Not anyone's guess. But someone's personal incredulity.
None of those other choices tell the reader than God had specified beforehand in scripture what is being discussed.
Word Study G3724, “horizo”
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Van, Aug 9, 2014.
Page 5 of 7
-
-
-
None of those other choices tell the reader than God had specified beforehand in scripture what is being discussed.
-
-
None of those other choices i.e. appoint, decree, determine and ordain, tell the reader that God had specified beforehand in scripture what is being discussed.
-
-
Yet another effort at redefinition. Appoint does not mean specified. Ditto for determine, and ordain. If God's decree was specified in scripture, then the meanings are similar.
-
The words appoint, determine, ordain, and decree are all much stronger and more 'specific' than the limp-wristed specified that Van vainly insists upon.
In Luke 22:22, "decreed" is far more suitable than merely 'specified.
In Acts 2:23 it was God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge. Van's heterodox version is just that."Specified" and "prior knowledge" are thankfully in no translation.
In Acts 10:42, 'appointed' works just fine.
In Acts 17:31, ditto the above. -
Yet another effort at redefinition. Appoint does not mean specified. Ditto for determine, and ordain. If God's decree was specified in scripture, then the meanings are similar.
God specified how Christ would die in Isaiah 53, and said so in Acts 2. Why not translate the full message of God found in the Greek?
The heterodox view is word study is without merit, or modern translations do not contain flaws, or words have no inherent meanings. -
-
Yet a repeat of presenting less than the full message of God, leaving out of Acts 2 that God has specified how Christ would die in Isaiah 53.
-
-
Yet another falsehood but no quote will be forthcoming. Did I say all translations that do not make the same choice I made are "wrong." Nope. But Rippon said I did. Thus his posts are riddled with misrepresentations calculated to demean and disparage. Hate speech again on display.
-
Ten Examples
Post 1 : "has brought confusion to many...this completely misses the idea."
Post 17 : "all of which is missed by the tradtional translations."
Post 54 : "God specified His plan in Isaiah 53, but that fact is left out of the translation."
Post 58 : "Modern translations translate it with a slew of different words."
Posts 60 and 76 repeat the above.
Post 75 : "To leave out of the Acts 2 translation that God had specified His plan in Scripture does not present the full message of God."
Post 81 : "None of these other choices tell the reader thn [sic] God had specified beforehand in Scripture what is being discussed."
Posts 83 and 85 repeat the above.
Post 89 : "Why not translate the full message of God found in the Greek?" -
And not one of the examples said "translators were wrong." You have got to love them folks. :)
But I did say specified was better than other translation choices because specified presents the full message of God, i.e. that God had specified the manner Christ would die in scripture such as Isaiah 52. -
-
Now Rippon whats to redefine the meaning of my words to put his words in my mouth. So Calvinistic it is funny. But not one of the examples actually said "translators were wrong." You have got to love them folks.
-
Let me make it easy for you
-
Rippon continues to derail the thread, posting nothing about the topic, and simply repeating his disinformation.
Picking the best translation choice among several does not say the others were wrong, just not the best available.
Specified is a better translation choice because it includes the idea that God had told us in scripture how Jesus would die. -
Page 5 of 7