What is the point of citing lexicons that confirm that tasso means (among other things) "appointed"? I thought we agreed on this from the beginning. What is proved by the lexical references you give?
The problem is that you are not aware of (or are unwilling to acknowledge) the various other meanings also given in the lexicons. Liddell-Scott (one of the lexicons you cite) includes, as one of the meanings of tasso, "to agree upon, settle" (a very different idea from your preferred "appoint"). Vine's (which you quoted initially) even gives "set themselves" as the meaning of tasso in 1 Corinthians 16:15 (see under "appoint" #5). Strong's includes "dispose" (as Sean pointed out in his previous post--did you read it?), and Zodhiates (a native Greek speaker) includes "dispose" and "adapt"...among others. What is it about this that you find difficult to understand?
Is it now sacreligious to disagree with the Lockman Foundation? If so, then why did you quote (in your previous posts) a dozen other translations that disagree with the Lockman Foundation's choice of words? Even the Lockman Foundation translated tasso as "devoted" in 1 Corinthians 16:15 (in both their New American Standard Bible and their Amplified Bible, which also adds "consecrated" as a possible meaning). Are they right at Acts 13:48 and then wrong at 1 Corinthians 16:15? Or will you acknowledge that tasso has more than one meaning? If not, will you now take your stand against the Lockman Foundation?
My point from the beginning has simply been this:
The word translated as "appointed" in Acts 13:48 is a word with a variety of nuances. This same word is never translated "appointed" when it appears in 1 Corinthians 16:15, because it would be an impossible meaning there. It is usually translated as "devoted" in the latter passage, which would also be a sensible translation of it in Acts 13:48. It therefore does no violence to the meaning of the Greek word, nor to the doctrines of the Bible, to translate Acts 13:48 as follows: "...as many as were devoted to eternal life believed." Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
When it is translated in this way, the verse tells us nothing about whether it was God who "devoted" these people to favor eternal life, or if they had "devoted" themselves (as the word means in 1 Corinthinans 16:15). Is it still possible to misunderstand my point?
Your post here simply confirms what I said previously about the inadvisability of your getting involved in arguments that involve word studies. You simply don't understand how to deal with lexical and contextual evidence. I am not a Greek scholar, and no one needs to be in order to see what you are failing to see. One needs only to have a rudimentary understanding of languages and translational issues, as well as some sense of what to do with evidence when it is presented.
I'm sorry that we cannot get past this hurdle. It's okay with me, by the way, if you or anyone else choose to be a Calvinist. I have never been offended that some people are Calvinists. However, your approach does not give any occasion for me to increase my level of respect for that position.
How about considering perspective?
Dear Crusader,
According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, commonly known as "Kittel", the greek word tasso was used in the greek Old Testament (Septuagint) to also mean "to make disposition", "to set one's heart" and "to turn one's gaze". This is proof the Jews themselves used the word tasso in this manner. It was an Old Testament translation commonly used by the earliest Christians. In Zodiates' lexicon he lists "disposed"as one meaning of the word.
The fact that numerous english translations use the same word to translate a greek word is no cause for great confidence. How many versions do you know of that have correctly translated baptizo? None would be my guess. The translaters seem to slavishly follow one another, perhaps due to a faint heart.
I would really like to hear your explanation about Jesus weeping over sinners who would not repent. Was He ignorant concerning the doctrine of election or insincere? I expect you will say this is one those mysteries.
May the Lord bless you, Homer
According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, commonly known as "Kittel", the greek word tasso was used in the greek Old Testament (Septuagint) to also mean "to make disposition", "to set one's heart" and "to turn one's gaze". This is proof the Jews themselves used the word tasso in this manner. It was an Old Testament translation commonly used by the earliest Christians. In Zodiates' lexicon he lists "disposed"as one meaning of the word.
The fact that numerous english translations use the same word to translate a greek word is no cause for great confidence. How many versions do you know of that have correctly translated baptizo? None would be my guess. The translaters seem to slavishly follow one another, perhaps due to a faint heart.
I would really like to hear your explanation about Jesus weeping over sinners who would not repent. Was He ignorant concerning the doctrine of election or insincere? I expect you will say this is one those mysteries.
May the Lord bless you, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hi
I didnt think you would be able to find the answer...regarding tasso...in fact I knew it before asking it.I wouldnt have opened myself up to such a debacle in the first place. There is one Translation though that renders it the way you believe it is...The New World Translation of the Jehovahs Witnesses ,of course their scholars are extremely questionable.
"When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.2"
So I guess we could exchange pleasantries till the proverbial cows come home and you can keep on insisting some diabolical Calvanist conspiracy in rendering the word tasso is at work. But the fact remains and has yet to be dealt with that your position has been met with a very stiff rebuttal which you cant answer. One which hinges on the very word itself...the simple word tasso. Which is useed 8 other times in the New Tesament and quite clearly indeed.
Mt 28:6; Jesus ordains a place to meet.
Lk 7:8; The Roman soldier is "set" over his men.
Acts 15:2; The disciples "determined" that Paul and Barnabus should go to Jerusalem.
22:10; The apostle Paul was told to go to Damascus to receive all that he would be "appointed" to do.
28:23; The day was "appointed" to meet at a place, to share Christ.
Rom 13:1; God "ordained" the power of governments to be over the affairs of men.
1 Cor 16:15; The house of Stephanus was "addicted themselves" to the Gospel.
And none of these had a freedom to chose thier station,so why you would think Acts 13:38 is any different is a mystery to me.
Steve
"When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.2"
So I guess we could exchange pleasantries till the proverbial cows come home and you can keep on insisting some diabolical Calvanist conspiracy in rendering the word tasso is at work. But the fact remains and has yet to be dealt with that your position has been met with a very stiff rebuttal which you cant answer. One which hinges on the very word itself...the simple word tasso. Which is useed 8 other times in the New Tesament and quite clearly indeed.
Mt 28:6; Jesus ordains a place to meet.
Lk 7:8; The Roman soldier is "set" over his men.
Acts 15:2; The disciples "determined" that Paul and Barnabus should go to Jerusalem.
22:10; The apostle Paul was told to go to Damascus to receive all that he would be "appointed" to do.
28:23; The day was "appointed" to meet at a place, to share Christ.
Rom 13:1; God "ordained" the power of governments to be over the affairs of men.
1 Cor 16:15; The house of Stephanus was "addicted themselves" to the Gospel.
And none of these had a freedom to chose thier station,so why you would think Acts 13:38 is any different is a mystery to me.
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Crusader,
Of course, I knew that you would interpret my resting my case as surrender, since one can hardly expect someone who misses the point of clear arguments to draw sensible conclusions from more subtle comments. I am reminded of a movie where a defeated martial artist declares, "I'm bleeding...making me the victor!"
I was seriously expecting this response from you. Just for the record, I have no taste for dancing endlessly in circles with a man who will not respond to an argument, nor admit when he has spoken irresponsibly, who doesn't recognize when his point has been devastatingly refuted (even claiming that it was not answered!), and will not pay attention to evidence leading toward any conclusion other than his own. Honesty on the part of all participants is the basic requirement for any dialogue that I can justify investing my precious time in.
It may appear to be surrender, but it is actually that I value pearls and holy things much too much to squander them, and I wish to retain an honorable policy of not engaging in a rhetorical battle against an unarmed man. "It is an honor for a man to cease from strife and keep aloof from it, but every fool will quarrel" (Prov.20:3--Lockman Foundation's Amplified Bible)
Blessings!
Of course, I knew that you would interpret my resting my case as surrender, since one can hardly expect someone who misses the point of clear arguments to draw sensible conclusions from more subtle comments. I am reminded of a movie where a defeated martial artist declares, "I'm bleeding...making me the victor!"
I was seriously expecting this response from you. Just for the record, I have no taste for dancing endlessly in circles with a man who will not respond to an argument, nor admit when he has spoken irresponsibly, who doesn't recognize when his point has been devastatingly refuted (even claiming that it was not answered!), and will not pay attention to evidence leading toward any conclusion other than his own. Honesty on the part of all participants is the basic requirement for any dialogue that I can justify investing my precious time in.
It may appear to be surrender, but it is actually that I value pearls and holy things much too much to squander them, and I wish to retain an honorable policy of not engaging in a rhetorical battle against an unarmed man. "It is an honor for a man to cease from strife and keep aloof from it, but every fool will quarrel" (Prov.20:3--Lockman Foundation's Amplified Bible)
Blessings!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
The lasso of tasso...yee haaaaaa!
"Even if the primary meaning of tasso is "appointed" (which is the case), you can not immediately assume, unless the passage tells you, that you know who did the appointing.
What is the point of citing lexicons that confirm that tasso means (among other things) "appointed"? I thought we agreed on this from the beginning. What is proved by the lexical references you give
Here are two cases that within matters of a few hours, where you changed your mind when pressed on the word tasso.Even at other points suggesting people not look at the orignal language,all the while flying in the face of definitions of the lexicons and all major translations, then when all else failed it becomes a calvanist conspiracy,if thats sound Biblical defense of an idea,well yes then I do think our dialouge has broken down. If anything anyone who reads this is going to study the word tasso,and I think its a good thing.
"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. "
Acts 17:10-11
In His Service
Steve
What is the point of citing lexicons that confirm that tasso means (among other things) "appointed"? I thought we agreed on this from the beginning. What is proved by the lexical references you give
Here are two cases that within matters of a few hours, where you changed your mind when pressed on the word tasso.Even at other points suggesting people not look at the orignal language,all the while flying in the face of definitions of the lexicons and all major translations, then when all else failed it becomes a calvanist conspiracy,if thats sound Biblical defense of an idea,well yes then I do think our dialouge has broken down. If anything anyone who reads this is going to study the word tasso,and I think its a good thing.
"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. "
Acts 17:10-11
In His Service
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Please clarify what you think you see in my above statements that appear to represent a change of my mind about the meaning of tasso. I don't know what change you are referring to. My studies concerning this word were done many years ago, and my views on it have not changed since then. I have held the positions you cited above since long before this forum existed. Do you even know what I said in these excerpts?
It is not a failure to understand Greek words, but your inability even to understand English sentences that has kept you clueless as to the validity of anything that anyone here has said to you.
I have not changed my position in any of my statements, nor do the two excerpts you cite above provide any example of inconsistency. You apparently have not read the two excerpts very attentively, which is not surprising.
Nor have you given any indication that you have understood (or even noticed!) any argument ever raised by Sean, Homer, or me. I think your time would be better spent doing something other than defending your theology against thinking people. I almost have concluded that this whole thread is just a big hoax, and that you are really an anti-Calvinist, just trying to make Calvinists look really dumb (I have serioiusly entertained this theory).
I certainly have not discouraged anyone from studying the original languages--I strongly recommend such study. What I suggested was that you should avoid using arguments that hang on the meaning of Greek words, since you have no proficiency in any language and can not argue responsibly. Studying Greek would be a very valuable thing for you to do--before you argue about the meanings of Greek words.
What I recommend is that the study of the original languages should be done in a responsible manner. If you ever make such a study, you will realize that quoting lexicons is not the same thing as studying original languages.
Even if we limited ourselves to the use of lexicons, the ones that have been cited in the above posts have clearly disproven the point you are trying to make--viz. the assertion that tasso only means "appointed" and never has other meanings. The lexicons themselves (including ones you have quioted) show that this is not the case, but when anyone points this out to you, you act as if you never noticed what they said, and you keep blindly charging forward toward your objective--which, apparently, is to appear to be right, at all costs. It isn't working for you.
I thought you had identified yourself, in an earlier post, as a "Bible teacher." One prerequisite for being a teacher is the ability to learn. To participate in dialogue one must have the ability to listen to the person you are dialoging with. Before responding to an argument, it is necessary that you know what the argument is, which you won't unless you think about it, rather than reacting viscerally.
You have demonstarted to a degree that I find embarrassing for you that you do not read, hear or understand the meaning of plain English sentences addressed to you. You don't need a lexicon yet. You are not ready for that. You need an English dictionary. If you don't understand your native tongue (which I am assuming to be English--perhaps I am wrong), you are hardly in a position to lecture on Koine Greek.
When someone presents an argument to you, all you seem to be able to discern is that it is somehow in disagreement with your thesis, so, instead of listening and trying to understand, you simply fire off another nonsensical response--of which you never seem to tire.
I am not like you. I tire immediately of nonsense. Your refusal to hear anyone who addresses you does not exhibit respect for your fellow participants. Your refusal to grasp the plainest English seems to have rendered you unable to understand what is being said to you, and apparently prevents you from being able to notice or respond to the challenges that others put to you. This is what has made me decide that further dialogue with you is unprofitable.
Live well!
It is not a failure to understand Greek words, but your inability even to understand English sentences that has kept you clueless as to the validity of anything that anyone here has said to you.
I have not changed my position in any of my statements, nor do the two excerpts you cite above provide any example of inconsistency. You apparently have not read the two excerpts very attentively, which is not surprising.
Nor have you given any indication that you have understood (or even noticed!) any argument ever raised by Sean, Homer, or me. I think your time would be better spent doing something other than defending your theology against thinking people. I almost have concluded that this whole thread is just a big hoax, and that you are really an anti-Calvinist, just trying to make Calvinists look really dumb (I have serioiusly entertained this theory).
I certainly have not discouraged anyone from studying the original languages--I strongly recommend such study. What I suggested was that you should avoid using arguments that hang on the meaning of Greek words, since you have no proficiency in any language and can not argue responsibly. Studying Greek would be a very valuable thing for you to do--before you argue about the meanings of Greek words.
What I recommend is that the study of the original languages should be done in a responsible manner. If you ever make such a study, you will realize that quoting lexicons is not the same thing as studying original languages.
Even if we limited ourselves to the use of lexicons, the ones that have been cited in the above posts have clearly disproven the point you are trying to make--viz. the assertion that tasso only means "appointed" and never has other meanings. The lexicons themselves (including ones you have quioted) show that this is not the case, but when anyone points this out to you, you act as if you never noticed what they said, and you keep blindly charging forward toward your objective--which, apparently, is to appear to be right, at all costs. It isn't working for you.
I thought you had identified yourself, in an earlier post, as a "Bible teacher." One prerequisite for being a teacher is the ability to learn. To participate in dialogue one must have the ability to listen to the person you are dialoging with. Before responding to an argument, it is necessary that you know what the argument is, which you won't unless you think about it, rather than reacting viscerally.
You have demonstarted to a degree that I find embarrassing for you that you do not read, hear or understand the meaning of plain English sentences addressed to you. You don't need a lexicon yet. You are not ready for that. You need an English dictionary. If you don't understand your native tongue (which I am assuming to be English--perhaps I am wrong), you are hardly in a position to lecture on Koine Greek.
When someone presents an argument to you, all you seem to be able to discern is that it is somehow in disagreement with your thesis, so, instead of listening and trying to understand, you simply fire off another nonsensical response--of which you never seem to tire.
I am not like you. I tire immediately of nonsense. Your refusal to hear anyone who addresses you does not exhibit respect for your fellow participants. Your refusal to grasp the plainest English seems to have rendered you unable to understand what is being said to you, and apparently prevents you from being able to notice or respond to the challenges that others put to you. This is what has made me decide that further dialogue with you is unprofitable.
Live well!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve