Replies

So you have still, to this day, provided no justification for taking what is given as a secondary meaning for the word "vision" instead of the primary meaning.

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

Post 1056:

Same word used both places. If you're saying it's a matter of translation, then you have to argue with the scholars. I doubt very much you want to do that. The term Vision has a very specific meaning in the context of scripture and This one is used exactly twice in the NT and you're looking at the two times it's used.

Post 1065:

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

How many people are you, Havoc? You posit a weak, but tenable argument. That the word is only used twice in the New Testament and therefore it must always have the same meaning. This, while not very strong or logical, is at least some sense of justification.

And then you turn around and simply bluster again about how it's simply "Scripture" and has nothign to do with interpretation. Please have a meeting and decide among yourself which is the case. Then get back to us.

SD

The translators used Vision, not spectacle. I admitted there is a secondary meaning to the word that is in line with "Vision" Ya'll are the ones trying to retranslate it. So who's YOPIOS is it on trial here. Not mine; but, ya'lls own attempt to reinterpret it to do away with a word you don't like. Don't give me that garbage, it is you who are retranslating and reinterpreting to fit your position. I merely pointed to scripture. If you want to retranslate it, you have to prove it. In context, it stands. That is your problem.

"ya'lls!" See? This passage from the Word of Havoc has the word ya'lls, in it. So He really didn't mean to contend with SoothingDave, but meant to say that all authority rests in SoothingDave by saying it was his alone, by what the translators gave to us as "ya'lls". That much is clear. You see, the whole of scripture is not to be taken by you mere mortals as truth or even a single passage of scripture, but you are to take the TRUE meaning from a single word that I, in my supreme authority pull out of it and focus on to the negation of the whole.

Got it? Good! Asked. Answered. Next. --Supra 666:3 from the Word of Havoc, may His name and prophet be praised.