Authentic Interpretation

Tenchi · 2025-05-14T08:13:06-0500

Van said:
1) Any interpretation that we arrive at through our study is our interpretation.

This statement of the obvious seems to purposefully speak past my point.

Van said:
2) No one said or suggested our interpretation should be subjective rather than as objective as we can manage.

How does one remain objective in one's process of interpretation? "As we can manage" seems to me to be making room for personal opinion (from which often arises error).

Van said:
3) The authentic interpretation is based on the context.

I don't know about "authentic" but the correct interpretation must show high fidelity to immediate context, yes.

Van said:
4) Strong's indicates one of the meanings is "; to appoint mutually, i. e. agree upon:"

I use Strong's and it's definition of tasso is as follows:

Greek Word: τάσσω
Transliteration: tassō
Root: a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses)
Cross Reference: TDNT - 8:27,1156
Part of Speech: v

Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:

appoint 3
ordain 2
set 1
determine 1
addict 1
[Total Count: 8]

a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot) :- addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.
(Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.)

The only form of tasso that communicates "to appoint mutually" is suntasso, which my Strong's concordance/lexicon defines as: "lit., "to arrange together with," but this isn't the form of tasso in Acts 13:48.

Van said:
5) Thus the authentic interpretation of Acts 13:48 is Paul gave direction to eternal life (He presented the gospel) and some of the Gentiles took his direction and believed.

This is an erroneous interpretation of the verse arising from a mistaken rendering of tasso which seems to have arisen from an overeagerness to deny Calvinist doctrine.

Van · 2025-05-14T09:30:29-0500

Charlie24 said:
Nothing but hot air because you don't know what you're talking about!

And you keep on and on proving it!

Once again a post addressing me and hiding from their agenda driven twisting of Acts 13:48.

Van · 2025-05-14T09:35:56-0500

Silverhair said:
God has said that He will save those that trust in His risen son. Is that what you are trying to say or have you fallen into the calvinist mindset of divine determination?

Your post are getting more and more confusing as time goes on.

I am about ready to give up having to state the same obvious position over and over and you constantly misrepresenting it.

The issue is not that a person wills to be saved, or works to be saved, the issue is God decides whom to save. Of course God will save those who trust in His Son, the issue is God decides who actually trusts and whose trust is limited.

Charlie24 · 2025-05-14T09:38:15-0500

Van said:
Once again a post addressing me and hiding from their agenda driven twisting of Acts 13:48.

You've already been shown that "tasso" doesn't mean what you think it does.

If they had been chosen for eternal life as you assume, Luke would have used the word "ekloge,"

Or a form of that word.

Van · 2025-05-14T09:57:39-0500

Tenchi said:
This statement of the obvious seems to purposefully speak past my point.

How does one remain objective in one's process of interpretation? "As we can manage" seems to me to be making room for personal opinion (from which often arises error).

I don't know about "authentic" but the correct interpretation must show high fidelity to immediate context, yes.

I use Strong's and it's definition of tasso is as follows:

Greek Word: τάσσω
Transliteration: tassō
Root: a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses)
Cross Reference: TDNT - 8:27,1156
Part of Speech: v

Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:

appoint 3
ordain 2
set 1
determine 1
addict 1
[Total Count: 8]

a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot) :- addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.
(Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.)

The only form of tasso that communicates "to appoint mutually" is suntasso, which my Strong's concordance/lexicon defines as: "lit., "to arrange together with," but this isn't the form of tasso in Acts 13:48.

This is an erroneous interpretation of the verse arising from a mistaken rendering of tasso which seems to have arisen from an overeagerness to deny Calvinist doctrine.

Once again:
1) Your first point addresses me and makes no pertinent point.
2) Whatever interpretation of Acts 13:48 that you support is less objective than the one I posted.
3) You brought up context, I just acknowledged the authentic interpretation reflects the context.
4) The meaning of "tasso" does not change in all eight NT usages. Every usage describes an arrangement by mutual consent.
5) In every case some entity sets an arrangement and then others accept that direction.

Van · 2025-05-14T10:02:01-0500

Charlie24 said:
You've already been shown that "tasso" doesn't mean what you think it does.

If they had been chosen for eternal life as you assume, Luke would have used the word "ekloge,"

Or a form of that word.

Good Grief, stop posting fiction. Tasso means an arrangement by mutual consent in Acts 13:48 and the other 7 times it appears in the NT!

I did not say nor suggest those who took Paul's direction to eternal life as given in the gospel of Christ, had been chosen for salvation beforehand.

Charlie24 · 2025-05-14T10:10:01-0500

Van said:
Good Grief, stop posting fiction. Tasso means an arrangement by mutual consent in Acts 13:48 and the other 7 times it appears in the NT!

I did not say nor suggest those who took Paul's direction to eternal life as given in the gospel of Christ, had been chosen for salvation beforehand.

If you look at the definitions you will see several options depending on the context.

In this verse "tasso" means to be prepared to eternal life, as many scholars have stated.

Look at vs. 46 where Paul tells the Jews who would not believe, that since you find yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles.

The Gentiles believed the words of Paul, because they were "tasso" prepared to hear the word unto eternal life.

"Tasso" has no meaning of being chosen for eternal life.

Don't argue with me, argue with the scholars who said this!

Van · 2025-05-14T10:25:19-0500

Charlie24 said:
If you look at the definitions you will see several options depending on the context.

In this verse "tasso" means to be prepared to eternal life, as many scholars have stated.

Look at vs. 46 where Paul tells the Jews who would not believe, that since you find yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles.

The Gentiles believed the words of Paul, because they were "tasso" prepared to hear the word unto eternal life.

"Tasso" has no meaning of being chosen for eternal life.

Don't argue with me, argue with the scholars who said this!

Sir, nothing further can be said.

Did I say Tasso means being chosen for eternal life? Nope, but you imply that is my position.

The authentic interpretation is consistent with the context of verse 46!!

Here for umpteenth time, tasso as used in every case in the NT means an arrangement by mutual consent. Is any prior action included in that definition? Nope. Not being chosen nor being "prepared." Full stop

Silverhair · 2025-05-14T10:30:43-0500

Van said:
I am about ready to give up having to state the same obvious position over and over and you constantly misrepresenting it.

The issue is not that a person wills to be saved, or works to be saved, the issue is God decides whom to save. Of course God will save those who trust in His Son, the issue is God decides who actually trusts and whose trust is limited.

And based on that view how can any person have assurance that they are saved. How do they know if there faith is enough for God to credit it as real?

Do they have to do enough good works, pray enough, or perhaps it is just that they have to feel they are spiritual enough.

Your view smacks of legalism Van. It's prove you are good enough. But you can never know can you.

That sound very much like Calvin's evanescent salvation.

Van · 2025-05-14T10:38:23-0500

Silverhair said:
And based on that view how can any person have assurance that they are saved. How do they know if there faith is enough for God to credit it as real?

Do they have to do enough good works, pray enough, or perhaps it is just that they have to feel they are spiritual enough.

Your view smacks of legalism Van. It's prove you are good enough. But you can never know can you.

That sound very much like Calvin's evanescent salvation.

1) Change of subject question, avoiding the topic.
2) Your suggestion those born anew must do works to sustain their salvation is hogwash. Once saved, always saved.
3) Name calling devoid of context.
4) To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I oppose Arminianism but that does not mean I support the fiction of Calvinism. Total Spiritual Inability, a doctrine of Arminianism is false doctrine. God choosing foreseen individuals, with or without faith before creation for salvation is false doctrine. Automatic salvation if you sincerely profess faith in Christ is false doctrine. Shall I go on????

Charlie24 · 2025-05-14T10:40:11-0500

Van said:
Sir, nothing further can be said.

Did I say Tasso means being chosen for eternal life? Nope, but you imply that is my position.

The authentic interpretation is consistent with the context of verse 46!!

Here for umpteenth time, tasso as used in every case in the NT means an arrangement by mutual consent. Is any prior action included in that definition? Nope. Not being chosen nor being "prepared." Full stop

The scholars make the argument that Paul said , it was necessary that the Word of God be first spoken unto you, referring to the Jews.

This is "tasso" being placed in order in one sense of the word.

But the Jews were not prepared to receive the Word, but the Gentiles were.

Van · 2025-05-14T10:40:58-0500

The goal of bible study is to arrive at our most accurate understanding of a verse or passage, rather than simply accepting the views of others which differ and thus one or more are wrong. Consider Acts 13:48.

The fly in the buttermilk is the vague phrase "...all who had been appointed to eternal life believed."

The widely held bogus view is that this refers to "predestination" with God unilaterally choosing and thus appointing some to eternal life before creation. But none of that can be explicitly found in the text.

Who does the appointing? Does the verse say it is God? Nope

How is the appointing accomplished. Someone provides the direction (i.e. you must trust fully in Christ) and then those receiving (passively) the direction act (actively) to take and accept that direction. Thus they chose to believe.

So the first issue for study is the verb "appointed."

Is the verb "appointed" a translation of horizō (G3724) which means "set or determine?" Nope

Is the verb "appointed" a translation of proorizō (G4309) which means "predetermine?" Nope

Is the verb "appointed" a translation of prographo (G4270) which means to set forth beforehand?" Nope

Is the verb "appointed" a translation of kataskeuazō (G2680) which means "to make ready?" Nope

Is the verb "appointed" a translation of tithēmi (G5087) which means "to unilaterally appoint?" Nope

The verb is "tasso" which refers to an arrangement by mutual agreement. Thus the authentic interpretation of Acts 13:48 is Paul gave direction to eternal life (He presented the gospel) and some of the Gentiles took his direction and believed.

Charlie24 · 2025-05-14T10:41:12-0500

Charlie24 said:
The scholars make the argument that Paul said , it was necessary that the Word of God be first spoken unto you, referring to the Jews.

This is "tasso" being placed in order in one sense of the word.

But the Jews were not prepared to receive the Word, but the Gentiles were.

You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care, Van!

Van · 2025-05-14T10:45:42-0500

Charlie24 said:
The scholars make the argument that Paul said , it was necessary that the Word of God be first spoken unto you, referring to the Jews.

This is "tasso" being placed in order in one sense of the word.

But the Jews were not prepared to receive the Word, but the Gentiles were.

On and on, Sir, you are not addressing the topic

Charlie24 said:
You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care, Van!

On and on, folks, tasso has absolutely nothing to do with prior circumstance. It just says an arrangement is established by mutual agreement.
Why they took the direction to eternal life is not within the meaning of tasso.

Charlie24 · 2025-05-14T10:47:13-0500

Van said:
On and on, Sir, you are not addressing the topic

On and on, folks, tasso has absolutely nothing to do with prior circumstance. It just says an arrangement is established by mutual agreement.
Why they took the direction to eternal life is not within the meaning of tasso.

So says, Van.

Van · 2025-05-14T10:51:31-0500

Charlie24 said:
So says, Van.

Yet another post addressing me and running from the authentic interpretation of Acts 13:48:

Thus the authentic interpretation of Acts 13:48 is Paul gave direction to eternal life (He presented the gospel) and some of the Gentiles took his direction and believed.

Tasso refers to an arrangement (access to eternal life per the gospel) conveyed by Paul, and then some of the Gentiles taking that direction to eternal life believed.

Silverhair · 2025-05-14T10:53:29-0500

Van said:
1) Change of subject question, avoiding the topic.
2) Your suggestion those born anew must do works to sustain their salvation is hogwash. Once saved, always saved.
3) Name calling devoid of context.
4) To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I oppose Arminianism but that does not mean I support the fiction of Calvinism. Total Spiritual Inability, a doctrine of Arminianism is false doctrine. God choosing foreseen individuals, with or without faith before creation for salvation is false doctrine. Automatic salvation if you sincerely profess faith in Christ is false doctrine. Shall I go on????

Do you actually read what someone posts or do you just react?

I pointed out the flaws in your view Van. How is that avoiding the topic?

As for the OSAS view you need to account for all the verses that show otherwise.

Whether you like it or not you are sounding more like a legalist or a calvinist depending on the post.

Tenchi · 2025-05-14T11:56:22-0500

Van said:
Once again:
1) Your first point addresses me and makes no pertinent point.

I'm not sure you have any idea what my first point was... This opinion is encouraged by how you've talked past my point.

Van said:
2) Whatever interpretation of Acts 13:48 that you support is less objective than the one I posted.

??? Is this supposed to serve as an argument for your view? It's just a raw assertion without any reasoned justification. As such, it doesn't accomplish anything but offer contradiction, which is what squabbling children on the playground do. Really, in the flurry of back-and-forth you're having in this thread, I wonder if you even know what my interpretation of Acts 13:48 is.

Van said:
3) You brought up context, I just acknowledged the authentic interpretation reflects the context.

Uh huh.

Van said:
4) The meaning of "tasso" does not change in all eight NT usages. Every usage describes an arrangement by mutual consent.

??? As Strong's points out, tasso (to arrange in order) is not the same as suntasso (to arrange together with). "Appointed" in Acts 14:38 is tasso, not suntasso, so you are mistaken in trying to assert that suntasso is the Greek word used in the verse and/or that tasso includes suntasso in its meaning (which it doesn't, as far as I'm aware).

Van said:
5) In every case some entity sets an arrangement and then others accept that direction.

See above.

Van · 2025-05-14T16:23:44-0500

Silverhair said:
Do you actually read what someone posts or do you just react?

I pointed out the flaws in your view Van. How is that avoiding the topic?

As for the OSAS view you need to account for all the verses that show otherwise.

Whether you like it or not you are sounding more like a legalist or a calvinist depending on the post.

Your false charges mark you for what you are. I hold fewer Calvinist views than you do. You avoid this thread's topic with
personal attacks. Goodbye

Silverhair · 2025-05-14T16:29:22-0500

Van said:
Your false charges mark you for what you are. I hold fewer Calvinist views than you do. You avoid this thread's topic with
personal attacks. Goodbye

Can't support your view so you cut and run.

Van you seem to think that only your view is correct and when anyone points out an error you say they are attacking you or are off topic.

Have a good day Van.

Authentic Interpretation

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member