Featured Word Study G2673, katargeo

If the goal is fidelity and concordance, rendered inactive wins hands down.

Folks, Words have meanings and those meanings have merit.

Consider this, if the meanings of words comes from the context, how do you derive the context. Remember, according to Rippon, none of the words have a meaning unless you know the context. What is the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Did you understand it to say word meanings are inherent? You supplied the context to decide what it said. This approach to bible study, words get their meanings from the context, is simply a liberal attack on scripture, decide what you want it to say, and claim it says it because of "context." Twaddle

God chose the Greek word that means "render inactive" but somehow translating it as "rendered inactive" is flawed based on liberalism. No sale.

 

Nothing new or novel or useful, but lots of nonsense. When you consider Rippon's, "Fidelity and concordance often do not match" in light of his seeming inability to do word study, one has to wonder if he could provide examples.

If the goal is fidelity and concordance, rendered inactive wins hands down.

Folks, Words have meanings and those meanings have merit.

Consider this, if the meanings of words comes from the context, how do you derive the context. Remember, according to Rippon, none of the words have a meaning unless you know the context. What is the context of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? Did you understand it to say word meanings are inherent? You supplied the context to decide what it said. This approach to bible study, words get their meanings from the context, is simply a liberal attack on scripture: i.e. decide what you want it to say, and claim it says it because of "context."

 

In the past, unreferenced and unavailable, Rippon has demonstrated something other than frequent use of logical fallacies. Judge for yourselves.

Fidelity and concordance in translation of various word meanings go hand in hand, and no examples where they do not will be forthcoming. I expect Rippon has no idea of how to do word studies, let alone assess fidelity and concordance.

 

None of those examples have anything to do with the issue. They demonstrate words have a range of meanings, but not that each of their meanings cannot be translated concordantly and with fidelity.

Lets consider an example, from a lexicon, we learn that "apo" does not include in its range of meanings the idea of "before." But, to satisfy Calvinism's contextual bias, some translators chose to redefine the word to mean what Calvinism would like. Is this sound translation, or corruption? You decide.

 

The person who seems unable to do word studies, not pontificates as if lexical concordance was a concept. And again, unless words have inherent meanings, there is no way to determine the context. The whole premise of Rippon is liberal twaddle.

 

Did I say my translation choices are the exact God given ones? Nope. [personal attack snipped]

Do any Bible students have the right to reject translation choices and adopt others? I say yes. Dictatorial Elitist would say no. What say you?

 

Now Rippon has become the slave master on the forum plantation, telling others what "rights" we have. Did the NIV deviate from the KJV? Yes. So if a scholar disagrees with another scholar, that is ok. But if a non-scholar agrees with one scholar over and against another scholar, that is not ok, unless it is Rippon saying this translation is better than that one. ok

 

This compound word appears in about 26 verses in the NASB, and literally means to make “thoroughly inactive” and has three basic meanings:

1) to render powerless and inoperative.
2) to destroy, abolish, nullify
3) to separate, sever, or set aside

Luke 13:7, “… Why does it render inactive the ground?”
Romans 3:3, “… their unbelief will not render inactive the faithfulness of God.”
Romans 3:31, “Do we then render inactive the Law through faith?..”
Romans 4:14, “…faith is made void and the promise rendered inactive.”
Romans 6:6, “…so that our body of sin might be rendered inactive, so…”
Romans 7:2, “…she is severed from the Law...”
Romans 7:6, “…but now we have been severed from the Law…”
1 Cor. 1:28, “…so that He may render inactive the things that are. “
1 Cor. 2:6, “…who are being rendered inactive.”
1 Cor. 6:13, “…God will render inactive both of them.”
1 Cor. 13:8, “…gifts of prophecy, they will be rendered inactive, and if tongues, they will cease, and if knowledge, it will be rendered inactive.”
1 Cor. 13:10, “…the partial will be rendered inactive.”
1 Cor. 13:11, “…when I became a man, I rendered inactive the childish things.”
1 Cor. 15:24, “…when He has rendered inactive all rule, and all authority and power.”
1 Cor. 15:26, “…the last enemy that will be rendered inactive is death.”
2 Cor. 3:7, “…the brightness of his face was being rendered inactive.”
2 Cor. 3:11, “…if that which is being rendered inactive came with glory…”
2 Cor. 3:13, “…look intently at what was being rendered inactive.”
2 Cor. 3:14, “…because it is rendered inactive in Christ.”
Gal. 3:17, “…so as to render inactive the promise.”
Gal. 5:4, “…you have been severed from Christ….”
Gal. 5:11, “…the stumbling block of the cross has been rendered inactive.”
Eph. 2:15, “…by rendering inactive, in His flesh, the enmity….”
2 Thess. 2:8, “…and will render inactive by the splendor of His coming.”
2 Tim. 1:10, “…who rendered inactive death, and….”
Hebrews 2:14, “…that through His death, He might render inactive him who had the power of death, that is the devil.”

Thus, for G2673 - katargeo, I provided three differing shades of meaning - but based on context, severing or making thoroughly inactive covers the whole gamut.

 

You have got to love them folks. The guy who chides others on usage says "make deactivate" rather than make inactive.

 

Look up post #36 in this thread, I posted it, not Rippon.
Next, we get the two wrongs make a right liberal argument. Since "make deactivate" is silly or absurd (see posts #37 and 39) then make inactive is invalidated.