Hey!
Yesterday I spent the afternoon and evening looking into this thingy you brought to my attention and this is what I discovered.
After consulting a Greek interlinear and then comparing the English conjunctions chosen for the translations of hoti in the KJV, then in Rotherham and Young, and then a Greek Lexicon to assure that what I was concluding was justifiable, I discovered that hoti means that! 
It seemed to me as I scrolled through the translations, that the use of, “for,” or, “because,” as well as a few other miscellaneous English conjunctions, is dependent upon how the translators chose to accommodate the conversion of the flow of the Greek text into English sentence structure. Not surprisingly, “that,” was chosen almost three times more than the next conjunction, “for.”
Concerning hina, I can see where the idea of, “in order that,” would fit well as I read through the translations. But, there were many scriptures where the English structure made such a reading awkward.
So, the way I see it, you have made a good point.
However, Paul did not choose, hina, he choose hoti. So, this makes the choice of, “that,” “for,” or, “because,” dependent on how the translator wishes to structure the sentence.
For instance, I can take any of the Beatitudes and re-write them so I don’t have to use,“for.”
Blessed are the poor in spirit. It will be that the kingdom of heaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who mourn. It will be that they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek. It will be that they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. It will be that they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful. It will be that they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart. It will be that they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers. It will be that they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake. It will be that they inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Now this is screwy English and a translator would be called on the carpet who did this. But, this does illustrate my point that an English translator can select how he wishes to structure a sentence.
So, for the passage in question, I perceive that a choice was made by the first translators as to how they wanted to structure the sentence. Additionally, I perceive that for the flow of the Greek, either variant, Knoch’s, or Young’s, or the KJV (and thus everyone else’s translation that can’t afford to mess with the sacrosanct, that is, if they want to sell Bibles), is viable. And so the translators went with their bias, even as they do today, and choose a variant sentence structure that could be used to support Calvinism.
In other words, the belief preceded the translation.
It is clear from the history of the English Bible that Augustinianisim, which is reflected in the Latin translations that were intended to bolster the growing Clergy/Laity divide, became the de facto understanding of the middle ages. Later, Calvin systematized Augustinianisim and made sure his Geneva Bible, from which the KJV would come to be derived, also reflected the Latin translation.
So, I’d like to ask, was Augustinianisim, and then Calvinism, the original understanding of the first few centuries of Believers?
No, of course it wasn’t. Universalisim, specifically, the belief that Jesus, the Christ will redeem all of humanity was the original understanding.
Therefore I would like to ask, rhetorically, did not all of the writing apostles warn the ecclessia’s that, when they were gone, there would come in false teachers who would twist the apostles words and mis-lead many?
Did this not happen?
If it did, where did the twisting occur and when?
If it did not, why not?
Please know that I ask only for the sake of reflection.
Predestination, and at that double predestination, as Calvin originally explained it, does not become any less a twisting of scripture just because modern understandings can nullify his infernal, eternal hell within a person’s thinking. Predestination and fore-ordination, like that peculiar eternal hell, were translated into existence, as was the notion that God foreknew the fall of mankind: That is to say that Calvinism leads us to believe that the fall was as much a part of the creation as the separation of Eve from Adam, and therefore, Jehovah intended things to be exactly as they are from before He ever created the first water molecule.
And that includes all the Pain and Suffering we endure, both at the hands of Mother Nature and at the hands of our fellow human beings.
Sorry, but I have a serious problem with Calvinism. Please forgive me.
I’ll be gone till after New Year’s Day.
So, to all of you, please accept my wishes for a very Happy New year, regardless of politics and theology!
May the Joy that comes from the God of Heaven and Earth be as real to you and as expected as your morning shower.
Be good, all of you, my fellow human beings and lovers of God; for that is what He created all of us to be!
Dennis!