Even your John Glen example shows a problem: one small step for man, one giant leap for ... many of us?" Well, which many? Americans but not Soviets, for example? The scandal cannot be written off even if it is not intended (and that's a principle we people of faith can often have trouble with). I agree that "many" could mean "all" --except of course, in this case, where "all" has been explicitly deleted in favor of "many."
If the pouring out of the blood refers to what Christ offers rather than acceptance of that offer then the correct indirect object is "all" rather than "many" -- unless we mean that Jesus's death is only a ransom for those who respond to it, who are admittedly "many" rather than "few," but still not "all."
Even your John Glen example shows a problem: one small step for man, one giant leap for ... many of us?" Well, which many? Americans but not Soviets, for example? The scandal cannot be written off even if it is not intended (and that's a principle we people of faith can often have trouble with). I agree that "many" could mean "all" --except of course, in this case, where "all" has been explicitly deleted in favor of "many."
boltorange 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
If the pouring out of the blood refers to what Christ offers rather than acceptance of that offer then the correct indirect object is "all" rather than "many" -- unless we mean that Jesus's death is only a ransom for those who respond to it, who are admittedly "many" rather than "few," but still not "all."
boltorange 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
WORSHIPING BREAD AND WINE, INSTEAD OF THE RISEN LORD AGAIN?! RETURN TO SCRIPTURE, AND LEAVE YOUR PAGANISM!
Menechem 4 months ago