Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[Webb]

Woodlandapple--When Paul said "as also saith the law" I believe him because I believe he was inspired. As for me, to question his statement is to question his inspiration. "Law" us used variously. Just because one has not found where it was so said doesn't mean it never was.

 

[woodlandapple]

Woodlandapple--When Paul said "as also saith the law" I believe him because I believe he was inspired. As for me, to question his statement is to question his inspiration. "Law" us used variously. Just because one has not found where it was so said doesn't mean it never was.

I also beleive he was inspired, I also beleive God can and did in all the bible inspire people to write things that the authors didnt understand themselves, and yet God has given us all we need to understand all the things we need to understand.

I also beleive that he entrusted his word to broken people, in a language and culture that no longer exists, and we as broken people need to interpret these divine words.

Paul is telling us that what he means by silence and women can be found in the law and I trust God hasnt hidden this law to us but makes his will available to all, not just Paul. So I would like to know this law, that inspired Paul in his understanding so that it might also inspire me as to what to do with this complex passage.

 

[carlos123]

I mean no disrespect WoodLandApple but what you say with respect to sigao is...well...rather confusing.

σιγάω is found in the 1cor14:34 as σιγάτωσαν

I thought the underlying Greek word was sigao (σιγάω). What do you mean by saying that it is found as σιγάτωσαν? What is that word and what strong's number is it?

Are you saying that sigao is not really sigao but this other word in the real Greek or something?

My point of contention is not how sigao behaives, my point of contention is that you CAN derive aspect from a Greek word, I havnt been discussing the aspect of sigao because I dont think its a relevant argument for or against, because my contention is that sigao means keep peace rather than silence, aspect is irrelelvant.

Are you making a mute point then about saying that the duration of the silence as used by Paul can be determined from the underlying Greek word but that such is irrelevant?

Why did you state that you could tell the duration just from the Greek word itself if you had not even been addressing the duration of the word as used by Paul in the sense of it meaning to keep silent??

On what do you base your understanding of it's meaning as being "keep peace" rather than "keep silent" (i.e. silence)?

I mean what are you basing that on?

According to the Lexicon's I have looked at the word means...

- to keep silence, hold one's peace
- to be kept in silence, be concealed

The more exact meaning can only be determined by looking at the sorrounding words and how it is used in context.

Are you saying that sigao as used by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 only means hold one's peace? How exactly do you determine that from the Greek word itself (i.e. sigao) apart from the context or sorrounding words??

You are still not giving me much of anything to go on here WoodlandApple.

So far it's just your opinions of this definition and nothing concrete that I can bring to others for their review and input.

Like Festus before Agrippa...I feel it inappropriate to go before Caesar (other Greek knowledgeable Christians) without something more concrete to bring before them .

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

...I would like to know this law, that inspired Paul in his understanding so that it might also inspire me as to what to do with this complex passage.

May I venture to say WoodlandApple, based on all that you have said so far in this thread, that you are most likely being insincere about your desire to know.

I mean you already know there is no law that says for women to keep silent per se but you refuse to admit to the possibility that Paul was referring not to a specific Law telling women to keep silent but rather to the submission that is required of women in the Law in general.

As the Law says can also mean something akin to "as the Bible says" and not be referring to one particular Law (or verse as the case may be).

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

So if there isnt a place in the law that tells women not to speak, what is Paul actually saying????????

I haven't yet dug into your contention about how the commas affect the sentence and the connection between the Law and not speaking verses with submission WoodlandApple but may I venture to say that a more appropriate question is...

So if there isn't a place in the Law that we are aware of, that tells women not to speak, was Paul wrong in saying there is such a place (IF he the Law he referred to was about not speaking as opposed to being in submission)?

Was what he said uninspired? Incorrect?

Did he in fact mispeak?

Personally it does not matter to me in the least if I cannot come up with a Law that says for women to not speak (IF indeed the Law he refers to is connected with not speaking and not submission).

The fact that we know of no such Law (assuming again that it is connected with not speaking) does not invalidate what Paul said.

That women ought not to speak in the assembly.

I do not need to have the question of which Law cleared up to believe that Paul was inspired in what he said and to believe and apply it today.

Carlos

 

[AirDancer]

For background on the events of the Corinth assembly, and the cause for Paul's letter which is 1 Corinthians, please read the following information provided at this link.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch04.html

It really is important to know history in order to have better understanding.

 

[woodlandapple]

I mean no disrespect WoodLandApple but what you say with respect to sigao is...well...rather confusing.



I thought the underlying Greek word was sigao (σιγάω). What do you mean by saying that it is found as σιγάτωσαν? What is that word and what strong's number is it?

Are you saying that sigao is not really sigao but this other word in the real Greek or something?



Are you making a mute point then about saying that the duration of the silence as used by Paul can be determined from the underlying Greek word but that such is irrelevant?

Why did you state that you could tell the duration just from the Greek word itself if you had not even been addressing the duration of the word as used by Paul in the sense of it meaning to keep silent??

On what do you base your understanding of it's meaning as being "keep peace" rather than "keep silent" (i.e. silence)?

I mean what are you basing that on?

According to the Lexicon's I have looked at the word means...



The more exact meaning can only be determined by looking at the sorrounding words and how it is used in context.

Are you saying that sigao as used by Paul in 1 Cor 14:34 only means hold one's peace? How exactly do you determine that from the Greek word itself (i.e. sigao) apart from the context or sorrounding words??

You are still not giving me much of anything to go on here WoodlandApple.

So far it's just your opinions of this definition and nothing concrete that I can bring to others for their review and input.

Like Festus before Agrippa...I feel it inappropriate to go before Caesar (other Greek knowledgeable Christians) without something more concrete to bring before them .

Carlos

in all honestly I cant think of a simpler way to express it, other than suggest you enroll into a Koine Greek class and how this word behaves in this passage will be explained roughly at the end of your first year. As I cant think of a simple way to condense a year (or 18 chapters) into one post.

its difficult to explain because, well, its difficult.

my interpretation of sigao is based on how the NT authors used it throughout the NT, and the form it takes in this passage not just on the first dictionary meaning in a lexicon. and at the end of the day is my interpretation and if you twist my arm my assumption however well formed I believe it to be, you will and can find experts who agree with me, and you will find some who disagree with me.

σιγάω is the dictionary form of σιγάτωσαν so they share the same strong number etc. The stem of the word σιγ is what never changes (fpr the most part - as always there are exceptions to every rule), and which is what ultimately determines its base meaning (keep silence, keep peace, keep secret) - strong isnt the be all and end all of koine Greek definitions.

The rest of the letters change according to its grammer and structure and indicates (in the case of verbs) its person, number, tense, mood, and voice

WIth enough time and research you will find your understanding with the information Ive given you.

 

[AirDancer]

So if there isn't a place in the Law that we are aware of, that tells women not to speak, was Paul wrong in saying there is such a place (IF he the Law he referred to was about not speaking as opposed to being in submission)?

Was what he said uninspired? Incorrect?

Did he in fact mispeak?

Personally it does not matter to me in the least if I cannot come up with a Law that says for women to not speak (IF indeed the Law he refers to is connected with not speaking and not submission).

The fact that we know of no such Law (assuming again that it is connected with not speaking) does not invalidate what Paul said.

That women ought not to speak in the assembly.

I do not need to have the question of which Law cleared up to believe that Paul was inspired in what he said and to believe and apply it today.

Carlos

The only 'law' that forbade women to talk was Jewish Oral law. This fact has already been presented by several on this thread.

 

[woodlandapple]

May I venture to say WoodlandApple, based on all that you have said so far in this thread, that you are most likely being insincere about your desire to know.

I mean you already know there is no law that says for women to keep silent per se but you refuse to admit to the possibility that Paul was referring not to a specific Law telling women to keep silent but rather to the submission that is required of women in the Law in general.

As the Law says can also mean something akin to "as the Bible says" and not be referring to one particular Law (or verse as the case may be).

Carlos

As a bible scholar it is important for me to ask these questions, research it and study it so that I can not only preserve the knowledge we have but also build apon it. SO that I may pass it down to future generations. As a bible scholar I need to go deeper than a 'lay person' and besides, the sentence itself indicates that a general submission is not what Paul is indicating and to think it is is misreading the passage.

 

[woodlandapple]

if you where to lexicon this entire passage you would get

"the woman in the church keep silence [peace, secret etc] not for permit him speak but subject according and the law say"

The endings of all these words in the actual passage are different and is what gives the sentence its grammer, we can never get an exact copy in English because Greek has different rules to English, as well as most of the words having more than one meaning.

 

[carlos123]

in all honestly I cant think of a simpler way to express it, other than suggest you enroll into a Koine Greek class and how this word behaves in this passage will be explained roughly at the end of your first year. As I cant think of a simple way to condense a year (or 18 chapters) into one post.

its difficult to explain because, well, its difficult.

You are not being fair to this discussion WoodlandApple.

First I state that one cannot tell from the word used by Paul and translated silence whether that word means an unlimited silence so as to not cause a disruption only as opposed to an unlimited silence for the duration of an assembly apart from the sorrounding words or context.

You contend with that and say that such can be told from the word itself.

I ask you to explain yourself.

You come back and then say that you were not really referring to the use of the word used by Paul as you believe that word means to keep the peace rather than to be silent.

I ask you to explain how you derive such a definition. To give me something concrete.

You come back to me and say that's too difficult to explain???

That I must take a one year course in Greek to understand how you came to the conclusion that Paul's use of the word means to keep the peace vs to be silent??!

That's a cop out WoodlandApple.

You can most certainly explain how you arrived at the idea that the word Paul uses means to keep the peace.

You just don't want to leaving me to wonder if apart from the supposed difficulty of explaining such that you simply don't want to be held accountable for how you arrived at said meaning because in the explaining you will become accountable to being in possible error.

Such that other Greek knowledgeable Christians will call you on it.

No discussion of this issue is even possible when one person says something about the meaning of a crucial word used by Paul as meaning something other than how it is translated in every version of our English bible's, namely to remain silent, and then when called upon to explain how they derived that difference in meaning they claim that they can't explain it because it's too complicated!

Which in the end and in my opinion makes your definition irrelevant since you can't even explain how you arrived at it!

Can you imagine if I said that it means keep silent and then when called upon to explain myself said..."Well...it's just too complicated to explain how I arrived at that"!

The Bible is by no means so incredibly complicated to understand that one needs one year of Greek to understand what Paul said!

It takes a right heart and an average understanding of the English language. I would say a right heart before God is 90% of it (not saying you have a wrong heart only making the point that one doesn't even need to know Greek!).

Nevertheless you have brought up the Greek to negate what I say Paul said. Fine. I have called you on the Greek and the basis for what you believe about the use of the word sigao and you have ultimately come back to me and said it's too complicated to explain.

Like I said...that makes your definition of no relevance to this discussion since you cannot even support the why of how you arrived at your definition!

Carlos

 

[HisSheep]

To be frank, I haven’t read the whole thread yet, only about ¼ of it. I will probably do it during lunch tomorrow. But for now, I want to add this:

I am currently in turmoil over this issue. My church is mostly solid but somewhat liberal leaning. I am a very conservative, reformed guy, but I have no trouble worshiping with free-willers and more liberal Christians. I am one of a few conservative voices in the parish. It is an ABC church (American Baptist). In that denomination the individual parishes have lots of leeway.

Shortly before I brought my family to this church three years ago, a good, solid pastor was called. He is a great pastor; hard working, passionate and biblically sound. I have been told that no women were interviewed for the position. I figured that the church consensus was ix-nay on the oman-way. (in the Pig Latin)

Here’s what’s going on: We have a powerhouse of a woman who is on fire for God. She is a pillar of the church and runs the VBS and bunches of our activities, bible verse programs for the parish, announcement emails… On and on and on… I don’t know how she does it. There could be no more ideal a person than her for this role.

She has begun attending seminary, and I’m okay with that. I have no doubt however, that she will end up preaching to my daughters and me some Sunday when our pastor is out/away. I’m not okay with that. I mentioned my concern over this to him, and he seemed pretty defensive.

I am actually loosing sleep over this. I don’t really want to move churches, but it seems like a matter of time. Shall I wait ‘till it happens, or do I move out now?

My opinion on women “speaking in church†is an amalgamation of all the various scriptures that address the issue. It can’t be that they are literally never to speak in church, because there are provisions for HOW they are to speak in church.

I think it boils down to the dissemination and preaching of the word. Women are not to determine doctrine. They are not to lead the church. They are not to have spiritual authority over men.

The two reasons given for this limitation on the ministry of women are found in 1 Timothy 2

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Verse 13 must be taken on faith, but it tells us that men have a leadership role in spiritual matters based on the order of their creation; evolution people won’t buy this though.

Verse 14 tells us that women are more likely to succumb to spiritual temptation. When the devil wants to lead people astray, he will target the woman because of a weakness he perceives in her. Man is just as bad in a complimentary way; he is prone to abdicate his assigned role, and listen to a woman regarding spiritual matters. Consider the reason for God’s cursing Adam after the fall:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (Genesis 3:17)

Do we need a modern example of Men abdicating their leadership role? Consider how many men lay out of church and mom brings the kids. How many of us were taught by our fathers to pray?

We should know enough to trust the bible when it point out our proclivities.

-HisSheep

 

[woodlandapple]

You are not being fair to this discussion WoodlandApple.

First I state that one cannot tell from the word used by Paul and translated silence whether that word means an unlimited silence so as to not cause a disruption only as opposed to an unlimited silence for the duration of an assembly apart from the sorrounding words or context.

You contend with that and say that such can be told from the word itself.

I ask you to explain yourself.

You come back and then say that you were not really referring to the use of the word used by Paul as you believe that word means to keep the peace rather than to be silent.

I ask you to explain how you derive such a definition. To give me something concrete.

You come back to me and say that's too difficult to explain???

That I must take a one year course in Greek to understand how you came to the conclusion that Paul's use of the word means to keep the peace vs to be silent??!

That's a cop out WoodlandApple.

You can most certainly explain how you arrived at the idea that the word Paul uses means to keep the peace.

You just don't want to leaving me to wonder if apart from the supposed difficulty of explaining such that you simply don't want to be held accountable for how you arrived at said meaning because in the explaining you will become accountable to being in possible error.

Such that other Greek knowledgeable Christians will call you on it.

No discussion of this issue is even possible when one person says something about the meaning of a crucial word used by Paul as meaning something other than how it is translated in every version of our English bible's, namely to remain silent, and then when called upon to explain how they derived that difference in meaning they claim that they can't explain it because it's too complicated!

Which in the end and in my opinion makes your definition irrelevant since you can't even explain how you arrived at it!

Can you imagine if I said that it means keep silent and then when called upon to explain myself said..."Well...it's just too complicated to explain how I arrived at that"!

The Bible is by no means so incredibly complicated to understand that one needs one year of Greek to understand what Paul said!

It takes a right heart and an average understanding of the English language. I would say a right heart before God is 90% of it (not saying you have a wrong heart only making the point that one doesn't even need to know Greek!).

Nevertheless you have brought up the Greek to negate what I say Paul said. Fine. I have called you on the Greek and the basis for what you believe about the use of the word sigao and you have ultimately come back to me and said it's too complicated to explain.

Like I said...that makes your definition of no relevance to this discussion since you cannot even support the why of how you arrived at your definition!

Carlos

Thats unfair, I HAVE GIVEN YOU ALL THE INFORMATION YOUVE ASKED FOR, Ive given you my opinion on this passage, I dont see the point on giving it again and again.

youve asked me why I think its peace and not silence, I told you , in more than one post. You asked me to show you where the word gains its aspect, Ive pointed it out. Youve asked me what the difference between the dictionary form and the form found in the passage is, and Ive show you.

Ive pointed out to you where you are in error on how Greek (and english) grammer works and Ive shown you how it does work, what else do you want me to do???


The definition of the word and its aspect are two seperate issues. You said that the aspect can only be found by the words that are used around it, I have explained that the aspect is actually imbedded in the word itself. SO whether you define the word as peace or silence, IT STILL SHARES THE SAME ASPECT. You want to understand Greek without doing the hard work and you pull apart my understanding from a position of 'ignorance' and then berate me for not imparting in an instant knowledge that has taken me a long time to understand myself.


EDIT:
I think you think Im giving 'my opinion' on aspect and how it relates to this verse, I havnt. I am trying to show how you can find its aspect etc, so that you can form your own opinion. Ive shown you where and how you can find aspect to sigao, and is seperate from any of my opinions on translation. From my position you keep changing what your asking of me, explaining to you how aspect works is far different than asking my my opinion on this subject. And me showing you where your use of grammer is wrong is not infering that your opinion is wrong and mine is right, just that your grammer is wrong.

Mwhy I think the word is best translated into keep quiet is based on
its form, which Ive given.
ITs context, which Ive given
the words other usage in the bible, which people, not just me have given
how if otherwise it contradicts, which Ive explained
based on the opinion and works of scholars and lecturers whom I admire and are more knoweldgeable than me.

All my resent posts, and I have made this clear, are to demonstrate the complexities of this passage. and since I picked on you about aspect and grammer, IT HAS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINION VRS YOURS, BUT RATHER HOW YOU HAVE APPLIED ASPECT OR GRAMMER, I have never once implied that therefor you are wrong in your overall opinion, and Ive gone on to explain grammer and greek with no relation to my overall opinion.

 

[AirDancer]

1 Cor 14: 31-38

31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Carlos: You have yet to provide sound clarification as to why (taking verse 34 as literal) does not cause Paul to be in direct contradiction with all else that he and the others writers of the NT have written.

You have also yet to provide sound explanation to Paul's words of verse 36.

Thank you.

 

[Sparkey]

Ah...now that is the question.

May I venture to say that the following are possibilities.

CASE A:

- Women can pray and prophesy with a head covering (in the context of the assembly)
- Women cannot speak in the assembly (let's limit this to just pray and prophecy for now to make things more clear)

CASE B:

- Women can pray and prophesy with a head covering (no context)
- Women cannot speak in the assembly

CASE C:

- Women can pray and prophesy with a head covering (in the context of the assembly)
- Women cannot speak (disruptfully) in the assembly

CASE D:

- Women can pray and prophesy with a head covering (no context)
- Women cannot speak (disruptfully) in the assembly

Those are the only options available that I can see.

My contention is that CASE B is the correct one. Women can indeed pray and prophecy with a head covering anywhere they please other than in an assembly where they must remain silent.

Your contention, if I am not mistaken, is CASE C. That women can indeed pray and prophecy with a head covering in the assembly but that they should not do so disruptfully.

So far so good?

Carlos

No. Well, as far as you are saying that case "B" is what you contend, sure. I can't speak for you. But I have tried to state that I can not buy that because I don't see it that way. Neither do I buy into the "It must be this, if it isn't this or that, then it must be this here," reasoning. How about this? I'm not certain enough to try to establish a doctrine. Period. With that, I will hold my peace.

 

[carlos123]

No. Well, as far as you are saying that case "B" is what you contend, sure. I can't speak for you.

I was just saying that such is what I contend is all.

But I have tried to state that I can not buy that because I don't see it that way.

Of course.

Neither do I buy into the "It must be this, if it isn't this or that, then it must be this here," reasoning.

Great to hear.

How about this? I'm not certain enough to try to establish a doctrine. Period. With that, I will hold my peace.

Fair enough though I would encourage you to establish a doctrine for yourself in line with what the Word says and that you be open to having your doctrine evaluated by others in the Body who might be able to help you see failings in your biblical reasoning (if indeed there are any such failings).

But I understand if you don't want to discuss this anymore.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

WoodlandApple,

Thats unfair, I HAVE GIVEN YOU ALL THE INFORMATION YOUVE ASKED FOR, if you cant understand it then that is not my fault. Ive given you my opinion on this passage, I dont see the point on giving it again and again. If simple has gone over your head, what makes you think that further explaination wont?

May I say that perhaps, just perhaps it is not just a matter of my understanding being at fault but what you explained or how you explained it.

I do apologize if in some way I have been at fault in not understanding what you said but what you said gave me absolutely not one concrete thing to go on as to how it is that you derive the meaning of the word used by Paul to mean keep the peace vs to keep silent.

You brought up aspects of a word, sense this and sense that, prefix this and suffix that and some other things...none of which definitively showed me one thing about how one could arrive at your definition of the word Paul used (though you obviously think you showed me...naming Greek this or that is not the same as showing me how you arrive at your conclusion of the word's meaning).

The fact that every single English translation of the Bible translates the word Paul used as some version of silence must not mean much to you. I mean maybe I missed one that translates it as some variation of keep the peace (if you know of one please let me know). But all the one's I have looked at translate it as some variation of keep silent.

There is a reason why they all translate it that way and it's not because they are all wrong and you are right. Greek scholars were behind every one of those translations too.

I'll take the plain sense of what all these English bible's translated the word to mean any day and I would encourage everyone to do the same.

And I guess we will leave it at that since you are obviously convinced you showed me enough reasoning for your position.

Carlos

 

[carlos123]

Carlos: You have yet to provide sound clarification as to why (taking verse 34 as literal) does not cause Paul to be in direct contradiction with all else that he and the others writers of the NT have written.

Fair enough. Please state a contradiction that you see between a literal understanding of what Paul said in 1 Cor 34 and another verse.

For the sake of continuing to make this discussion manageable do me a favor and stick to one so called contradiction at a time.

I'll be happy to address one contradiction at a time.

So one contradictory verse at a time.

You have also yet to provide sound explanation to Paul's words of verse 36.

Regarding vs 36 which says "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?"...

Paul is trying to make a point through a couple of questions that have an obvious answer of no.

It would be like me asking you..."Are you the only person who can interpret the Bible accurately? Did the Word come to you alone?"

His point to the Corinthians is that no, they are not the one's from whom the Word first went out and no, they are not the only one's who have received the Word. If they had been they might have had inside knowledge that no one else would have had about how a meeting should be conducted or about women being silent in the assembly.

But that is not the case.

The truth is that what Paul is saying is of the Lord and is His commandment and that anyone who is truly spiritual and not just claiming to be should understand that.

1 Cor 14:37

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

Carlos

 

[woodlandapple]

WoodlandApple,



May I say that perhaps, just perhaps it is not just a matter of my understanding being at fault but what you explained or how you explained it.

I do apologize if in some way I have been at fault in not understanding what you said but what you said gave me absolutely not one concrete thing to go on as to how it is that you derive the meaning of the word used by Paul to mean keep the peace vs to keep silent.

You brought up aspects of a word, sense this and sense that, prefix this and suffix that and some other things...none of which definitively showed me one thing about how one could arrive at your definition of the word Paul used (though you obviously think you showed me...naming Greek this or that is not the same as showing me how you arrive at your conclusion of the word's meaning).

The fact that every single English translation of the Bible translates the word Paul used as some version of silence must not mean much to you. I mean maybe I missed one that translates it as some variation of keep the peace (if you know of one please let me know). But all the one's I have looked at translate it as some variation of keep silent.

There is a reason why they all translate it that way and it's not because they are all wrong and you are right. Greek scholars were behind every one of those translations too.

I'll take the plain sense of what all these English bible's translated the word to mean any day and I would encourage everyone to do the same.

And I guess we will leave it at that since you are obviously convinced you showed me enough reasoning for your position.

Carlos

cool, ok. now I can back up again. You will notice that Ive edited my post to relect my thoughts a little better as Ive tried to understand yours. so Ill address these points one at a time

You brought up aspects of a word, sense this and sense that, prefix this and suffix that and some other things...none of which definitively showed me one thing about how one could arrive at your definition of the word Paul used (though you obviously think you showed me...naming Greek this or that is not the same as showing me how you arrive at your conclusion of the word's meaning)

I am not trying to use this to defend my position on sigao, I was using it to show you how you can get tenses, moods and voices form a greek word, and from that how we can gain an assessment on time and aspect. nothing more, nothing less. I was hoping also to show you that when you say that you need to look at other words around these to gain aspect and time I was only demonstrating that this was the wrong way of doing so. None of this talking was meant to relate to your opinion vrs mine. I also gave the mood tense and voice of sigao as how its found in this text. To explain how I derived the mood tense and voice is to try and explain 18 chapters of a text book. I also was trying to show that aspect is irrelevant to anyones opinion on how we view sigao seeing as the aspect is imbedded, it does not change if we interpret silence to mean no talking, or to keep the peace.


You never asked me to interpret what the aspect of sigao is, and Ive never offered it.

The fact that every single English translation of the Bible translates the word Paul used as some version of silence must not mean much to you. I mean maybe I missed one that translates it as some variation of keep the peace (if you know of one please let me know). But all the one's I have looked at translate it as some variation of keep silent.

The issue is not how its translated but what it means. If I where to translate this passage I would also use silence. Im not trying to change the word thats being used, Im talking about the understnading of how silence is used in this letter, and in this context.

So is it silence as in no talking or is it silence as in, in the library you must be silent - both are silence but they mean different things. If you put your phone on silent, are you ordering it to not communicate at all, or rather to do it in silent mode, which lets it still communicate.

There is a reason why they all translate it that way and it's not because they are all wrong and you are right. Greek scholars were behind every one of those translations too.

again, Im not arguing with the use of the word silent, but rather what it means in this context.

I'll take the plain sense of what all these English bible's translated the word to mean any day and I would encourage everyone to do the same.

I would encourage people to understand that sometimes a plain reading is best, and othertimes it isnt, and I try to equip people to know when. For example a plain reading of Jesus' parables would completely miss the point, a plain reading of the word Brethren will miss the fact that it includes our sisters too.



And incase you are still missing the point, I stopped talking about my own opinion long ago and have been concentrating on giving light to the complications and the misconceptions - either way - that this topic and this verse has, from the use of grammer to the meanings of the word speak, to the textual dilemas that bible scholars face.


and I must admit that Im hung up on the greek not because its my be all and end all, but rather when I get into exegeses I put down my English bible and pick up my GNT. Its what I refer back to, like you refer back to the NASB and perhaps this isnt the forum to do so exclusivly.

 

[carlos123]

I am not trying to use this to defend my position on sigao, I was using it to show you how you can get tenses, moods and voices form a greek word, and from that how we can gain an assessment on time and aspect. nothing more, nothing less.

I understand that WoodlandApple.

But my interest is not in a general understanding that one may be able in certain cases to get an assessment of time and aspect from a given word but rather with the word sigao in particular.

My contention is that whatever "tenses, moods and voices form" the Greek word, sigao, you cannot tell me from the word alone (apart from it's context and the surrounding words it is used with) as to whether it is talking about a limited silence or an unlimited one within the context of a church assembly.

You seem to disagree with my contention but have yet to show which tense, which mood, and which voice of sigao leads anyone to definitely say that it refers to a limited silence.

And despite your protestation to the contrary, you have not shown how one can arrive at your definition of the word as meaning keep the peace and not keep silent (a definition which you readily admit to not having a problem with but one which you discard for some reason in favor of keeping the peace).

I have never asked you for a lesson in Greek. Which undoubtedly would take a long time and might well be impractical or impossible. I have only ever asked you to explain the basis for your belief in silence as a limited silence and for your definition of sigao as keeping the peace and not as remaining silent.

I remember you once listing the various verses where sigao was used and trying to make the point that you felt, in view of how sigao was used elsewhere, that it must be a limited silence. A view I showed to be innacurate precisely by how it is sometimes used to indicate unlimited silence.

In other words the use of sigao in other verses is not definitive as to limited or unlimited in 1 Cor 14:34.

Other than that...I don't recall anything else you said to support the idea that sigao means limited silence other than...well...that's what you think.

Maybe you said more. If my memory is not what it should be I would appreciate links to the various posts in this now very long thread where you explained your reasoning in a great enough detail to allow me to understand, if not entirely agree perhaps, for the basis for why you think these things. You don't have to repeat what you have already said.

Just post links to the previous posts (if indeed they adequately explain the basis for your particular beliefs about sigao - not Greek in general - and it's meaning) and I will re-read them.

Carlos