Acts 13

[heartstrings]

" From Adam we took original sin;
"from him fleshly descended be we all, and engendered of vile
and corrupt matter;" and the penalty of Adam's transgression
dwelleth with us as to temptation, which penalty is called
concupiscence. "This concupiscence, when it is wrongfully
disposed or ordained in a man, it maketh him covet, by covetise
of flesh, fleshly sin by sight of his eyes, as to earthly things, and
also covetise of highness by pride of heart."

From The Parsons Tale, The Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400)

 

[Invicta]

This is just personal assessment here, but I think they chose "ordain" because it was the most accurate word in their time. 400 years ago English had far fewer words that had larger ranges of meaning. Over time our usage has added new words and narrowed the meanings of some older ones. We use "ordain" now almost exclusively in a divine or religious sense. We "ordain" people to be pastors and talk about how God "ordains" something to be so (largely based on Biblical usage). Just 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers "ordained" the Constitution of the U.S. (see the last sentence of the preamble), which is likely a closer usage to the discussion at hand in which we are talking about appointing or decreeing. That's why I always try to look at the older definitions when doing Bible word studies. We have to keep in mind that if we apply today's standards of writing, the KJB is written at the 12th-grade level; however our society reads at the 7th-8th grade level on average. Sometimes it takes an extra step to grasp real English and I struggle with it mightily sometimes because we just have an ingrained notion of that most words mean only one thing so we memorize that one definition and forget the rest.

 

This is just personal assessment here, but I think they chose "ordain" because it was the most accurate word in their time. 400 years ago English had far fewer words that had larger ranges of meaning. Over time our usage has added new words and narrowed the meanings of some older ones. We use "ordain" now almost exclusively in a divine or religious sense. We "ordain" people to be pastors and talk about how God "ordains" something to be so (largely based on Biblical usage). Just 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers "ordained" the Constitution of the U.S. (see the last sentence of the preamble), which is likely a closer usage to the discussion at hand in which we are talking about appointing or decreeing. That's why I always try to look at the older definitions when doing Bible word studies. We have to keep in mind that if we apply today's standards of writing, the KJB is written at the 12th-grade level; however our society reads at the 7th-8th grade level on average. Sometimes it takes an extra step to grasp real English and I struggle with it mightily sometimes because we just have an ingrained notion of that most words mean only one thing so we memorize that one definition and forget the rest.

 

 

I don't think it is accurate to say "in their time. 400 years ago English had far fewer words that had larger ranges of meaning."  Shakespeare is said to have used over 30,000 words, compared with up to 5,000 most English speakers use today.  

[JerryNumbers]

This is just personal assessment here, but I think they chose "ordain" because it was the most accurate word in their time. 400 years ago English had far fewer words that had larger ranges of meaning. Over time our usage has added new words and narrowed the meanings of some older ones. We use "ordain" now almost exclusively in a divine or religious sense. We "ordain" people to be pastors and talk about how God "ordains" something to be so (largely based on Biblical usage). Just 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers "ordained" the Constitution of the U.S. (see the last sentence of the preamble), which is likely a closer usage to the discussion at hand in which we are talking about appointing or decreeing. That's why I always try to look at the older definitions when doing Bible word studies. We have to keep in mind that if we apply today's standards of writing, the KJB is written at the 12th-grade level; however our society reads at the 7th-8th grade level on average. Sometimes it takes an extra step to grasp real English and I struggle with it mightily sometimes because we just have an ingrained notion of that most words mean only one thing so we memorize that one definition and forget the rest.

 

I agree, I don't believe I read as high as the 12th grade. And that is why I like to use Strongs, & other means of seeing what the words mean without correcting our good old KJ Bible.

 

And I have always felt if we grew up in the days the Bible was written we would have a much easier time of understanding the Bible.

[heartstrings]

I agree, I don't believe I read as high as the 12th grade. And that is why I like to use Strongs, & other means of seeing what the words mean without correcting our good old KJ Bible.

 

And I have always felt if we grew up in the days the Bible was written we would have a much easier time of understanding the Bible.

I believe that.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

There is absolutely no harm or wrong in looking to the Greek and Hebrew for clarity on words meanings. 

Word meanings have changed (some drastically) over the centuries since the KJB was first translated.  And, while most of the words are easily understood when read in their context, some are not.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think it is accurate to say "in their time. 400 years ago English had far fewer words that had larger ranges of meaning."  Shakespeare is said to have used over 30,000 words, compared with up to 5,000 most English speakers use today.  

 

I don't think it's inaccurate either. Shakespeare made up over 1,700 words to fit his rhyme and meter. Most people only use 5,000 because the average readership level is around the 7th grade. English currently has over 1 million words and still growing. Just because people today have poor vocabulary doesn't mean we have a shrinking language.

[TheSword]

I agree, I don't believe I read as high as the 12th grade. And that is why I like to use Strongs, & other means of seeing what the words mean without correcting our good old KJ Bible.

 

And I have always felt if we grew up in the days the Bible was written we would have a much easier time of understanding the Bible.

 

I only say 12th grade because that's what all of my textbook resources say. I'd venture to say none of them are what we would consider pro-KJV but they all agree on that. Maybe it's higher, maybe it's lower, but you're absolutely right, if we actually knew our English well we wouldn't have near the problems understanding God's Word.

[John81]

I only say 12th grade because that's what all of my textbook resources say. I'd venture to say none of them are what we would consider pro-KJV but they all agree on that. Maybe it's higher, maybe it's lower, but you're absolutely right, if we actually knew our English well we wouldn't have near the problems understanding God's Word.

Somewhat off topic, but this also points to how dismal education in America has become. Years ago the KJB was considered to be an 8th grade reading level.

 

I read an article a few years ago about how most magazines are written at a 6th grade reading level and that some were considering a move to a 4th grade reading level.

 

This, in part, is why the KJB is viewed as so difficult to read. The public school system is not only failing to teach millions to read, they are also failing to teach them how to read to understand.

 

At one time the KJB was either the main book or one of the main books young children learned to read from. Today we teach young children using very simplistic books and then keep them reading simplistic readings for a long time. Sadly, the KJB is no longer used at all and in many schools students never read any Shakespeare or any other works that would aid them in being able to understand the KJB.

 

This is a big reason the simplistic Bibles are so popular, such as The Message and NIV. The Message, which is actually a paraphrase and shouldn't rightly be called a Bible or translation at all, is written with the idea it can be read like any other simplistic, story-like book. The NIV, with each new version getting worse, is written at a 6th grade, or lower, reading level, and so watered down.

 

We need to be careful and show love and patience to our brothers/sisters in Christ who have limited or low reading abilities. We need to be willing to start with them where they are, (not demand they immediately toss their MV in the trash and just try real hard to read a KJB until the Holy Ghost helps them understand) to help them learn to read better, to help them learn (however long that may take) how to read from the KJB and as they progress in their reading ability, help them to transition from their MV to the KJB while taking advantage of that transition time to show them and teach them about the weaknesses of the MV. For some this could take a few weeks, for others a few months, and some will take longer.

 

Jesus said people will know us by our love for one another. Do we love our brothers/sisters in Christ with low reading abilities enough to help them overcome this problem?

[Covenanter]

From the Way of Life Encyclopedia: ELECT

 

Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

 

The Calvinist interprets this verse in light of his theology and says that God's election has nothing to do with man's response to the Gospel, yet this ignores the immediate context of the verse. Just prior to this, in verse 46, Paul had stated why the Jews did not believe. It was not because they were not chosen of God to believe. It was because they themselves put it from them. They themselves rejected the truth. It was not God's will that they do so. It was not because they had been foreordained to eternal damnation. They were given light by Christ (John 1:9) and they were being drawn by Christ (John 12:32) and they were being convicted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), but they rejected all of this and for that reason they were rejected of God.

 

Why should "calvinists" leap on every text that might support the case. Scripture as a whole is clear enough, but this verse in context cannot be used as a proof text. How is the Gk used in Scripture?

 

The KJV translates Strongs G5021 in the following manner: appoint (3x), ordain (2x), set (1x), determine (1x), addict (1x).

 

Note the other occurrences - not of "ordain" but G5021, particularly :

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined ^G5021 that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

 

28:23 And when they had appointed ^G5021 him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

 

1 Cor. 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted ^G5021 themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

[heartstrings]

Why should "calvinists" leap on every text that might support the case. Scripture as a whole is clear enough, but this verse in context cannot be used as a proof text. How is the Gk used in Scripture?

 

The KJV translates Strongs G5021 in the following manner: appoint (3x), ordain (2x), set (1x), determine (1x), addict (1x).

 

Note the other occurrences - not of "ordain" but G5021, particularly :

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined ^G5021that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

 

28:23 And when they had appointed ^G5021 him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

 

1 Cor. 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted ^G5021themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

#1 As already stated, in most instances it tells WHO ordained, WHO or WHAT was ordained and WHAT they were ordained to. But in Acts 13, the first 
WHO is missing.

 

#2. It has also been shown, in this thread, that with the original meaning of "ordained", a person could "ordain" themselves to a thing, habit etc.

 

#3. In your third example, the "house of Stephanas" "addicted themselves" which further reinforces #2 and is from the exact same Greek word "Tasso".

[Left the Bldg]

Here are some synonyms of ordained.  Approved, commissioned, empowered, entitled, permitted, validated...just to name a few.

 

If you read verse 46 first, Paul explains that Jews were offered salvation first but since they rejected it, it was now offered to the Gentiles.    

 

Replace the word "ordained" with one of the synonyms such as "entitled".

 

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained "approved", "permitted", "validated" to eternal life believed.

 

Since the Jews rejected salvation, the Gentiles were now "entitled" to it since they accepted it and believed that's why the they were glad.  Because now they were "approved", "empowered", "permitted"...etc.

 

Does that makes sense?

[John81]

 

Here are some synonyms of ordained.  Approved, commissioned, empowered, entitled, permitted, validated...just to name a few.

 

If you read verse 46 first, Paul explains that Jews were offered salvation first but since they rejected it, it was now offered to the Gentiles.    

 

Replace the word "ordained" with one of the synonyms such as "entitled".

 

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained "approved", "permitted", "validated" to eternal life believed.

 

Since the Jews rejected salvation, the Gentiles were now "entitled" to it since they accepted it and believed that's why the they were glad.  Because now they were "approved", "empowered", "permitted"...etc.

 

Does that makes sense?

 

Yes, actually, and it fits with other verses of Scripture which point to the same thing.

[heartstrings]

More synonyms of "ordained" are devoted, ordered, dedicated, disposed, established, set, fixed,

 

Egyptians (prime examples of Gentiles) went to extraordinary lengths to prepare themselves for an afterlife. Even being lost hopeless sinners, Egyptians nonetheless fully believed that their soul or "ka" would live on and were so devoted to it, that they spent as much wealth as they could personally afford toward acquiring it.. The Egyptians had faith in the WRONG salvation.  Pharaohs began preparing elaborate tombs and pyramids long before their own deaths...the biggest the best, they could afford. And they weren't the only Gentiles to do this as archaeology has clearly shown. The Gentiles in Acts 13 did not believe because they were already "appointed": The ones who believed, beleived when they willingly trusted Jesus as THE ONLY WAY....to an afterlife they already desperately wanted.

[Left the Bldg]

First they heard, then they were glad, then they glorified because they were permitted, ordained, approved (whichever synonym) because they believed what they heard.  

[Left the Bldg]

 

More synonyms of "ordained" are devoted, ordered, dedicated, disposed, established, set, fixed,

 

Egyptians (prime examples of Gentiles) went to extraordinary lengths to prepare themselves for an afterlife. Even being lost hopeless sinners, Egyptians nonetheless fully believed that their soul or "ka" would live on and were so devoted to it, that they spent as much wealth as they could personally afford toward acquiring it.. The Egyptians had faith in the WRONG salvation.  Pharaohs began preparing elaborate tombs and pyramids long before their own deaths...the biggest the best, they could afford. And they weren't the only Gentiles to do this as archaeology has clearly shown. The Gentiles in Acts 13 did not believe because they were already "appointed": The ones who believed, beleived when they willingly trusted Jesus as THE ONLY WAY....to an afterlife they already desperately wanted.

 

I was going to "like" your post but got a message I reached my likes for the day.