

---

"All people" is different than "people"

Strong's Greek 444, anthrpos, is usually used to refer to mankind.

Strong's Greek 435, anr, is typically used to refer specifically to a male.

anthrpos translated as "all people" makes sense here to me.

yes, the problem is all people to me reads two ways. one is all people as in a collection of each and every individual - all, applied to the set of people. the other is all people as in a collection of each and every people group - all, applied to the set of peoples. like all tribes, all types of people.

when you look up people in a modern dictionary you get it as a group of people, the plural of persons, some united body of persons, so on. that's not what anthropos means.

anthropos is mankind, humanity.

What if....

Verses 1-10 set up verses 11-12 by introducing all of these sorts of people...older men, older women, young women, younger men, and bondservants. Furthermore, what if Chapter 1 sets up Chapter 2? I think we have to read these letters as one continuous message and not necessarily extract a verse from its context. Not saying this makes it definitive of the meaning of "all men", but just some thoughts I had as I was reading the text this morning. At the very least it paves a path to show how someone could come to the reformed conclusion.

Titus 2:1-10
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

Titus 2:11-12
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age..."

Titus 1 begins with Paul's address to Titus who is greeting Timothy with the "faith of God's elect" and their pursuit of godliness in mind where he begins talking about qualifications for Elders within the Church. He then moves on to the topic of sound doctrine within the church. So for me, for Paul to jump to very discrete directions of overseers and teaching within the church to in verse 11 speaking all the sudden to every man, woman and child to ever walk the earth, seems a bit schizophrenic.

My problem is that it is a repetitive theme in Titus, 1 Timothy 2 3-4 and 4-10, Luke 2:10, and more. You have to explain a lot of "alls" away.

And I prefer calling it a Christian view rather than Reformed, Arminian, etc. I think the danger of that thought is you have a pre conceived theology and try to fit Scripture into that theology.

Zobel said:

---

yes, the problem is all people to me reads two ways. one is all people as in a collection of each and every individual - all, applied to the set of people. the other is all people as in a collection of each and every people group - all, applied to the set of peoples. like all tribes, all types of people.

when you look up people in a modern dictionary you get it as a group of people, the plural of persons, some united body of persons, so on. that's not what anthropos means.

anthropos is mankind, humanity.

---

Unnecessary semantic argument, in my opinion. I like mankind a little better, but see little difference.

If people is some group of individual persons, than all people is all groups of individual persons, which I find to be synonymous with mankind.

I see the distinction one may make, that some groups of people may not be included, that to be included you need to remove yourself from that group, but I don't see the value in making that argument.

I'm not sure if there is a Greek word for "all peoples" which I would argue in this vein is different from "all people." I would argue against an English interpretation of "all peoples," I guess.

dermdoc said:

---

My problem is that it is a repetitive theme in Titus, 1 Timothy 2 3-4 and 4-10, Luke 2:10, and more. You have to explain a lot of "alls" away.

And I prefer calling it a Christian view rather than Reformed, Arminian, etc. I think the danger of that thought is you have a pre conceived theology and try to fit Scripture into that theology.

---

I am not trying to explain the "alls" away. Just reading the letter in its entirety and for me it is hard to see it otherwise. I'm open to hearing an alternate way to look at it.

I do agree with the spirit of trying to approach it from the same lens.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

My problem is that it is a repetitive theme in Titus, 1 Timothy 2 3-4 and 4-10, Luke 2:10, and more. You have to explain a lot of "alls" away.

And I prefer calling it a Christian view rather than Reformed, Arminian, etc. I think the danger of that thought is you have a pre conceived theology and try to fit Scripture into that theology.

---

I am not trying to explain the "alls" away. Just reading the letter in its entirety and for me it is hard to see it otherwise. I'm open to hearing an alternate way to look at it.

I do agree with the spirit of trying to approach it from the same lens.

---

With my non Reformed lens, the entire letter makes perfect sense to me. The author gives examples of different types of people as examples about how God extends grace to all men.

It seems to me if it was limited to the elect, then the word elect would have appeared when describing these groups of people because with Reformed theology, all that matters is election, Not what group people belong to. Seems very inclusive to me.

Shouldn't the angels in Luke 2:10 proclaim it was good news for the elect? Instead of ALL the people?