The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING)

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

It does not matter where it is used, it means "helper" or taking the submissive position, saying "God is my helper" means" What I do I cannot do without his help"...

Romans 1:22 KJV
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Remember too, the Devil is a scholar, he quotes scripture, and told Eve what God meant... you may have an educational background, but in no means makes you an authority, you are no more inspired than anyone else on this forum, sometimes I believe there is only so much room in a mans brain and as education moves in, common sense moves out. we are further ahead to trust in guidance from the Holy Spirit!

James 1:5 KJV
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Here is the hierarchy of all:

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

And again the hierarchy of the man and woman:

1 Corinthians 11:8 KJV
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 KJV
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

But the Bible also teaches although the woman being dependent on the man, so is the man (equally) dependent on the women as without each other they cannot exist :

1 Corinthians 11:11 KJV
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

So even though the man came before the woman, the woman is equally important to the man as you stated, the woman was made "from" the man, but now the man is "born" of the woman so the two constitute one real self-propagating being.

1 Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The Bible does not teach that a man is to be a dictator over the woman, he is to care and love her as Christ does the Church :

Ephesians 5:23 KJV
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

and the Bible does not say a woman today cannot teach, it does not even say a woman cannot teach another man, it only says if a more authoritative man is present, she is to submit to the man and let him teach :

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

so since Preaching is in fact Teaching, if there is a man in the audience that is knowledgeable as she, then she cannot do either as she would be "usurping" authority over him.

And BTW: there is no proof she was a woman deacon, but in accordance to the context she was most probable a "deacons wife". else it would be contradictory of the qualifications given in the Bible and we know the Bible does not contradict its self:

1 Timothy 3:8-13 KJV
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

As Scholarly as you are, you probably already knew that!

Hi there rrowel, thanks so much for your detailed response to my post. I enjoyed reading it.

Regarding my education, I want to clarify that I do not see this as making me "correct." As I indicated, I was simply addressing your assumption that neither of us is educated enough to discuss the Greek text. I do have an education in New Testament Greek, so your assumption was simply not informed.

Regarding your comments on women not usurping authority, I think what you'll find if you research the translation of this passage is that the word used by Paul of women (authentein) did not in fact mean "to usurp authority" until the 3rd century (i.e. once again Augustine's time period).

Prior to this, the word meant murder, suicide, incest or sexual impropriety leading to death. Here is a link providing a detailed explanation of the use of the term in Biblical times: http://godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm

Authentein is used once in the Bible. We have no other biblical reference to discern its meaning, so we must rely on other literature of the day. None of the literature of Paul's day translates it as "to usurp authority." All available literature mentions murder, suicide, incest, infidelity.

The Greek word for "have authority" is exousia. It is used, I believe, 32 times in the New Testament. It is not used here.

So, we have a Hebrew word ezer (helper) that apparently means women are subordinate, yet since the word is also used of God, it clearly does not have this meaning.

We have Greek words (diakonos, prostatis) that are translated as minister, deacon or ruler for men, but servant or succourer for women.

And now we have a word (authentein) that in all available literature of Paul's day means murder, suicide, incest, infidelity, but is translated "usurp authority" when it applies to women in the church.

Also remember that 1st Timothy is a letter written to the pastor in Ephesus, who would have been ministering to former temple prostitutes of Diana converting to Christianity. Their worship involved ritual sex and human sacrifice (e.g. the literal definition of authentein in Paul's day).

So, can women preach? I agree with you, yes of course they can. Can they authentein? No, they cannot, but this has nothing to do with "having authority." Which is why I think Deborah was chosen by God as a judge of Israel, why Phoebe was a Deacon in the early church, and why Junia was an Apostle.

To believe that women cannot hold authority in church, one has to mistranslate authentein (this has clearly been done) obscure the fact that women were Deacons, Ministers, Leaders and Apostles (this has clearly been done), and insist that Eve was Adam's subordinate because she was his "ezer," even though this word does not of course suggest any kind of subordination when used repeatedly of God.

I'd also like to respond to this comment of yours:

"there is no proof she was a woman deacon, but in accordance to the context she was most probable a "deacons wife". else it would be contradictory of the qualifications given in the Bible and we know the Bible does not contradict its self."

Romans 16 1:2 literally says, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you" (TNIV).

The Bible literally says she was a "deacon." She was not a deacon's wife. To suggest this is to add a phrase to the Bible that is clearly not there. In other words, you have to change the Bible to make it fit your beliefs about women. As I've suggested, this has been done repeatedly, and you seem to be doing it again.

By the way, does this actually contradict Paul's instructions to men who wanted to be deacons? Of course not. Does Paul say, "Only men can be deacons"? No, he does not. I'm sure the same qualifications would apply to our female deacon, Phoebe. I'm sure she was also to live a godly life.

Are you not aware that literary traditions often only mention men, when both men and women are concerned? For centuries, English used the male pronoun "he" when referring to any unidentified person, male or female. Human beings were also referred to as "mankind." When this term was used, did it only apply to men? Of course not. There was a gender bias in the language. Most universities now penalize students who use "he" to refer to an unidentified individual. It is a very "male-centered" way of viewing the world. I would suggest this is a consequence of the very curse Jesus died to free us from, according to Galatians chapter 3.

Also, in response to this comment of yours: "it only says if a more authoritative man is present, she is to submit to the man and let him teach/"

I do not believe you will find any verse in any Bible that says this. This is pure inference, an assumption that requires us to change the text to suit our own conclusions.

When I first came to Christ, I was mentored in the Baptist church. Our Pastor, whom I love, studied at a seminary that referred often to the work of St. Augustine and John Calvin. The King James Bible was held in high esteem. Some viewed this particular translation itself as the infallible word of God. As I've become more aware of information related to the history of women in the church, I've come to some painful realizations. My Pastor taught me a view of the Bible that was coloured by prejudices of the middle ages and 3rd century Rome. My beautiful New King James Bible was quite literally and obviously biased against women, and incorrect. I had to realize that the church has been holding women in bondage to a curse, when our Lord and Savior literally died to free them from it. This was all very painful, but I had to admit, we--the church--were wrong.

This is my position at this point in my journey of faith, and I respect that yours may differ. My only hope is that you may reflect on the information I've shared, with an open mind. I can also assure you that I have given your points thoughtful consideration (for many years actually), and I appreciate the respect you have demonstrated in your posts.

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

In response to the following comments from rrowell:

"Here is the hierarchy of all:

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

And again the hierarchy of the man and woman:

1 Corinthians 11:8 KJV
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 KJV
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

But the Bible also teaches although the woman being dependent on the man, so is the man (equally) dependent on the women as without each other they cannot exist :

1 Corinthians 11:11 KJV
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

So even though the man came before the woman, the woman is equally important to the man as you stated, the woman was made "from" the man, but now the man is "born" of the woman so the two constitute one real self-propagating being.

1 Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

The Bible does not teach that a man is to be a dictator over the woman, he is to care and love her as Christ does the Church :

Ephesians 5:23 KJV
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body."

I like how you highlight the interdependence of men and women, and I agree that men are not supposed to be dictators. In the Roman Empire of Jesus day, and in Jewish tradition men were the undisputed "heads" of their homes. Unfortunately, many did function as dictators. I think Jesus and Paul portray headship in an entirely different light:

"Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many'†(Matthew 20:25-28 NIV).

Paul applies this principle specifically to husbands when he says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25 NIV).

Similar instructions about all Christian relationships can be found in Philippians 2:5-8:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!" (NIV)

The passages in Ephesians about marriage begin with a statement encouraging Christians to, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Husbands are depicted then as setting an example of serving just as Christ did. Wife's are then told to follow this example, just as the church follow's Christ's. It is a beautiful picture of mutual service. If the man or head takes the lead in anything, Paul and Jesus define this as taking the lead in service.

Jesus also modeled this principle when he washed the disciple's feet. He led them by setting an example of service: "Then he said to them, 'I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you'" (John 13:15 NIV).

So, while I agree with the concept of headship, I see it in terms of setting an example of loving service. Some Christians assume that headship means men have the "final say" over decisions in the home, that they are in charge of the finances, that they are responsible for leading worship in the home, that they are ultimately responsible for disciplining children (and sometimes wives). The Bible doesn't depict a husband's headship in any of these ways though. These are all cultural roles that people often wrongly assume are rooted in the Bible.

Over and over again, when the concept of heaship or leadership comes up in the teachings of Paul and Christ, we see the same theme: lay down your life, take the position of a servant not a master, just as Jesus did.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi there rrowel, thanks so much for your detailed response to my post. I enjoyed reading it.

Regarding my education, I want to clarify that I do not see this as making me "correct." As I indicated, I was simply addressing your assumption that neither of us is educated enough to discuss the Greek text. I do have an education in New Testament Greek, so your assumption was simply not informed.

Regarding your comments on women not usurping authority, I think what you'll find if you research the translation of this passage is that the word used by Paul of women (authentein) did not in fact mean "to usurp authority" until the 3rd century (i.e. once again Augustine's time period).

Prior to this, the word meant murder, suicide, incest or sexual impropriety leading to death. Here is a link providing a detailed explanation of the use of the term in Biblical times: http://godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm

In no way does anything on that website show "authenteo" defined as any such you proclaim above, in fact every instance without butchering the context used therein implicates an authoritative figure, you try to make it mean for example "murder" when in fact it's use in the sentence is to emphasize the one who "over powers" another and murders him. or one who "overpowers" or "overwhelms" another in sexual or immoral conduct.

"authenteo" is from the compound "authos" which is "oneself" and "hentes" an obsolete word (of which I cannot find a definition of, but Strong's says "a worker") and to combine (compound these words) means to "act of oneself"... now taking the rest of the incontestable text in context is correctly rendered as "not to have authority over the man" or "act of oneself over the man"

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

The Bible literally says she was a "deacon." She was not a deacon's wife. To suggest this is to add a phrase to the Bible that is clearly not there. In other words, you have to change the Bible to make it fit your beliefs about women. As I've suggested, this has been done repeatedly, and you seem to be doing it again.

By the way, does this actually contradict Paul's instructions to men who wanted to be deacons? Of course not. Does Paul say, "Only men can be deacons"? No, he does not. I'm sure the same qualifications would apply to our female deacon, Phoebe. I'm sure she was also to live a godly life.

Are you not aware that literary traditions often only mention men, when both men and women are concerned? For centuries, English used the male pronoun "he" when referring to any unidentified person, male or female. Human beings were also referred to as "mankind." When this term was used, did it only apply to men? Of course not.

There is no proof that she was a "Deacon", however she was commended for her helping and teaching those who preached, and the qualifications spelled out by Paul says "man of one wife", so this would be a contradiction, it does not fall under the use of the word "man" as in "mankind" as you say the Bible so often does, this "man" is qualified with the "of one wife". when speaking of man and wife the Bible clearly distinguishes between the two not placing man in the "mankind" spectrum :

Mark 10:11-12 KJV
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

also I would like to clear up a point you made regarding one of my posts, I never said a women could "preach", I did say a woman could "teach".

Preaching (if done properly) is teaching. and a woman cannot do this under the NT law without usurping authority over the man, there is no way a woman preaching can know there is no man as authoritative (knowledgeable) in the audience as she.

So this should be placed in my opinion at the same as the Bible teaches when it comes to the act of drinking :

1 Corinthians 6:10 KJV
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

In the above scripture, at what point does a man become a drunkard? one drink? two? it is best to abstain.


However a woman can teach, so long as whom she teaches is not usurping authority over a man. in teaching (as you should know) there is interaction, the teacher knows the student, you would know if a student is as knowledgeable as you...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

In no way does anything on that website show "authenteo" defined as any such you proclaim above, in fact every instance without butchering the context used therein implicates an authoritative figure, you try to make it mean for example "murder" when in fact it's use in the sentence is to emphasize the one who "over powers" another and murders him. or one who "overpowers" or "overwhelms" another in sexual or immoral conduct.

"authenteo" is from the compound "authos" which is "oneself" and "hentes" an obsolete word (of which I cannot find a definition of, but Strong's says "a worker") and to combine (compound these words) means to "act of oneself"... now taking the rest of the incontestable text in context is correctly rendered as "not to have authority over the man" or "act of oneself over the man"

Hi rrowell. Actually the website says exactly what I've reported to you, and here are the quotes, from the website, to demonstrate this:

Clement of Alexandria wrote a detailed refutation of the various groups who endorsed fornication as accepted Christian behavior. He complained of those who had turned love-feasts into sex orgies, of those who taught women to "give to every man that asketh of thee," and of those who found in physical intercourse a "mystical communion." He branded one such lewd group authentai (the plural of authentes).

Thucydides, Herodotus, and Aeschylus also use the word to denote one who slays with his own hand, and so does Euripides. The Jewish Philo, whose writings are contemporary with the New Testament, meant "self-murderer" by his use of the term.

In Euripides the word begins to take on a sexual tinge. Menelaos is accounted a murderer because of his wife's malfeasance, and Andromache, the adored wife of the fallen Hector, is taken as a concubine by the authentes, who can command her domestic and sexual services. In fury the legitimate wife castigates Andromache with sexually abusive terms as "having the effrontery to sleep with the son of the father who destroyed your husband, in order to bear the child of an authentes." In the extended passage she mingles the concepts of incest and domestic murder, so that love and death color the meaning.

This word, authentein, is ordinarily translated "to bear rule" or "to usurp authority"; yet a study of other Greek literary sources reveals that it did not ordinarily have this meaning until the third or fourth century, well after the time of the New Testament. "

This is everything I said about the word "authentein," and you read it directly from my source. Yet, you claim this information is not there. I'm really not sure how to make sense of that, to be honest. Do you see it now?

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

There is no proof that she was a "Deacon"...

Preaching (if done properly) is teaching. and a woman cannot do this under the NT law without usurping authority over the man, there is no way a woman preaching can know there is no man as authoritative (knowledgeable) in the audience as she...

..

Once again, I've shared a specific text with you, and you've read it, yet you seem deny what it says. Romans 16:1-2 applies the specific title of "deacon" to Phoebe. It's a direct quote from the Greek text. The word is literally "diakonos." Apparently, despite this evidence you insist that Phoebe wasn't a deacon, and you suggest that she must have been a deacon's wife. Do you not see this as changing the Bible so that it fits with your beliefs and traditions?

You've also made reference to some principle that women can't teach if there is a man in the audience as knowledgeable as her. Which verse in the Bible says anything remotely similar to this?

You also say that women can't preach under "New Testament Law." What exactly do you believe that is? As I understand the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, Christians are not under the law:

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4 NIV).

Also, please note that although this passage is addressed only to men ("brothers") it applies equally to men and women. The Bible does indeed include the use of male nouns and pronouns when referring to human beings in general. I was very surprised when you did not acknowledge this.

Just because the Bible sometimes addresses men and women specifically (e.g. your example from Mark) certainly does not mean that it always does. Very often instructions to all Christians are addressed solely to men or "brothers" in this case. Are you able (willing) to see that now?

I'm starting to wonder about the presence of confirmation bias and belief perseverence here:

“As everyone knows, to see is to believe. As we also know, but less fully appreciate, to believe is to see. Our experiences, assumptions, and expectations may give us a perceptual set, or mental predisposition, that greatly influences what we perceive...” (Myers, 2007, p. 252).

I think this problem is what led some translators to alter the Bible in the first place. They didn't believe a woman could hold positions of authority, so they altered the text accordingly. Suddenly, women were no longer deacons or apostles, and suddenly the word authentein lost its original meaning.

I think we do a tremendous injustice to the biblical authors when we alter their words to fit our religious traditions. This happened to the religious leaders of Jesus day; it happened when the church developed "Canon Law" on the basis of Augustine's philosophies, and I think it still happens in the church today.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Once again, I've shared a specific text with you, and you've read it, yet you seem deny what it says. Romans 16:1-2 applies the specific title of "deacon" to Phoebe. It's a direct quote from the Greek text. The word is literally "diakonos." Apparently, despite this evidence you insist that Phoebe wasn't a deacon, and you suggest that she must have been a deacon's wife. Do you not see this as changing the Bible so that it fits with your beliefs and traditions?

You have shared an opinion with no scriptural support, there is no indications in the scripture of any such a class, to consider a "deaconess" a "deacon" requires you to change the meaning of 1 Tim. 3:8-13 (more precisely v. 1 Tim. 3:11-12)

the claim of the possibility of her being a deacons wife is only one of the possibilities without having to change the context of the verse the contested word resides, and too without having to change the entire meaning and changes of context of 1 Tim. 3:11-2.

It is clear in the scripture she was well admired by those holding the office of the deacon, a help to them in many ways, Thayer's defines "deaconess" of Romans 16:1 like this:

“a deaconess†(ministra, Pliny, epistles 10, 97), a woman to whom the care of either poor or sick women was entrusted, Romans 16:1 (cf. Dictionaries as above, under the word Deaconess; Lightfoot as above, p. 191; B. D. under the word Phoebe).

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

You have proven nothing but the fact you believe nobody knows how to interpret the Greek but you, everyone else is wrong, has been for hundreds of years, and had to find an odd ball Greek Bible to use to make your point.

You've also made reference to some principle that women can't teach if there is a man in the audience as knowledgeable as her. Which verse in the Bible says anything remotely similar to this?

I gave you one, 1 Tim. 2:12, but you try as you may to butcher the text with the same mindset those from Zondervan did perverting the Bible so to increase sales to as many denominations as possibly could in their perverted books. TNIV is a perfect example of this.

You also say that women can't preach under "New Testament Law." What exactly do you believe that is? As I understand the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, Christians are not under the law:

This is correct, I said "New Testament Law" and that is exactly what I meant:

Galatians 6:2 (KJV)
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

James 1:25 (KJV)
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.



and many more...

Just because the Bible sometimes addresses men and women specifically (e.g. your example from Mark) certainly does not mean that it always does. Very often instructions to all Christians are addressed solely to men or "brothers" in this case. Are you able (willing) to see that now?

You cannot find one scripture that shows "Wife" to mean "mankind" in the Greek or the English... no not one... not without changing the context.

when "man" is used in itself, it generally means "mankind" but when it is contrasted with "women" or "wife" they are spoken out of the spectrum of "mankind" (unless you twist the scripture to fit your doctrine)

I think this problem is what led some translators to alter the Bible in the first place. They didn't believe a woman could hold positions of authority, so they altered the text accordingly. Suddenly, women were no longer deacons or apostles, and suddenly the word authentein lost its original meaning.

They did not alter the Bible in the century you claim, they alter it today as you are... First was the man, then the women from the beginning (even so in the Hebrew), I believe Koine Greek was chosen by God for a reason, all the Greek tribes had their own dialects, but they all knew Koine since Alexander the Great (B.C). it is those like you and Zondervan's so called "Scholars" that have twisted it to make it fit your or as many denominational doctrine as they could (theirs was in the name of money, I can't figure out what yours is)

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

You have proven nothing but the fact you believe nobody knows how to interpret the Greek but you, everyone else is wrong, has been for hundreds of years, and had to find an odd ball Greek Bible to use to make your point.

This is correct, I said "New Testament Law" and that is exactly what I meant:

Galatians 6:2 (KJV)
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


They did not alter the Bible in the century you claim, they alter it today as you are... First was the man, then the women from the beginning (even so in the Hebrew), I believe Koine Greek was chosen by God for a reason, all the Greek tribes had their own dialects, but they all knew Koine since Alexander the Great (B.C). it is those like you and Zondervan's so called "Scholars" that have twisted it to make it fit your or as many denominational doctrine as they could (theirs was in the name of money, I can't figure out what yours is)

Hi there rrowell,

Let's start with your allegation that I had to find an odd-ball Greek Bible to make my point:

"Novum Testamentum Graece is the Latin name of an original Greek-language version of the New Testament. The first printed edition was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, printed in 1514, but not published until 1520. The first published edition of the Greek New Testament was produced by Erasmus in 1516.
Today the designation Novum Testamentum Graece normally refers to the Nestle-Aland editions, named after the scholars who led the critical editing work. The text, edited by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research) is currently in its 27th edition, abbreviated NA27. NA27 is used as the basis of most contemporary New Testament translations, as well as being the standard for academic work in New Testament studies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

This is not an odd-ball Bible, it is an original Greek New Testament compiled from the oldest, most consistent, most widely copied Greek manuscripts. It is used as a basis for nearly all of today's English Bibles, and revisions of earlier translations.

By the way, if you consult the link that I've shared, you'll see that English translations are compared against it for accuracy. Last on the list, in 20th place, is the King James Version. Second last is the New King James Version.

This addresses your other allegation, that I believe no one knows how to translate Greek but me. Obviously other scholars have found errors in the King James Bible, or it wouldn't be last on the accuracy list. Furthermore, I've quoted numerous scholars on the subject of Greek translation, and provided you with links to their work. This should have indicated to you that I am by no means alone in my conclusions.

I have also quoted and referenced those scholars that noticed a marked shift in translation in the 3rd Century. I provided you with links to this, and I believe you said you read the material. To further illustrate this point, and to address your comments on Phoebe as a "deaconess" I'll refer to yet another author:

"In the beginning there were no servants called “deaconesses,” only “deacons.” The [Greek] word diakonos occurs thirty times and it is usually translated “minister.” Seven times the King James Version renders it “servant,” and three times “deacon.” The feminine noun “deaconess” wasn’t used until the third century [Augustine’s time], which places it well outside New Testament studies. For the first 250 years, the ministers, men or women, were called deacons. (Trombley, 2003, pp. 223-224)

Trombley further highlights that when the Greek word prostatis is used (Romans 16:1-2) to describe a female deacon by the name of Phoebe, the King James Version of the Bible translates it as “succourer,” or servant. When the same language is used to describe male deacons, they are referred to as leaders. I agree with Trombley’s conclusion that “it’s quite inconsistent to translate the word as ‘ruler’ when it refers to men and ‘succourer’ when it refers to women” (2003, p. 224).

So, the notion that I found an odd-ball Bible is really nothing more than a false accusation. It also comes across as uninformed (no disrespect intended).

The notion that I think I'm the only one that can translate Greek correctly is also false, as I've demonstrated. You also seem to accuse Zondervan translators who disagree with you to be motivated by money.

Making false accusations against me or the scholars at Zondervan, and passing judgment on people's heart motives does not strengthen your argument. In fact, it diverges from what I would consider respectful dialogue. If we are to continue this discussion, please refrain from this.

Also, you refer to Galatians 6:2 as New Testament Law. This verse talks about "the law of Christ" and defines it for us:

"Galatians 6:2 (KJV)
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."



You quoted this yourself. Why do you think "bear ye one another's burdens" means that women cannot preach according to "New Testament Law"?

As for my actual motivations for sharing this information, I see an incredible number of women oppressed by man-made traditions. They are wrongly given the impression that they are somehow more prone to error than men, simply because they are women. They're told that they need a man's authority to protect them, or to protect the church from them. They're told that they are cursed with subjugation to men, or that God intended them from creation to be subordinate.

All of these messages are demeaning. They attack the dignity of God's children, and they limit their ability to serve him fully. They also deny that Christ has redeemed us from the curse, and suggest that submitting to male authority is somehow a safeguard against error.

These messages are not consistent with the Bible I know and love. This Bible tells me that women and men were created equal, that inequality is a curse from which we have been redeemed, that women can lead (Deborah), that women can be ministers/deacons/leaders (Phoebe), that women can teach (Priscilla), and that women were numbered among the apostles (Junia).

My intention is to share the gospel message of freedom from the curse, so that men and women can know and share the love of God more fully.

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi there rrowell,

Let's start with your allegation that I had to find an odd-ball Greek Bible to make my point:

"Novum Testamentum Graece is the Latin name of an original Greek-language version of the New Testament. The first printed edition was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, printed in 1514, but not published until 1520. The first published edition of the Greek New Testament was produced by Erasmus in 1516.
Today the designation Novum Testamentum Graece normally refers to the Nestle-Aland editions, named after the scholars who led the critical editing work. The text, edited by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research) is currently in its 27th edition, abbreviated NA27. NA27 is used as the basis of most contemporary New Testament translations, as well as being the standard for academic work in New Testament studies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

This is not an odd-ball Bible, it is an original Greek New Testament compiled from the oldest, most consistent, most widely copied Greek manuscripts. It is used as a basis for nearly all of today's English Bibles, and revisions of earlier translations.

This bible you use (don't know if you realize this or not) is primarily derived from the Byzantine Text type, only a few manuscripts were used of "Alexandrian" Text type that cannot be proven of its existence outside of Egypt... the Majority Text has been found over the ancient world...

Even Kirt Aland relents to this fact...

"more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128)."

Again, the only reason Zondervan gathered all these so called scholars from all these denominations was simply a ploy to appeal to as many denomination as possible in the hopes of more sales of the NIV than the KJV... they had money on their mind, not the will of God...

All modern translations purport to be derived from Greek using Alexadrian based text, calling the Byzantine text "CORRUPT", yet admit the majority of the text comes from Byzantine :

a flyer distributed by the publishers of the NASB (a CT based version) states in reference to the TR and Erasmus' Greek NT (which is similar to the TR), "... 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts of the Greek NT are closer to these than to the Greek text behind most modern English translations" (MacRae).

By the way, if you consult the link that I've shared, you'll see that English translations are compared against it for accuracy. Last on the list, in 20th place, is the King James Version. Second last is the New King James Version.

Go figure, now if we were to pit the translations against the MT, I wonder what the result would be, I can tell you without even doing it, inversely proportional... at least...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

This bible you use (don't know if you realize this or not) is primarily derived from the Byzantine Text type, only a few manuscripts were used of "Alexandrian" Text type that cannot be proven of its existence outside of Egypt... the Majority Text has been found over the ancient world...

Even Kirt Aland relents to this fact...

"more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128)."

Again, the only reason Zondervan gathered all these so called scholars from all these denominations was simply a ploy to appeal to as many denomination as possible in the hopes of more sales of the NIV than the KJV... they had money on their mind, not the will of God...

All modern translations purport to be derived from Greek using Alexadrian based text, calling the Byzantine text "CORRUPT", yet admit the majority of the text comes from Byzantine :

a flyer distributed by the publishers of the NASB (a CT based version) states in reference to the TR and Erasmus' Greek NT (which is similar to the TR), "... 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts of the Greek NT are closer to these than to the Greek text behind most modern English translations" (MacRae).

Go figure, now if we were to pit the translations against the MT, I wonder what the result would be, I can tell you without even doing it, inversely proportional... at least...

Hi rrowell,

I'm surprised to see that your understanding of the Bible I read is completely the opposite of what is factual.

"Most modern New Testaments are based on what is called "reasoned eclecticism" (such as that of the Nestle-Aland 27, the basis of virtually all modern translations) in formulating a Greek text; this invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

and,

"NA27 (the Basis of my Greek New Testament) that relies heavily on manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the GreekNew Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

I hope that clarifies the manuscripts, text-types, and actual source of the Bible I read.

The reason the Alexandrian text-type is preferred is that it represents the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts of the Bible, as I indicated in an earlier post.

My Bible is specifically not translated largely from the Byzantine text-type as you suggest, because this text, while more abundant, was written hundreds of years later than the Alexandrian text. The rise in popularity of the Byzantine text was also due in large part to John Chrysostom. I quoted his ideas about women in an earlier post, and you rightly acknowledged that they were nonsense. In fact, they are quite literally woman-hate. He promoted the Byzantine text (this happened, by the way, in the third century) and it later became the basis of the King James Bible.

If you really wish to investigate this. Please do not take my word for it. It's honestly too important in my opinion. Here is a text that explains the problems with the Byzantine text and John Chrysostom's influence:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=lQC...e King james version byzantine empire&f=false

This is why older, pre-third century Greek manuscripts are preferred, and why they form the basis of most contemporary Bibles...with the notable exception of the New King James, which unfortunately relies on the later manuscripts, promoted by John Chrysostom, the then Bishop of Constantinople.

It was Chrysostom who said that women will literally be saved from their sins by bearing children.

A summary of his views on women can be found here:
St. John Chrysostom (c347-407), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, said that women are, in general, "weak and flighty." He neatly put together the twin theological ideas of anti-women and anti-sex in this passage: "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?" [11] To help believers overcome the temptation of women, Chrysostom devised the following description: "The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre." [12] http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/womenfathers.html

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Hi rrowell,

I'm surprised to see that your understanding of the Bible I read is completely the opposite of what is factual.

"Most modern New Testaments are based on what is called "reasoned eclecticism" (such as that of the Nestle-Aland 27, the basis of virtually all modern translations) in formulating a Greek text; this invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

and,

"NA27 (the Basis of my Greek New Testament) that relies heavily on manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the GreekNew Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

I hope that clarifies the manuscripts, text-types, and actual source of the Bible I read.

The reason the Alexandrian text-type is preferred is that it represents the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts of the Bible, as I indicated in an earlier post.

Alexandrian text-type is only found in Egypt, the only reason it can be claimed they are "Older" is because Egyptian climate is better for preservation of "papyri" and so other parts of the world so not to become lost had to be reprinted, but Alexandrian text-type is ONLY found in Egypt, not proven to be ever found out side of Egypt. But despite this, Aland states even the Egyptian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type (Aland, pp.65,56). But note, nowhere does he say the Alexandrian text had a "corrosive effect" on the Byzantine. So scribes in the Egyptian church eventually tried to bring their text into conformity with the Byzantine text, but the reverse did not happen.

The age of the Alexandrian text has been proven to be older, but it cannot be proven to predate the Byzantine text, the Byzantine text was uniformly found throughout the ancient Greek world, and Providential Preservation cannot be denied :

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Luke 16:17 (KJV)
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Your claim of your Bibles Correctness is to claim that everyone has been dangling around with tainted Bibles for thousands of years... it is an utter absurdity to say the least...

It is the CT and the modern injection of Calvinism that perverts the bibles of today!

 

[rrowell]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

If you feel I have been disrespectful to you, or to those who believe as you do, I apologize, it is not my intentions.

I have made my case, and you have made yours... you believe that the Alexandrian text to be more accurate due to the fact that its papyri written upon is older than those of the Byzantine, I maintain that is only fact based upon the papyri and not of the text, I maintain that the age of the papyri does not prove that the Alexandrian text "predates" the Byzantine... that the fact it (the Byzantine) has survived the rest of the ancient Greek world and everywhere found (outside of Egypt) proves the providence of God operating in the transmission of the NT texts.

It is clear upon these two facts we will never agree... therefore it is only argumentative to continue...

I will always maintain that the CT and injection of Calvinistic view is what has diminished the truth in the modern Bibles today...

 

[BobE]

Re: The Correct Position on women Preaching? (Not women PASTORS, JUST WOMEN PREACHING

Alexandrian text-type is only found in Egypt, the only reason it can be claimed they are "Older" is because Egyptian climate is better for preservation of "papyri" and so other parts of the world so not to become lost had to be reprinted, but Alexandrian text-type is ONLY found in Egypt, not proven to be ever found out side of Egypt. But despite this, Aland states even the Egyptian text was later subjected to the "corrosive effects" of the Byzantine text-type (Aland, pp.65,56). But note, nowhere does he say the Alexandrian text had a "corrosive effect" on the Byzantine. So scribes in the Egyptian church eventually tried to bring their text into conformity with the Byzantine text, but the reverse did not happen.

The age of the Alexandrian text has been proven to be older, but it cannot be proven to predate the Byzantine text, the Byzantine text was uniformly found throughout the ancient Greek world, and Providential Preservation cannot be denied :

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Luke 16:17 (KJV)
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Your claim of your Bibles Correctness is to claim that everyone has been dangling around with tainted Bibles for thousands of years... it is an utter absurdity to say the least...

It is the CT and the modern injection of Calvinism that perverts the bibles of today!

Hi there rrowell, thx for your comments on respect. I appreciate them, and I appreciate you.

I wouldn't actually say that people have been dangling with tainted Bibles for thousands of years. The Greek manuscripts I'm referring to have been with us since very shortly after the apostolic age, and the first complete New Testament based on these manuscripts has actually been with us for nearly 100 years longer than the King James Bible.

What I am saying is that there appears to be a patriarchal bias in the translation of the King James Version. I wish that it was absurd to suggest that there have been problems in Bible translation, but the evidence suggests that there have been.

I do think we've both made our cases, and I appreciate your desire to avoid an argumentative exchange. My hope has been to share information and encourage investigation. Thanks for reading, and for sharing your thoughts as well. I feel you did a very thorough job of presenting "the other side" of the debate .

May God bless you in His service!