Just because "world" can mean something else, does not mean that you disqualify another meaning, especially if its the literal meaning.

It will be like saying that just because love can mean lust. That when I tell someone that I love them, that it certainly cannot mean godly love since we know it can be translated as lust.

Yea. That's the same logical fallacy you fall into.

You gave me a list of possible meanings of world.

Good.

Now which of those meanings can be applied to John 3:16?

You will find that the answer is none. And once again you fall into a logical fallacy.

That's how they recently block my SA website (which I purchased) since it requires my first and last name to be together.

It is obvious that you view baptism with the same sacramental efficiency as the RC and thus it has not the slight resemblance to baby dedication.

The latest one was a guy by the name of Lurker who states that Jesus is King over kingdom that is in wicked havoc.

You can throw the sovereignty of God right out the window with that one.

Or how about praying to a god that will not hear your prayer because he already has all things predetermined. Now that's bizzare.

Or better yet how bizzare does one have to be to interpret "God so loved the world" into "God so loved a few" with a straight face.

Ha!

Is that one of those fabricated definitions that exist only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist?

It is apparent that you are not satisfied with my answer (not a bit surprised) but I have no clue what kind of answer you are looking for. Do you categorize every answer that you disagree with as a dishonest answer?

Or do you mean wrong answer.

You are one confused pup, I must say.

Zeal? I just gave you direct quotes from the passage that YOU chose, what more zeal do you want? It is certainly more zeal than what you have placed on the passage.

I gave you a three-part answer (I even numbered it for you for your mental convenience), now how about giving a rebuttal for a change?

For all your perplexing raving about honesty, I would think that you should care about intellectual honesty.

Or maybe, I am expecting too much from you.

All we need from you now is some substance.

Let me slow it down for you.

Actually, he has not been the first nor will he be the last. Its refreshing once in a while to meet a Calvinist who, although I may vehemently disagree, actually thinks for himself instead of drinking the same red koolaid that you are accustomed to.

Now here is something rich for you:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."