Let GOD Be GOD!

[OldRegular]

Thanks Archangel. I looked up the Greek word translated "ordained" in Thayers but since I don't understand Greek I thought any comment I could make using Thayers would not be helpful.

I generally am very content with the English translation of the Bible and am partial to KJV. I have on occasion, even on this Forum, found that those who understand the Greek can and do offer helpful comments.

 

[Skandelon]

You know its interesting how Calvinists make no qualms about changing passages such as, "19 that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them," to mean, "God was reconciling "all kinds of people" in world..."

And "God so loved the world," to mean, "God so loved the elect of the world."

And "whosoever believes in him shall not perish," to mean "whosoever God elects to believe"

And "He died to sin once for all," to mean, "once for all the elect."

And "will draw all men to himself," to mean "will draw all kinds of men to himself."

And "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all," to mean, "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all kind of people."

And "God is not willing that any should perish, but all to come to repentance," to mean, "God is not willing that any of his elect should perish, but all his elect to come to repentance."

ETC ETC ETC...

But you bring up Acts 13:48 into the discussion and all of the sudden they become sticklers for not allowing any type of qualification, despite the clear contextual clues that indicate that the author was clearly addressing nations in a general sense. And if one considers, as I explained, and as many scholars acknowledge, that Gentiles are made up of many INDIVIDUAL nations, and the term "as many as" could very likely be in reference to those INDIVIDUAL nations and not necessarily to individual people. But can we expect all Calvinists to be objective and actually consider the viability of any interpretation that doesn't fit their adopted system?

 

[OldRegular]

That is nonsense. Since when can a "nation" believe? Since when has a "nation" been chosen to eternal life?

Not even all the nation Israel were chosen to eternal life. The only places in Scripture that I am aware of that uses nation in rehard to eternal life or salvation are:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I believe here that Jesus Christ is referring to the Church.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

It is obvious here that Peter is referring to the redeemed, the Church.

 

[olegig]

Well, that isn't so.....

So, your "idea" that it is taking place in "real time" is incorrect.....

It does not mean what you think it means.

I do appreciate your divine intervention into the matter and will take your scholarly words in advisement tainted only by the condescension of the delivery.

There are many opinions concerning the matter and you are certainly free to have one.

It is my opinion the Gentiles of vs 48 were saved the week before in vs 42 and God saved them in light of Rom 2:7.
Then, since they were saved, they were ordained to eternal life because they had believed what they had heard the week before and on the basis of Rom 10:14-17 hearing leads to belief.

I see nothing in the passage that would lead one to feel all this took place in eternity past, and not in real time.

Blessings to you also

 

[The Archangel]

I do appreciate your divine intervention into the matter and will take your scholarly words in advisement tainted only by the condescension of the delivery.

There are many opinions concerning the matter and you are certainly free to have one.

It is my opinion the Gentiles of vs 48 were saved the week before in vs 42 and God saved them in light of Rom 2:7.
Then, since they were saved, they were ordained to eternal life because they had believed what they had heard the week before and on the basis of Rom 10:14-17 hearing leads to belief.

I see nothing in the passage that would lead one to feel all this took place in eternity past, and not in real time.

Blessings to you also

No condescension was meant. The text is the text--the passive and the perfect are there and they mean what they mean.

It cannot be the case that the persons in v. 48 were saved the week before in v. 42. In v. 42, you have Paul in the synagogue. In v. 48 the scene is completely different.

Also, the language of v. 48 says plainly "when they heard this," what Paul was preaching and that salvation was available to the Gentiles, they began rejoicing and glorifying God. This had not been going on for a week, this was new.

Again, it simply doesn't mean what you say it means. Sorry about that and I don't mean any condescension.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

That is nonsense. Since when can a "nation" believe? Since when has a "nation" been chosen to eternal life?

Individuals within the nations believe. Read Romans 11 and Paul explains this, you remember, the passage you don't like to discuss. Israel is being cut off while the Gentiles are being grafted in. Read the context of Acts 13 and its clearly about the Jews rejection and the Gentile nations accepting the gospel...in general.

Not even all the nation Israel were chosen to eternal life.

I never said they were. The nations are chosen to receive the covenant, or appeal to be reconciled to God. They individually choose whether or not to accept that appeal.

A nation that is cut off no longer sees, hears, or understands the appeal to be reconciled because they have become hardened to it. But the nations being grafted in can see, hear, understand and believe. The Gentile nations that were appointed to eternal life...meaning all the individual nations that God had purposed to be saved through faith were proving it by that faith.

You have to remember that the debate of that day was not about whether God was choosing to save one individual over another. The debate of that day was whether or not God had chosen to make salvation possible for any other nation except Israel.

 

[OldRegular]

Individuals within the nations believe. Read Romans 11 and Paul explains this, you remember, the passage you don't like to discuss.

You are misrepresenting what I said but that is very common on this Forum. I simply said it would be better to take Romans 11 one topic at a time.

You have to remember that the debate of that day was not about whether God was choosing to save one individual over another. The debate of that day was whether or not God had chosen to make salvation possible for any other nation except Israel.

The invitation of the Gospel was always, and still is, to individuals. Besides that debate had been settled by the Apostles in Acts 10 and 11!

 

[Skandelon]

The invitation of the Gospel was always, and still is, to individuals. Besides that debate had been settled by the Apostles in Acts 10 and 11!

I agree, and the fact that you even say that shows you have yet to attempt to understand the non-Calvinistic perspective.

 

[OldRegular]

I agree, and the fact that you even say that shows you have yet to attempt to understand the non-Calvinistic perspective.

I understood Freewillism before GOD ever revealed the truth to me about Salvation; the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace

 

[olegig]

It cannot be the case that the persons in v. 48 were saved the week before in v. 42. In v. 42, you have Paul in the synagogue. In v. 48 the scene is completely different.

To fully appreciate the whole text I feel one must go back to vs 26 of Acts 13:

26Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Please note in the above the audience of Paul.
It is "Men and brethern, children of the stock of Abraham,"...
This would be reference to the children of Israel present.
And then the text says:
"...and whosoever among you feareth God"......
IMO this is reference to the Gentiles mentioned in vs 42.

Now we have established there were Gentiles present who heard the message of Paul preached from vs 16 to vs 41.
Then in vs 42 we see this same message did not intrigue the Jews(they left), but lead the Gentiles present only want to hear more the next week.

42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

It is my understanding the "sabbath" means every Saturday; therefore the "next sabbath" would be the next week.

We also see in vs 43 that many of the Jews and proselytes (the Gentiles) followed Paul and Barnabas who persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.(this was the first encounter, not the next sabbath of vs 44)

43Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

I must ask: How could they continue in the grace of God if they were not in it already?
Therefore it is my opinion they were saved at the first hearing of the words from Paul, at the first encounter.

It was the "next sabbath" (vs 44) when they were told in vs 48 that they were ordained to eternal life because they had believed the message they heard the previous week.

Again, it simply doesn't mean what you say it means.

On the basis of the text I do feel it means they were saved on the basis of what they heard at the first encounter and not on the basis of a degree from eternity past.

Sorry about that and I don't mean any condescension.

I understand your apology; but question whether it is genuine on the basis of the sentence just preceding it.

 

[Winman]

If you want to call the gift of "saving faith" a privilege I will go along with that. I am just glad to see that you have finally come to realize the Biblical truth that "saving faith" is the gift of GOD and not inherent in man.

I will say that saving faith is a gift in that without the scriptures man would not have the knowledge of Christ, he would have no object to place faith in. I would say the scriptures are the power of God to convict a man and lead him to repentance. But I believe all men have the "ability" to believe. And this ability was given to all men by God. When it comes down to it, everything is a gift of God, we wouldn't even exist without God.

Where we differ is that you believe God must give man the ability to believe the gospel through regeneratation, where I believe God gave all men, even the unregenerate the ability to believe.

The problem with your belief is that it makes God responsible for sin. Unbelief is sin. According to your doctrine, God cursed man so that he no longer had the ability to believe. This would make God respsonsible for unbelief.

My doctrine is quite different. If every man has the God-given ability to believe, then a man is absolutely responsible for believing the gospel or not. Man is the cause and responsible for his own sin, not God.

You think your doctrine honors God but does not. It actually blames God for sin and releases man from responsibility.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman

I can explain why some believe and others do not. You can't!

 

[Winman]

Winman

I can explain why some believe and others do not. You can't!

I have explained it to you a dozen times, but you refuse to believe scripture.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Some men love darkness, they love sin. They know Jesus is going to tell them to turn from sin and they don't want to do that. They enjoy the temporary pleasures and rewards of sin. They also do not want to be reproved or convicted for their sin. They are proud, believing themselves good and do not want to accept that their deeds are evil.

You can persist in saying I have not answered you, but Jesus himself said why men do not come to him, they love darkness. You simply refuse to accept what scripture clearly says.

 

[OldRegular]

Some men love darkness, they love sin. They know Jesus is going to tell them to turn from sin and they don't want to do that. They enjoy the temporary pleasures and rewards of sin. They also do not want to be reproved or convicted for their sin. They are proud, believing themselves good and do not want to accept that their deeds are evil.

Before you were saved did you sin? Did you love to sin? I must assume that you did since Scripture states as much! So what made you accept Jesus Christ?

 

[The Archangel]

To fully appreciate the whole text I feel one must go back to vs 26 of Acts 13:

26Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Please note in the above the audience of Paul.
It is "Men and brethern, children of the stock of Abraham,"...
This would be reference to the children of Israel present.
And then the text says:
"...and whosoever among you feareth God"......
IMO this is reference to the Gentiles mentioned in vs 42.

I will agree that there were Gentile converts to Judaism in v. 26. "Those of you who fear God" is a clear reference to that.

Now we have established there were Gentiles present who heard the message of Paul preached from vs 16 to vs 41.
Then in vs 42 we see this same message did not intrigue the Jews(they left), but lead the Gentiles present only want to hear more the next week.

42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

It is my understanding the "sabbath" means every Saturday; therefore the "next sabbath" would be the next week.

In v. 42 the words "Jews" and "Gentles" are not present in the text. The ESV gets the translation better "As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath." Though, this is still not absolutely in-line with the Greek as "The people" is not present. "The people is inserted in the ESV to communicate the third-person, plural, imperfect of the verb "begged." So, the "they" of the third-person, plural verb is referring to all who were in the place that Paul was speaking.

So, this is one area where the translation you are using (KJV?) is incorrect--and in a very bad way.

And yes, the next sabbath would be the next week. However, the Gentiles don't observe the Sabbath...the God-fearers (converts to Judaism) would, but not the whole of the Gentiles.

We also see in vs 43 that many of the Jews and proselytes (the Gentiles) followed Paul and Barnabas who persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.(this was the first encounter, not the next sabbath of vs 44)

43Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

I must ask: How could they continue in the grace of God if they were not in it already?
Therefore it is my opinion they were saved at the first hearing of the words from Paul, at the first encounter.

There is a subtle difference between the Gentile converts of this verse and the preceding passage. In this verse the word "proselyte" is used. The Gentiles here were full converts to Judaism--having accepted circumcision.

But, the Jews of the passage you quote, the "many" are not said to be converts to Christ. They are devout Jews and proselytes, not Christians. Considering the "many" Jews of the very same synagogue would turn on Paul and Barnabas the very next week, it is very highly unlikely these Jews in v. 43 were believers in Christ. Paul and Barnabas were encouraging these Jews and proselytes to continue on the journey toward faith in Christ (as evidenced by the invitation to return, not by baptisms as Luke so commonly includes).

So, these people were not converts.

It was the "next sabbath" (vs 44) when they were told in vs 48 that they were ordained to eternal life because they had believed the message they heard the previous week.

First, they were not "told" they were ordained to eternal life. Second, the scene is much different from the previous week. Rather than have the synagogue attendants, we have "almost the whole city." So, the contingent of Gentiles is much, much higher--and those Gentiles likely had no affiliation with the God of the Jews.

The very same Jews who were interested in the message the previous week, because of jealousy, now turn on Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas pronounce a "judgment" of sorts on the synagogue and say "we are turning to the Gentiles." After that the Gentiles began rejoicing. Why? Because they thought it was a Jewish message--as it was being preached in a synagogue. They were rejoicing because the message was for the Gentiles as well.

Then, here's the key phrase, "as man as were appointed to eternal life believed." Not all the Gentiles believed. The Gentiles are "qualified" by the word translated "as many as." So, this is not a corporate Gentile thing. Some, not all, of the Gentiles believed.

Why did they believe? The text clearly states the ones appointed to eternal life believed. The text is speaking of the Gentiles (ie. "Almost the whole city gathered") who had gathered to hear Paul the week after his initial contact with the synagogue.

On the basis of the text I do feel it means they were saved on the basis of what they heard at the first encounter and not on the basis of a degree from eternity past.

This simply cannot be.

I understand your apology; but question whether it is genuine on the basis of the sentence just preceding it.

Friend, I have enjoyed our discussions. However, from the above statement, I have to ask: Are we to understand that whenever someone points out to you that your understanding of a particular passage of scripture may be wrong he is being condescending? What happens if your pastor points out an error in understanding, is he dismissed as "condescending?" A further question would, then, have to be: Are you not setting up your own understanding of the Scripture as truth rather than what the text itself actually says?

Again, no condescension is meant or implied.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

So, this is one area where the translation you are using (KJV?) is incorrect--and in a very bad way.

Let me ask you something Archangel, which version of the Bible is perfect?

Now, before you answer, let me give you my view, although you will probably disagree with it.

I believe the scriptures are Jesus Christ. Not literally, materially him, but the words are His exact words.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

I believe Jesus is absolutely perfect in every way. And I believe he has promised to preserve his word forever.

Luke 23:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Now, this is my view. Just as Jesus is absolutely perfect, I believe he has preserved his perfect word so that we might know of him. Now, you may disagree that the KJV is not that perfect word. Fine. Then tell me where his exact perfect word is. I cannot fathom that a perfect saviour would allow his word to be corrupted.

I am not trying to turn this into a KJV only debate. I have debated with folks on that before, no one ever changes their view. All I am asking is which version you think is perfect.

 

[The Archangel]

Let me ask you something Archangel, which version of the Bible is perfect?

Now, before you answer, let me give you my view, although you will probably disagree with it.

I believe the scriptures are Jesus Christ. Not literally, materially him, but the words are His exact words.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

I believe Jesus is absolutely perfect in every way. And I believe he has promised to preserve his word forever.

Luke 23:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Now, this is my view. Just as Jesus is absolutely perfect, I believe he has preserved his perfect word so that we might know of him. Now, you may disagree that the KJV is not that perfect word. Fine. Then tell me where his exact perfect word is. I cannot fathom that a perfect saviour would allow his word to be corrupted.

I am not trying to turn this into a KJV only debate. I have debated with folks on that before, no one ever changes their view. All I am asking is which version you think is perfect.

No translation is perfect, though some are much better than others. The KJV has some huge, glaring errors in translation (which is not to say others don't).

I grew up on the KJV and I love its poetry and poetic style. I also appreciate that it keeps much of the Greek grammar in that it makes a difference in "you" singular and "you" plural.

But, if we were to accept the KJV as the "perfect word" and if we were to accept your argument that "a perfect savior would [not] allow his word to be corrupted" how, then, do you account for absolutely no perfect word being in existence before 1611? The KJV simply cannot be the "perfect" or "preserved" word because it only came into existence in 1611. That's nearly 1600 years without any Gospel witness through the word.

The truth of the matter is this: The KJV was a good and great breakthrough 400 years ago. But, the manuscript evidence and our understanding of Koine has come a long, long way since 1611. And, for the most part, the modern translations are based on better Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, the KJV gives us an archaic presentation of the English language.

You also have a basic misunderstanding of the opening of the Gospel of John. John is writing with a specific purpose and the "word" concept he applies to Christ is rooted in the desire to combat heresies that had already began to spring up in the first century. Your understanding is a bit arcane and is closer to a gnostic idea than a truly Biblical idea. But, that could be the beginnings of another thread.

The Archangel

 

[olegig]

So, this is one area where the translation you are using (KJV?) is incorrect--and in a very bad way.

If it is true as you say the KJV is incorrect in a very bad way; then I must ask what else in the KJV should we question?
Do we question Eph 2:8 as well? How do we know which truth is truth and which statement is incorrect in a very bad way?

It is my strong opinion that God has preserved His Word for modern man(Ps 12:6-7); so therefore modern man's only quest is in discerning which set of words is in fact the Word of God. (I suppose could feel free to correct Ps 12:6-7 as well.)

They are devout Jews and proselytes, not Christians.

I did not say they were Christians, I pointed to vs 43 to show they were seeking God and further knowledge of His Grace.
It is my opinion the text indicates they were believers as opposed to rejectors.

Considering the "many" Jews of the very same synagogue would turn on Paul and Barnabas the very next week, it is very highly unlikely these Jews in v. 43 were believers in Christ.

I thought we were talking about the Gentiles who because believers through this encounter with Paul's message.

So, these people were not converts.

I suppose that depends on one's personal feelings of exactly when one is a convert.
I feel one is converted the moment he believes.

Lets say a man is driving around on Sunday morning and hears the gospel message on the radio.
He says "WOW" I believe that and I am going down to the local church and tell them I believe it!
But sadly just as he is making the last turn to the right, he is run over and killed by a bus before he had a chance to "make a public confession".
Is he saved? I believe he is.

You can say: "Well, that's one of those "death-bed conversion things" and yes it is; but is the timing of conversion different depending on the situation?

First, they were not "told" they were ordained to eternal life.

Your correct, I misspoke. The scripture simply states "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed".
I stated incorrectly what the passage does not, and your correction is well taken.

But let us consider other things the passage does not say:
--It does not say one has to be ordained to believe.
--It does not say there are those who are not ordained that cannot believe.
--It does not say that these folks were ordained before the foundation of the world.
--And it does not say that everyone who is ordained will believe.

Second, the scene is much different from the previous week. Rather than have the synagogue attendants, we have "almost the whole city." So, the contingent of Gentiles is much, much higher--and those Gentiles likely had no affiliation with the God of the Jews.

We have speaking on an individual basis; but I will agree with you there is interjected into the whole passage a sense of nationalism to the whole Gentile world.

Then, here's the key phrase, "as man as were appointed to eternal life believed." Not all the Gentiles believed. The Gentiles are "qualified" by the word translated "as many as." So, this is not a corporate Gentile thing. Some, not all, of the Gentiles believed.

Again, I agree, and IMO those who were ordained to eternal life were the ones who had believed because they had heard the Word preached by Paul.

Why did they believe? The text clearly states the ones appointed to eternal life believed.

Again, I totally agree. The text clearly states what happened to them after they believed.
I don't know about you; but I don't think God ordains, appoints, etc anyone to eternal life that has not believed.

Friend, I have enjoyed our discussions. However, from the above statement, I have to ask: Are we to understand that whenever someone points out to you that your understanding of a particular passage of scripture may be wrong he is being condescending?

I would say it depends more on the attitude of whomever the "we" is to which you refer.

If the "we" say: "Your are wrong" or "that is simply not right"; then yes, I see some condescension because it takes a degree of self-authority to say things in that manner.
However if the "we" say it in a manner of: "my opinion is such and such on the basis of this and that" then both the "we" and the "me" remain on the same level ground.

What happens if your pastor points out an error in understanding, is he dismissed as "condescending?"

Funny you should bring this up for just the other day I was discussing Bible versions with my Pastor.
He said the only true Bible we have today is found in the "original" Greek and Hebrew there on his top shelf. (We were in his study)
I simply said if that is so, then I, as a child of God, have no Bible and he has placed himself between me and the Word of God as my interpreter.
Seems he swallowed his condescension and remained silent.

Condescension can be an attitude; but it can also be placing one's self in a position of being closer to God than someone else.

A further question would, then, have to be: Are you not setting up your own understanding of the Scripture as truth rather than what the text itself actually says?

No, I am simply saying I accept my interpretation of the text over your interpretation.

 

[The Archangel]

If it is true as you say the KJV is incorrect in a very bad way; then I must ask what else in the KJV should we question?
Do we question Eph 2:8 as well? How do we know which truth is truth and which statement is incorrect in a very bad way?

It is my strong opinion that God has preserved His Word for modern man(Ps 12:6-7); so therefore modern man's only quest is in discerning which set of words is in fact the Word of God. (I suppose could feel free to correct Ps 12:6-7 as well.)

See the questions I recently posed to Winman.

The basis for questioning the KJV translation is the Greek and Hebrew original.

I did not say they were Christians, I pointed to vs 43 to show they were seeking God and further knowledge of His Grace.
It is my opinion the text indicates they were believers as opposed to rejectors.


I thought we were talking about the Gentiles who because believers through this encounter with Paul's message.

Yes, we are talking about Gentiles who became believers because of Pauls message. However there is a vast difference between the Gentiles of v. 48 and the Gentiles you are referring to. There is a clear break in the narrative between v. 43 and v. 44.

I suppose that depends on one's personal feelings of exactly when one is a convert.
I feel one is converted the moment he believes.

Lets say a man is driving around on Sunday morning and hears the gospel message on the radio.
He says "WOW" I believe that and I am going down to the local church and tell them I believe it!
But sadly just as he is making the last turn to the right, he is run over and killed by a bus before he had a chance to "make a public confession".
Is he saved? I believe he is.

You can say: "Well, that's one of those "death-bed conversion things" and yes it is; but is the timing of conversion different depending on the situation?

I'd agree one is saved at the moment of belief, but that has no bearing on our discussion.

Your correct, I misspoke. The scripture simply states "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed".
I stated incorrectly what the passage does not, and your correction is well taken.

But let us consider other things the passage does not say:
--It does not say one has to be ordained to believe.
--It does not say there are those who are not ordained that cannot believe.
--It does not say that these folks were ordained before the foundation of the world.
--And it does not say that everyone who is ordained will believe.

Actually, the Greek says the consequence of being "appointed" is belief, at least in this particular case.

We have speaking on an individual basis; but I will agree with you there is interjected into the whole passage a sense of nationalism to the whole Gentile world.

That's not what I'm saying. Sure the Gospel is available to the Gentiles. But this text is speaking of individuals, not the "Nation of Gentiles."

Again, I agree, and IMO those who were ordained to eternal life were the ones who had believed because they had heard the Word preached by Paul.

Again, I totally agree. The text clearly states what happened to them after they believed.
I don't know about you; but I don't think God ordains, appoints, etc anyone to eternal life that has not believed.

This simply isn't so. The Greek indicates that in this text "Appointment" is something that happened in the past (the perfect tense) and "Appointment" is done by an outside force, not the subject acting on himself or herself (the passive voice).

So, it is clear that the acting upon produced something--believers. There's no way to get around that.

I would say it depends more on the attitude of whomever the "we" is to which you refer.

If the "we" say: "Your are wrong" or "that is simply not right"; then yes, I see some condescension because it takes a degree of self-authority to say things in that manner.
However if the "we" say it in a manner of: "my opinion is such and such on the basis of this and that" then both the "we" and the "me" remain on the same level ground.

Funny you should bring this up for just the other day I was discussing Bible versions with my Pastor.
He said the only true Bible we have today is found in the "original" Greek and Hebrew there on his top shelf. (We were in his study)
I simply said if that is so, then I, as a child of God, have no Bible and he has placed himself between me and the Word of God as my interpreter.
Seems he swallowed his condescension and remained silent.

Condescension can be an attitude; but it can also be placing one's self in a position of being closer to God than someone else.

No, I am simply saying I accept my interpretation of the text over your interpretation.

So, if someone tells you "you're wrong" they are condescending. That's what you are saying in essence. So, I guess you'll be a truth unto yourself.

The fact of the matter is this: The Greek goes against your opinion. These are not my opinions; these are facts.

You are accepting your own interpretation over the clear meaning of the text. Unfortunately, you are reading things into it (Gentiles believing the week before, etc) that simply are not there.

But, I still have enjoyed the conversation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

But, if we were to accept the KJV as the "perfect word" and if we were to accept your argument that "a perfect savior would [not] allow his word to be corrupted" how, then, do you account for absolutely no perfect word being in existence before 1611? The KJV simply cannot be the "perfect" or "preserved" word because it only came into existence in 1611. That's nearly 1600 years without any Gospel witness through the word.

The word was in the very documents the KJV was translated from. And men at that time were fluent in these languages.

I personally believe that the many promises of God to preserve the scriptures have been kept. If you want to argue that some other version other than the KJV is the true word of God, I will at least give you a listen, although I studied it quite extensively many years ago and it would be hard to change my mind.

I simply believe God is absolutely capable of keeping his word and did.

And I would have a great difficulty if I believed as you do that there is no "perfect version". How do you have faith in something you believe is corrupt? As Olegig asked, how do you know which parts are true and which aren't? This would absolutely destroy faith.