Discussion about the number of souls and John 3:5

I have reread John 3:5, 10 times, and finally see the subject being supplied.

Going to the appendix 6 supplied, and the side notes explaining, no article (which when it comes to the speech breakdown, I am pretty clueless) (and if I am correct, the ancient Greek reads right to left) the spirit is the adjective describing the water. Basically, what type of water it is. Spiritual.

So, it should read (if I am correct) spiritual water, not water and spirit.

We all know where and who the spiritual water comes from.


and when the “water of life” or “living water” is mentioned several places in script the context is clear and defined with no confusion apparent from Nicodemus . I will check that again (it’s been years). But, this is not really a deal breaker, as long as we know all souls come from God and created them.

1 Like

Not trying to correct anyone, just sharing what understanding I found in it. Sometimes I don’t look close enough at the speech breakdown which is important for the conversion to English.

Post some of the verses you talk of, and we can look them up one by one to see what we see in them.

what I first did was just a web search of " living water kjv" and “water of life kjv”. This gives results of scripture “commonly” known–lots of sources, but at least it gets the ball rolling. These were “phrases” or words I knew that were in the script. I just now searched “spiritual water kjv” and what mostly that gets is “commentary” sources as that is what that is. But, I’ll work later on this…Im at work on a very short break…I think once I retire in about 3 months, I should have more study time. I have read what bullinger said. Next, I will check what Moffitt says, but the strongs puts those words pretty accurately. and “born from above” which starts this whole subject matter leaves very little wiggle room.

Yes, the born from above is in Strong’s for “again”, but that is a different verse at the start of the conversation.
To me, now, verse 3 is inferring born heavenly, not staying in the flesh spiritually, but heavenly, which is what I think Christ explains in verse 5.

1 Like

companion bible works good here with the outline of chpt 3. I don’t pull out or put in other things before I read the whole complete thought and explanation as this seems to run pretty smoothly on its own (it was good that bullinger showed us the word for “born from above”—and really, it seems to me that that what brought the q&A up. Brandon has that source https://files.worldeventsandthebible.com/companion-bible/john.pdf

Not sure what you are saying here.

really just: I think the context as a whole starts with vs 1 in this chpt 3 (with not a lot of additionally stuff except the born of the spirit for the spiritual aspect. Both are spoken of…flesh and spirit (Christ). The subject keeps fixed and doesn’t change, only gets added value…the added value is Christ. edit: perhaps I’ll relate this to "A "seed that must have water to grow into a plant (~ to 1 Cor 15 using the “natural seed analogy” itself–via water (bag of waters or rain on the see) producing the flesh/plant…so here Christ is simply telling us we have to come thru the flesh, and get to the point where we chose Life (Him) in order to see the kingdom. I can’t unsee this myself, but its okay to see however you understand it.

1 Like

yes, we are not to stay as a flesh only clay pot. but that doesn’t mean we are not in a pot to being with (in the bag of waters).

Here’s just the overall of vs 1-21—(all) from Dr Bullinger----it all needs to stay together:
3. 1-21 ( W, p. 1517). EVENT. COLLOQUY WITH
NICODEMUS. (Repeated Alternation.)
W XI 1 1, 2. Nicodemus. AdYllission.
YI I :i. The Lord. Answer. Stated.
X2 I i. Nicodemus. Question. · " How.? "
Y2 I 6-�. The Lord. Answer. Repeated.
X3 I 9 . Nicodemus. Question. " How ? ".
Y3 1 10 -21. The Lord. Answer. Confirmed

I don’t believe I am separating anything. I agree it flows; it just depends on what anyone thinks the word meanings are.
Maybe this was stated before, but when Nicodemus asked Christ how, he didn’t ask how he could be born from heaven, he asked how he can be born in the flesh over again. From his mother. (I saw this in the Moffit also) (To me, Christ would have been speaking in the dialect that Nicodemus understood) Christ then states it differently to him by using the term, “spiritual water” (in how you must be born) according to Bullinger’s grammar explanation.

If we are going to use Bullinger for the flow, then water is only used once meaning spiritual water, Holy Spirit, Christ, not bag of water from a flesh birth.

When going to the Moffit, some say the term “again” means “anew”. (Born anew, hence, old self dies) It depends on which word someone wants to pull out of the Strong’s and plug it in.

I saw this many times before, one time it was the first definition in Strong’s, other times it was taken to the 4th level base word. It was never consistent even though there were other root avenues to use. The one that fit the narrative was the one used even if it took the meaning off course. The problem is which one is the true narrative for lack of a better word.

If we use the word “above”, for “again”, the narrative came be, soul sent from heaven to be born into flesh, so on and so forth. If we take away the Hendiadys, and separate water and spirit, we can plug that in too and it all flows.
Now if we use “anew” for “again” then it totally changes the context of what is being said, along with using the Hendiadys, spiritual water.

Even if the “again” is to be “above”, the water part has to be left out of it due to the proper grammar shown for water and spirit in the appendix. So, the “above” could still be implying, heavenly, spiritual, not flesh minded. Again, Christ’s come back to Nicodemus was strictly spiritual.

Wanted to add, nothing here is said to offend, just stating how I perceive the topic

1 Like

this is what Strongs says: The KJV translates Strong’s G509 in the following manner: from above (5x), top (3x), again (2x), from the first (1x), from the beginning (1x), not translated (1x). and ἄνωθεν ánōthen, an’-o-then; from G507; from above; by analogy, from the first; by implication, anew:—from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top. Its only used 13 times, so I looked at those each time. I think the structure of the whole discussion in John 3, is to be keep together and on topic. I didn’t have much trouble when I first read this, which was with my pastor’s study decades ago…other than it was so easy on my mind if even “new”, I tried to prove and disprove it…I can’t and couldn’t. But most commentaries will agree with how you read it. I don’t think this will cause us to fall to satan anyway. We must come thru Christ, since Christ, by our choice (our spirit)…John 3:16 for the faith period (flesh) for eternal life–then the millennium (not flesh, not faith) period for those that didn’t have the opportunity. The opposite is death of the soul eventually. I’m not sure how my cut and past of the strongs stuff is looking.

1 Like

[quote=“sNOwflakes, post:31, topic:576”]
To me, Christ would have been speaking in the dialect that Nicodemus understood
[/quote] But also, Christ was speaking to all of us as well.

Jhn 3:31

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Same word.

1 Like

What I see here is what happens when we insert things into Scripture. It all becomes so confusing. We go seeking out answers from men, when the answer is right there on the page. We just don’t want to accept it. Once we believe a certain way so long, it’s hard to unsee.

I asked several questions earlier on, hoping to get some focus on the sole purpose and subject of Jesus words. Those critical questions were a missed opportunity.

The fact of the matter is, no where did Jesus talk about fallen angels here. If you were correct Linda, then Jesus was telling Nicodemus he couldn’t be a fallen angel in order to be saved. That has no place in Scripture. It’s purely and completely made up doctrine.

  • Are you telling me Jesus couldn’t tell that Nicodemus wasn’t a fallen angel?
  • Did Jesus have a doubt, and that’s why He explained this to Nicodemus?
  • If so, why didn’t Jesus cast him out like all the other miracles?

We all know, Jesus had no problem identifying evil spirits.

Everyone really has to exam their beliefs, not only what they mean for a verse, but how they interlink with the rest of Scripture.

Jesus could tell he wasn’t a fallen angel, as he was there in the flesh, born into (placed) in the flesh.