modus.irrealis wrote:I don't think, though, that the relative clause and τὰ ἔθνη refer to the exact same group of people (I mean that the former is a subset of the latter).
jaihare wrote:Whereas I would see the opposite. I take the ὅσοι phrase to be a subgroup of τὰ ἔθνη. There were some who heard the speech, got an emotional rise from it (ἔχαιρον) and said, "Wow! What a speech!" (ἐδόξαζον), while they remained unbelievers (in the message). Only "those who were ordained for eternal life" believed (ἐπίστευσαν). I see the group-subgroup relation as reversed. What makes you see it the other way?
learner2010 wrote:Does it mean that “ Whosoever were ordained to eternal life were those who believed” is an explicit meaning and “ Whosoever believed were those who were ordained to eternal life” is only a possible implied meaning from the text? And the premise is being ordained precedes ones' believing as far as the tenses and the original position of Greek words "ἐπίστευσαν" and "τεταγμένοι" are concerned.
modus.irrealis wrote:No, we agree. The relative clause refers to a subgroup of τὰ ἔθνη.
modus.irrealis wrote: The Greek says everyone who was ordained to eternal life believed -- whether everyone who believed had been ordained to eternal life is a possible implication but is not entailed by the Greek. And yes, the tenses make it clear that the being ordained had already taken place when the believing happened. Note that English "were ordained" is ambiguous between a state and an act. The Greek can only mean "who were in a state of having been ordained".
learner2010 wrote:But if the original Greek words do not entail the meaning that everyone who believed had been ordained to eternal life, then how can the meaning become a possible implication?
Also what is the difference in meaning between a state and an act for the perfect passive participle “having been ordained"?
IreneY wrote:Well, that's downright theological and I'm not willing to argue semantics really. Are we absolutely sure about the translation of "τεταγμένοι" though?
As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassō, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.
calvinist wrote:What is the difference in meaning[u/] between "as many as were appointed to die were killed" and "as many as were ordained to die were killed"? Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't both phrases understood [u]exactly the same way? Both imply that the previous appointment/ordainment led to the killings, do they not?
calvinist wrote:I appreciate this discussion, but again you're referring to the various nuances that are listed in a dictionary for two words in North American English in the 21st century. That really has no bearing on Acts 13:48 because it was written 2000 years ago in Koine Greek.
calvinist wrote:The meaning of the verse does not hinge upon the nuances of English 'synonyms'. I was simply stating that to me 'appointing' and 'ordaining' do not have significant semantic differences. In reality the most 'basic' meaning of the greek verb τασσω is reflected by the English words 'command/order/set up'.
calvinist wrote: As I said before, I admit that the verse does not say explicitly that God 'caused' their belief. That is a moot point though. Luke is saying that God did not 'appoint/ordain/' everyone. God's appointing was specific to a certain group, not general, and furthermore in this case all whom were appointed for something reached that goal. This is different from the cases you mentioned where the 'appointing' is general and not all who receive it respond to it. In this case the 'appointing' is specific and all that were appointed received eternal life, and only those who were appointed. No more, no less; that's the significance of οσοι (as many as).
calvinist wrote:The question is this: Why does Luke make a point of stressing the fact that God appointed only a specific group and only that specific group (as many as) received eternal life? We can chop up words all day long and cite lists of ranges of meaning in English words, but the verse sits in a specific context/situation with a specific meaning... What is Luke saying? Why does he stress that only the people that God appointed (if you like that word better) received eternal life?
calvinist wrote:Forgive my intensity, but I'm a linguistics major, and semantics is my passion. Here's a life-changing truth about language: Words don't have meanings, meanings have words assigned to them (by convention it may be added).
???? I read the bible in English, and think that the English translation should best reflect the underlying Greek meaning. Therefore, if a subtle nuance in definition of one English word fits the context better than a similar English word, why would we not want to use it?
In this case, maybe not. I am simply suggesting that the way we use the word "ordain" in English, may have made sense at one point in history, hence (KJV), but more modern scholars think "appoint" best fits the meaning (ESV, NASB, NKJV)
God might "ordain" a situation through providence, where, He foreknew the hard hearted Jews would reject the free message, and the Gentiles would not. That also does not mean God either prevented or caused either belief or disbelief. This is what I think the passage is implying.
Again I believe it is simply to highlight God's grace has been poured out towards all men, and not merely the Jews. Luke was a gentile.
I took no offense at your intensity. Your statement regarding words and meanings to me seems like a Zen koan. I do not follow the logic. Al I can affirm is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Xάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.
ChristHaunted wrote:???? I read the bible in English, and think that the English translation should best reflect the underlying Greek meaning. Therefore, if a subtle nuance in definition of one English word fits the context better than a similar English word, why would we not want to use it?
calvinist wrote:and if it took place in Ancient Greece the answer might be "ουκ οιδα".
Words do not have meanings, rather meanings have words.
calvinist wrote: I accept using 'appoint' as an English gloss for τασσω in this context. Yes, it's probably the better word to use since 'ordain' is somewhat archaic, but that is translation, and we are discussing interpretation. The question is not 'what can we make this verse mean?' but rather 'what is the author saying?'
calvinist wrote:This is why the idea of a 'literal' translation is somewhat fuzzy from a linguistic point of view. A 'literal' translation usually means that there is a word-word correspondence between the source language and the target language. This would mean using the English word 'appoint' in every instance where the Greek text uses τασσω. This is really just lazy translating, and can produce horrible readings. However, in highly debated texts such as the NT it can serve as a means of preventing translators from forcing their interpretations onto the text; so it is a useful technique, but it is by no means the 'best' way to translate a text. It's more appropriately called a 'gloss' and not a 'translation'.
ChristHaunted wrote:Everything else you mention has no relevance for me. I read the Bible in English, therefore learning Greek is merely an exercise in striving for the best English translation possible.
ChristHaunted wrote:In my mind, translation is interpretation.
ChristHaunted wrote:We can argue for eternity which came first, the meaning or the word. But we would be two clowns merely howling back and forth in an epistemic void.
ChristHaunted wrote:Romans 13:1 use of the word helps me understand.
ChristHaunted wrote:In Acts, it appears that God cast bread into a crowd of birds knowing full well which ones were hungry enough to partake of it. Not that He did not desire all the birds to eat. The limiting aspect is not the intent of the giver, but the hard hearted nature of the hearers.
ChristHaunted wrote:Grace and peace to all who read this.
calvinist wrote:What about Matthew 28:16 --> Οι δε ενδεκα μαθηται επορευθησαν εις την Γαλιλαιαν εις το ορος ου εταξατο αυτοις ο Ιησους -- The idea is not 'appoint' but rather 'order/command/direct'
Also Luke 7:8 --> και γαρ εγω ανθρωπος ειμι υπο εξουσιαν τασσομενος... Again the idea is not 'appoint' but rather 'being commanded/ordered', being used here to express military chain of command.
calvinist wrote:Furthermore, the Greek word τασσω does convey the idea of imposing one's will upon another, that's integral to the idea of the word. The force can be softened or strengthened depending upon context, but essentially that is what the word symbolizes, 'impressing one's will onto another person/thing'.
This thread is not about the best translation, but the intended meaning of Acts 13:48.
ChristHaunted wrote:Am I completely insane? The best translation would convey the intended meaning in the target language.
calvinist wrote:ChristHaunted, do you affirm the Trinity? God is three. God is one. Not one in three modes. Not one, but three perspectives. God is three. God is one. It's paradoxical. It's contradictory. Don't even attempt to explain it with your rational mind. Just accept what scripture teaches.
calvinist wrote:Not necessarily true. The best translation would represent the original text best. There is a difference between meaning and words, I've been trying so hard to make this point...
calvinist wrote:We are not saved by our own works (repentance is the greatest work possible by man).
calvinist wrote:I do have a question though, that I would like your answer to. Doesn't Acts 13:48 state that God did not appoint all that were present?
jaihare wrote:Is this relevant? I don't think a poster's religious views should be quizzed here. This isn't a religious forum. For example, I can accept that the New Testament position would lead one to believe that the writers had the Trinity in view. I am under no obligation, however, to believe in the Trinity myself or to accept that what the NT writers professed should also become my own faith. Let's keep the issues separate so as not to turn this into a religious forum. What do you think?
ChristHaunted wrote:I cannot think about anything in my head without words.
calvinist wrote:ChristHaunted wrote:I cannot think about anything in my head without words.
That is false. We can picture sunsets, hear music, visualize solutions to problems, visually organize a complex idea, and have entire stories in our mind (dreams). If you define "thinking" as only the "inner voice" and exclude the other things then it becomes a circular argument: You can't think without words because you define "thinking" as using words in your head. There have been cases of wild children who never learned a language and it has been proven that they can indeed think without language. This used to be a debated topic, not anymore. You probably have a preference for speaking in your "inner voice", but thinking does not require language, although it can involve language.
calvinist wrote:Secondly, you didn't really answer the question I posed. Acts 13:48 says one of these 3 things:
1) God "appointed" everyone present to eternal life.
2) God "appointed" a certain number of those present to eternal life.
3) It's not clear from the text.
--Which do you think?
Third, "logic" is not a standard we must hold the bible to. That view makes "logic" more authoritative than the scripture itself. Scripture must then be filtered through man's "logic" instead of accepting what it simply says, no matter how contradictory it might seem. The doctrine of the Trinity is an example. It is contradictory according to human "logic". To say that there are 3 distinct and separate persons that are each God, and that at the same time there is only one God, cannot be defended by "logic". One can say that there is one God divided into 3 parts, but that isn't the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine teaches that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, (completely distinct), and yet there is only one God. We can come up with illustrations from our experience to help us grasp this, but they are not true analogies, because nothing in reality can represent it, that's why our minds cannot understand it from a "logic" point of view. We must accept that at some point our finite minds hit a brick wall and we must just stand back in awe and proclaim, "Mystery!" If we could reduce everything about God down to logical principles he would not be the awe-inspiring God that he is. By "he" I'm referring to one person (I didn't say "they"), but wait, I can pray to Christ, I can pray to the Holy Spirit, I can pray to the Father, this is a mystery.
ChristHaunted wrote:Empirical sense data without words is merely what the higher mammals have. My dog does not muse over the warmth of the sun, although physically it may bring him pleasure.
ChristHaunted wrote:Dissociative Identity Disorder = more that one personality, and therefore, more than one person, and still one being.
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 23 guests