[xzins]

Actually, what he said was "anthropoi." It meant everyone in that language at that time.

You are suggesting that the TRANSLATOR should have used the word "people" instead of "men."

The argument about "some" and "all," however, does not have that ready explanation available. The writer could have used a word other than "all" if he had intended something other than "all."

[connectthedots]

In that I use the NIV far more than any other version, and that the translators of that version being very knowledgable concerning the Greek and Hebrew languages; I assume that they used the best English words availabe to convey the intent of the original authors.

Maybe suzyaruki is simply unaware that the man, Edwin Palmer, who headed up the NIV effort was a staunch Calvinist. Clearly the usage of the word 'men' most often includes males and females unless they are specifically contrasted in a passage of scripture.

Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

Seems pretty obvious that 'men' includes both males and females.

[suzyjaruki]

Chaplain xzins,
If I thought that any meaningful dialogue could take place, then I would answer the question seriously. However, I believe that the only reason PM posted Spurgeon's comments and "pinged" me was to engage me in a discussion of "all" that has been beat to death in previous threads where he has been a participant.

I understand the difference between the Reformed view and the Arminian view in interpreting the passage in context. As my Senator (Boxer) says when I write to her, "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree."

Charles Spurgeon delivered a lot sermons and spoke a lot of words. I doubt that anyone would agree with everything he said.