Summary of TULIP After Reading This Site for Over Eight Years

[Dave G]

1) No one said AV was not the word of God, so a strawman, a deflection.

You said the translation was in error.

Now you're saying it's the word of God, which is inerrant.
Which one is it?

I'll post where you said it was in error below:

In both these verses the claimed support arises from mistranslations, compel should read urge in Luke,and ordained or appointed should read directed in Acts.

As the word of God, the word in the AV is, "ordained".

"...as many as were ordained ( appointed, set forth, determined ) to eternal life, believed." ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ).

You'll have to try harder than that, Van.

In the above, you just stated that the issue arises from mis-translations.
So who did the mis-translating?
The 50+ members of the AV committee, some of whom who were far better linguists than most of the men doing Bible translation today?
Some of whom spoke Koine Greek fluently and could converse in it as well as their own native tongue?

I seriously doubt it.

There is no support in the bible for Calvinism, including Luke 14:23 and Acts 13:48

There's plenty of support.
You saying it isn't so, is but one opinion among many.

I see it just fine, and people I've met from all over the world ( albeit very few compared to the numbers of "Arminians" and "Traditionalists" that claim the opposite ) say the same thing.
Even some of the people on this forum are convinced that the verses used for support, do just that.

This isn't spurious, Van.

You may try to dismiss it, but it's not going away anytime soon.
There are people who do not accept your assertions, and there are people that believe that the words, as laid out on the page, support what you call, "Calvinism".
There are people who believe that "ordained" or "appointed" should read exactly as translated, whether you like it or not.

There are people who look at Acts of the Apostles 13:48, and see it saying that people believed because they were ordained to eternal life.
Why?

Because the word is "ordained", and just because you say it should read "directed", does not mean it should.
If you do think it should, then may I suggest that you join the ever-increasing numbers of publishing houses, individuals and groups that are all vying for a piece of the Bible-purchasing public's money, and add your name to the list of translators that are being sought?

Since you seem to believe in correcting God's word, I think you would find yourself in good company, sir.

 

[Dave G]

2) The meaning of tasso, as used in the bible has been established, it means an agreement by mutural consent. See post #95

I did.

I also disagree with your assertion, partly because other men, who were far more capable than anyone I know linguistically, told me that it was properly translated as "ordained".
Are you telling me that you can read and speak Koine Greek fluently?

3)to put in order, to station

1. to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
   1. to assign (appoint) a thing to one
   2. to appoint, ordain, order <-------- Here.
      1. to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority
         
         
      2. to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

These men I refer to, translated "tasso" in Acts of the Apostles 13:48 as #2 in the subsection under #1.
I've indicated it by an arrow.

Talk about Calvinism redefining words, add tasso to the list, As used in Acts 13:48 it refers to taking Paul's direction to eternal life, and therefore they believed.

Can you produce a single English translation, performed using Formal Equivalency techniques, that does so according to your own perspective?
That the word in the English should be, "directed"?

If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.
After that, I'd like to see the names and scholarship of the individuals who performed the translating, if you don't mind.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.