So glad you are here! I haven't read this book, but have actually read this authors book on deacons a few years ago.
My question to you is what about this book did you particularly like?
One thing I would challenge this book on is that although it is based on passages of scripture, these scriptures are being interpreted through the experience of church in the way it is mainly experienced in our current day culture (large gatherings in church buildings where a few teach and lead from up front while the rest listen in a fairly passive way). Would these same passages be interpreted differently in light of small participatory house gatherings that were the main way christians met during the time the new testament was written?
I will try to answer both of your questions as succinctly as I can.
First, I particularly like the fact that the book sought hard to derive from Scripture a proper understanding to the role of elders. This led to a proper understanding of the plurality and parity of elders in their leadership role. And, as Paul Alexander noted in the above linked review, this also led to a proper understanding of elder leadership as "pastoral (or shepherd) leadership, shared leadership, male leadership, qualified leadership, and servant leadership."
Second, no, I do not think the essential conclusions of the book are adversely affected by the fact that Strauch's experience is in a larger church body. The principles I mentioned in response to your first question, for example, are clearly taught in Scripture and clearly apply regardless of the size of congregation. Of course, one of the reasons that pastor-teachers are to equip the saints for the work of ministry is that such ministry was never intended to be done primarily by the elders in the first place (whose primary job, again, is to enable others to do it)(see Ephesians 4:11-15). In a larger congregation the need for such equipping is even greater, I should think, and the task for the elders more difficult. However, the same principles would still apply.
quote:Keith T stipulated: ...this also led to a proper understanding of elder leadership as "pastoral (or shepherd) leadership, shared leadership, male leadership, qualified leadership, and servant leadership."
The principles I mentioned in response to your first question, for example, are clearly taught in Scripture and clearly apply regardless of the size of congregation.
Hello again Keith T, There is a huge difference between what is being taught from Scripture and what is taught in Scripture. There is no "chain of command" ever spoken of, or ever put in place in The New Testament, but one. No one was ever directly named as a shepherd, but Christ Himself. There is a huge difference between shepherding someone, and being a shepherd! Also, there is no difference made between men and women!!! Did you know that women were even call apostles!?!
The facts are, Christ is The Head of The Church, (the body, or all of us) and we are called only to obey Him as lead by The Holy Spirit. We were never told to "feed" anyone, and are commanded to act as peers only. This is what is truly in the Scripture, and what It clearly teaches.
I have discovered that you have responded to me in at least three threads, so be patient with me if I don't respond to each of them today. I and my wife, Kim, along with another elder and his wife, are meeting with some members of a struggling church in a nearby town this afternoon. In addition, I have much work to do this week. My wife also had her third cycle of chemotherapy yesterday, which means by tomorrow evening she will be out of commission for several days. At any rate, I don't know how much time I will have to respond to this forum, so please be patient with me.
As for this particular post, there are so many things that warrant attention that it is hard to know where to start, so I will just respond a little bit at a time.
quote:There is a huge difference between what is being taught from Scripture and what is taught in Scripture.
Yes there certainly can be! As for the five basic principles of elder leadership mentioned in Strauch's book -- and with which I agreed -- I believe they are taught in Scripture. For example:
1) That elder leadership is "pastoral (or shepherd) leadership":
NKJ Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
The elders of the church at Ephesus (see vs.17 in the context) are commanded here to "shepherd the church of God."
NKJ 1 Peter 5:1-3 "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly...."
Again, the elders are commanded to "shepherd the flock of God" (vs.3). So, in both of these passages there is clear Scriptural teaching that elder leadership is "shepherd leadership."
2) That elder leadership is "shared leadership":
NKJ Acts 14:23 "So when they had appointed elders [plural] in every church [singular], and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
NKJ Acts 20:17 "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders [plural] of the church [singular]."
These examples demonstrate what is the consistent view of the New Testament (see also Acts 11:30; 15:2; 1 Tim. 4:14; Tit. 1:5; Heb. 13:17; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1-2), that of a plurality of elders or leaders in every church. But if there is always a group of leaders/elders in every church, then this leadership is always a shared leadership.
3) That elder leadership is "male leadership":
NKJ 1 Timothy 3:2-5 "2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach (didaktikós); 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)...."
Notice Paul says that a bishop (epískopos, overseer) must be the husband of one wife (vs.2). This means that he is assuming that only men will be elders.
Also, he says that an elder must be able to rule his own home well (vss.4-5), but this is the function of the man in the home, who is head of the wife (Eph 5:22-24).
That an elder must be a man also follows from Paul's assumption that the elders will be teachers ("able to teach"), which he emphasizes in his letter to Titus as well:
NKJ Titus 1:7-9 "7 For a bishop (epískopos, overseer) must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine (didaskalía, teaching), both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
But if teaching is one of the primary functions of the elders, this is more evidence that only men may fill this role, for as Paul already taught:
NKJ 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
If a woman is not permitted to teach or have authority over a man, then she cannot serve as an elder, and only a man can be an elder.
4) That elder leadership is "qualified leadership":
NKJ 1 Timothy 3:1-7 "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
NKJ Titus 1:5-9 "5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you -- 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
These are pretty strict lists of qualifications. Enough said.
5) That elder leadership is "servant leadership":
NKJ Mark 10:42-45 "42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, 'You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.'"
If servant leadership was what Jesus modeled and expected of the Apostles, then it certainly must be expected of the elders as well. Jesus certainly anticipates no leaders in the churches who "lord it over" the people.
That the elders do, in fact, have a leadership role is clear from the qualifications given for them, specifically that they be able to "rule" their own homes well (see 1 Tim. 3:4 above). There is also the reference to what can only be elders in Hebrews 13:17, where they are called "leaders" (hēgéomai).
quote:There is no "chain of command" ever spoken of, or ever put in place in The New Testament, but one.
Are you responding to me? Where did I ever speak of a "chain of command"? Such language is associated in my thinking with a strict view of authority such as one would find in the military. This is certainly not a Scriptural view of elder authority, however.
quote:No one was ever directly named as a shepherd, but Christ Himself.
I am not sure what you mean when you refer to no one being "named" as a shepherd in Scripture other than Jesus. Do you mean that no one is ever referred to as a shepherd? If so, I disagree with you. There are men who are referred to as shepherds in their leadership roles in Scripture. For example, when God referred to the leaders of Israel in the time of Ezekiel, He called them "My shepherds":
NKJ Ezekiel 34:7-9 "7 Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 8 'as I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock" -- 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD!'"
Paul also refers to men who have been given by Jesus to the church to equip it as pastors:
NKJ Ephesians 4:11-12 "11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors (poimḗn, shepherds) and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...."
quote:There is a huge difference between shepherding someone, and being a shepherd!
Could you explain this "huge difference"? Clearly God thought that the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel's time, for example, were shepherds and thus should have been good shepherds rather than bad ones. And He clearly refers to men who serve as shepherds in the Church in Ephesians 4. As I have shown in my previous post and this one, these men were the same group who were also called elders or overseers and who were commanded to shepherd the church. Where is this "huge difference" you speak of? What is it?
quote:Also, there is no difference made between men and women!!! Did you know that women were even call apostles!?!
I have already cited a clear difference made between men and women above, specifically with regard to Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the qualifications he gives for elders in 1 Timothy 3.
As for your assumption that "women were even call[ed] apostles," I again disagree with you. There is not a single clear reference in the New Testament to a woman as an apostle. Although some have tried to maintain this with regard to Romans 16:7, there is hardly a strong case to be made for it. As Wayne Grudem observes in his Systematic Theology (p.908-909):
quote:Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.” Because there are several translation problems in the verse, no clear conclusions can be reached. “Men of note” may be also translated “men noted by” (the apostles). “Junias” (a man’s name) may also be translated “Junia” (a woman’s name). “Apostles” here may not mean the office “apostles of Jesus Christ,” but may simply mean “messengers” (the broader sense which the word takes in Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; John 13:16). The verse has too little clear information to allow us to draw a conclusion.
Now, back to your post...
quote:The facts are, Christ is The Head of The Church, (the body, or all of us) and we are called only to obey Him as lead by The Holy Spirit.
Amen! Jesus is the Head of the Church, but as the Head he has given pastors to the Church (as we have seen in Eph.4:11). And these pastors are leaders who are to be heeded, as the author of Hebrews declares:
NKJ Hebrews 13:17 "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you."
Of course, pastors/elders/overseers/leaders are to be heeded so long as they are faithful to Scripture as the ultimate authority. I am certain the Apostle Peter, for example, would say that in cases where there is conflict between what God has told us in His Word and what the elders are saying, “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
quote:We were never told to "feed" anyone, and are commanded to act as peers only.
To which statements in my previous post is this intended to be a response? What do you mean by "peers"? Where is this command you speak of? I cannot respond to this sentence unless or until I know what you mean.
quote:This is what is truly in the Scripture, and what It clearly teaches.
Scripture to back up your assertions in this post, please?
I was raised in church, I understand where you are coming from. It is not Biblical, but it is what is being taught as being Biblical.
Also, as far as women in the church having nothing to say, again, did you know that there were women commissioners (what you know as an apostle)!?!
Here is part of a paper I started. I got so disgusted with the obvious anti-woman bias, and convinced of the fact that it is real in English Bibles, I stopped.
"I go Greek Interlinear for any proof text. The problem is then, that there are also errors in the Greek and differing views on what should and should not be there! It would seem that 1 Cor 14:33b-36 is a later addition. The mention of The Law in verse 34 is the clincher for me. There is much on this topic at this web sight if anyone is interested. http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1co14v33.htm
If it was an added notation, it should be removed.
Try refuting my findings in Romans 16:1&2. Phoebe was a (Greek word "diakonos") always interpreted "deacon" when speaking of men in the King James. The use of the more pure Greek to English word "servant" here makes it obvious that they knew what the word meant, but chose to alter it when speaking of men!!! This is obviously meant as chauvinistic bondage. Remember, the King James was not published until 1894. This gave religious folks over eighteen-hundred years to create a church hierarchy! Is this not an obvious attempt, by the writers of the King James, to keep an already existent church hierarchy in place?
That not enough? Let's read on in Romans 16:3-5. Paul is writing of Priscilla and Aquila, (husband and wife). They are referred to as "helpers" in the King James. The Greek word used here is "sunergos". The horrid thing is, the King James chose to interpret the word as "deacons and bishops" in Philemon 1:1, where there was no specific mention of a women!!! This is ridiculous! The word is non-gender specific, and simply means together-actor! Together actor simply means doing the same job!"
So, it is my educated opinion that... your baptist is showing.
posted
Matthew, I see that this is the only post I haven't responded to yet, but I cannot respond right now as I would like due to time constraints. I will try to respond later this evening or tomorrow. Please be patient with me.
posted
Hey that's no problem. As a matter of fact... I will pretty much just be chewing my RCC cabbage again ...and since I hate cabbage, I only want to say...
I have recently escaped from the IC having taught in church since I was 14. I am now 41. I now understand that I should have listened more ...and taught less.
Having said that, my only point is that The Bible offers total freedom. I have found it also states that we 1.)Love The Lord 2.)Love others. 3.)Show it.
That's my Good News, (and I'm sticking to it). Nuf said.
I have some time to post today, but before I answer your last post I just want to point out that you really didn't respond to much of what I said in my last post to you. If I am going to take time to try to thoroughly respond to all that you have said, it would be good if you could do so in response to me as well. Otherwise I will get the feeling that you really aren't interested in a dialog, and just won't bother with it any more.
I really don't have time to follow any more threads right now, but I did take a look at the thread you have linked here. As you can imagine, there are a number of things I would question or disagree with. However, since most of the issues are coming up in this thread, I will stick to responding here.
As for your liking to use a Greek interlinear, I commend your desire to get at what the original text says, but I would caution you that interlinears can be dangerous if you don't know enough Greek to make proper use of them.
quote:I was raised in church, I understand where you are coming from. It is not Biblical, but it is what is being taught as being Biblical.
I am not sure you do understand where I am coming from. After all, you haven't really gotten to know me yet. I hope you aren't just responding to me -- or rather, not responding to me on some things -- because of some preconceived idea you have about what I must believe. None of us likes to be pigeon-holed rather than listened to.
quote:Also, as far as women in the church having nothing to say, again, did you know that there were women commissioners (what you know as an apostle)!?!
First, where did I ever say that "women in the church have nothing to say"? I was only making the point that Paul does not allow women to each or have authority over men in the church, but this is not the same thing as saying that women have nothing to say. You have jumped to an unwarranted assumption about what I think, which is something, as I said before, that I would prefer you don't do. I guess you might not know where I am coming from after all?
Second you already brought up the idea that "women were even call[ed] apostles" in a previous post, and I already responded thusly:
quote:your assumption that "women were even call[ed] apostles," I again disagree with you. There is not a single clear reference in the New Testament to a woman as an apostle. Although some have tried to maintain this with regard to Romans 16:7, there is hardly a strong case to be made for it. As Wayne Grudem observes in his Systematic Theology (p.908-909):
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.” Because there are several translation problems in the verse, no clear conclusions can be reached. “Men of note” may be also translated “men noted by” (the apostles). “Junias” (a man’s name) may also be translated “Junia” (a woman’s name). “Apostles” here may not mean the office “apostles of Jesus Christ,” but may simply mean “messengers” (the broader sense which the word takes in Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; John 13:16). The verse has too little clear information to allow us to draw a conclusion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to your post....
You did provide a link to another post in which you brought up the same idea about women apostles, but you didn't defend the idea there either. Here is what you said in that post:
quote:One more thing. There were women commissioners (apostles), servers, (what you know as deacons, but the King James chose to call them “helpers” because a woman was mentioned). These were called “together actors” by Paul. Just check out Romans 16:1-7 in the Greek.
Here are just more assertions. But, Matthew, assertions are not arguments, as I am sure you know. At any rate, you certainly have not said why, in light of the interpretive ambiguities in Romans 16:7, your reading must be accepted as the right one. But this is what you have to do if your point is to have any force. I would also add that it isn't a good idea to base arguments on such ambiguous texts anyway.
And by the way, the English word commissioner is not a good translation for the Greek term apóstolos. It can refer to a person who has been commissioned to do something, but it doesn't refer to a commissioner. I am not sure what interlinear you are consulting, but if it gives this translation, it has led you astray. I know of no reputable Greek lexical source that would offer such a translation. For example, a brief check of the following sources would not agree with you:
1) Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg (#3299, BibleWorks).
2) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker (#1011, BibleWorks)
3) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida (#819 [53.74, 33.194], BibleWorks).
4) UBS Greek Lexicon (#2496, BibleWorks).
quote:Here is part of a paper I started. I got so disgusted with the obvious anti-woman bias, and convinced of the fact that it is real in English Bibles, I stopped.
Could it be you have revealed here a bias of your own? I mean, seeing English Bibles as having an "anti-woman bias" simply because they reflect the kinds of role distinctions that the original text indicates seems a bit harsh. After all, to see men and women as having been given distinct roles in the home and the church is not the same thing as being "anti-woman" as you suggest. Your language here amounts to nothing more than a straw man, by which you apparently seek to paint a complementarian view in a negative light (as being "anti-woman"). And it may reveal that you yourself may have a modern, culturally influenced feminist bias.
quote:"I go Greek Interlinear for any proof text. The problem is then, that there are also errors in the Greek and differing views on what should and should not be there! It would seem that 1 Cor 14:33b-36 is a later addition. The mention of The Law in verse 34 is the clincher for me. There is much on this topic at this web sight if anyone is interested. http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1co14v33.htm
If it was an added notation, it should be removed.
First, there really isn't any significant textual debate as to whether the verses in question are a part of 1 Corinthians 14. That is, there is no good manuscript evidence that does not include them. Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New testament, explains the reasoning behind the readings adopted in the UBS Greek text, which serves as the basis for most modern English translations. Here is his discussion of the Greek manuscript evidence for the text of 1 Cor. 14:34-35:
quote:14.34–35include verses here {B}
Several witnesses, chiefly Western, transpose verses 34–35 to follow ver. 40 (D F G 88* it, Ambrosiaster Sedulius Scotus). Such scribal alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.
(p.565)
Notice that the only real issue when assessing the manuscript evidence for the Greek text is not concerning whether these verses belong in the passage or not, but rather whether they belong after verse 33 or after verse 40. The UBS committee chose to include the verses in the tradition place after verse 33 and assigned a "{B}" letter for this decision. In order to understand the meaning of this letter assignment, I will cite the explanation from the introduction of the book:
quote:In order to indicate the relative degree of certainty in the mind of the Committee for the reading adopted as the text, an identifying letter is included within braces at the beginning of each set of textual variants. The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain, while {B} indicates that the text is almost certain. The letter {C}, however, indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. The letter {D}, which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.
(p.xxviii, Italics mine)
Notice that they regard the placing of the verses under question after verse 33 rather than after verse 40 as "almost certain." What is in question, again, is not the validity of the verses themselves, but rather is where they belong in the passage. As I have noted already, there really is no way to doubt that these verses are genuine based upon Greek textual or manuscript evidence.
Second, I have briefly examined the information at the website you have linked, and I would like to point out a couple things about it:
1) Some of the sources cited there acknowledge the textual issue I have noted, but I didn't notice any of them attempting to cite any manuscript evidence for removing the verses from the text. This reinforces the point I made above.
2) The reasoning given by the sources cited for ridding 1 Corinthians 14 of these verses is consistently that they are regarded as introducing some supposed difficulty into the text, a difficulty that would go away if we simply took the verses out. What kind of scholarship is that! Can you imagine what the Bible would look like if we took this approach to every text someone found difficult?
As for the difficulty that these verses are alleged to involve, the primary issue seems to be that they would amount to an inconsistency with earlier statements made by Paul in the same epistle. Most notably, in 11:2-5 Paul allows that women may prophesy in the assembly, so he cannot, then, be saying in 14:34-45 that they must remain silent. But this misunderstands the context of chapter 14, which indicates that Paul is not saying that women should always be silent, but only at certain times. Wayne Grudem is once again helpful in discussing this passage, and he offers what is a perfectly good and consistent reading of it as it stands:
quote:In this section Paul cannot be prohibiting all public speech by women in the church, for he clearly allows them to pray and prophesy in church in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Therefore, it is best to understand this passage as referring to speech that is in the category being discussed in the immediate context, namely, the spoken evaluation and judging of prophecies in the congregation (see v. 29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said”). While Paul allows women to speak and give prophecies in the church meeting, he does not allow them to speak up and give evaluations or critiques of the prophecies that have been given, for this would be a ruling or governing function with respect to the whole church. This understanding of the passage depends on our view of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament age, namely, that prophecy involves not authoritative Bible teaching, and not speaking words of God which are equal to Scripture, but rather reporting something which God spontaneously brings to mind. In this way, Paul’s teachings are quite consistent in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2: in both cases he is concerned to preserve male leadership in the teaching and governing of the church.
(Systematic Theology, p.939)
This is a perfectly logical and consistent explanation of the relationship of the various statements Paul makes regarding the involvement of women in the churches. But it is not a well-liked explanation by many these days, because it takes seriously what Paul has to say and does not cater to the feminist biases of so many in our culture.
quote:Try refuting my findings in Romans 16:1&2. Phoebe was a (Greek word "diakonos") always interpreted "deacon" when speaking of men in the King James. The use of the more pure Greek to English word "servant" here makes it obvious that they knew what the word meant, but chose to alter it when speaking of men!!! This is obviously meant as chauvinistic bondage. Remember, the King James was not published until 1894. This gave religious folks over eighteen-hundred years to create a church hierarchy! Is this not an obvious attempt, by the writers of the King James, to keep an already existent church hierarchy in place?
There are so many problems and errors in this paragraph, it is hard to know where to start responding, but here goes....
First, it is simply not true that the term diákonos is "always interpreted 'deacon' when speaking of men in the King James." There are several examples to the contrary where, just as with Phoebe in Romans 16:1, the term is translated servant by the King James with reference to men. For example, see Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:5; John 12:26. Of course, there are also numerous places where the KJV translates the term diákonos with the English word minister rather than deacon.
Second, I am not sure as to the reason why the KJV did not translate diákonos as deacon when referring to Phoebe, but I agree with their conclusion and would guess that their reasons had to do with their understanding of Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3.
If they saw Acts 6:1-6 as referring to the selection of deacons, then they would have remembered that the Apostles clearly said that the people should choose seven men (anḗr) from among them to serve (vs.3). And, of course, 1 Timothy 3:12 specifically says, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (KJV). This statement of qualifications indicates that men only were to be deacons, since it specifies both that a deacon must be the husband of one wife and that a deacon must rule his own home well. And, since Paul teaches that the husband is the head of the wife and thus also of the home (Eph. 5:22-24), the translators would have rightly concluded that the requirement of ruling one's own house well could only apply to a man.
Thus, the KJV translators may have correctly assumed that the English word deacon would not have been a good word to use in reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Again, I do not actually know what their reasoning was, but I think this is probably a good guess, given the way they -- and most all other Christians up until the last half of the 20th century -- understood such passages. But their understanding was not necessarily due to "chauvinistic bondage" as you suggest. It simply follows from such passages as those I have listed, as well as the overall tenor of Scripture.
Third, I am surprised that you would say that "the King James was not published until 1894," when it is common knowledge that it was first published in 1611. This is just another error on your part.
Fourth, I agree that the KJV did have a bias in favor a particular view of church hierarchy, in particular an episcopal hierarchy. In fact, if I recall my history accurately, this was one of the reasons King James wanted a new version rather than the Geneva Bible that had become so popular in England. However, I do not think this bias is what led to their translation of diákonos as servant in Romans 16:1.
quote:That not enough? Let's read on in Romans 16:3-5. Paul is writing of Priscilla and Aquila, (husband and wife). They are referred to as "helpers" in the King James. The Greek word used here is "sunergos". The horrid thing is, the King James chose to interpret the word as "deacons and bishops" in Philemon 1:1, where there was no specific mention of a women!!! This is ridiculous! The word is non-gender specific, and simply means together-actor! Together actor simply means doing the same job!"
Again I see some errors, or perhaps just some confusion on your part.
First, you are correct in asserting that Paul uses the plural ot the Greek word sunergós to refer to both Priscilla and Aquila in Romans 16:3. And the word does refer to someone who "works together with" someone else. It can thus be translated as helper, as in the KJV,or as fellow-worker, as in the NKJV (which I prefer). However, I think that saying that this word means "doing the same job" goes a bit far. For example, I do not think that you could conclude from the use of this word that either Priscilla or Aquila were Apostles as Paul was. To work together with someone does not mean that you are doing all the exact same things or that you have the same role in the church. So, for example, when Paul says to the Corinthian church, "For we are God's fellow workers (plural of sunergós); you are God's field, you are God's building," he is not saying that he and Apollos are doing exactly the same job as God.
Second, I think you have confused Philemon 1:1 with Philippians 1:1. Paul does use sunergós in Philemon 1:1 to refer to Philemon as a "fellow laborour," but he does not there refer to "deacons and bishops," as you suggest. In Philippians 1:1, however, the KJV does have Paul referring to the "bishops and deacons," but that passage makes no use of sunergós.
quote:So, it is my educated opinion that... your baptist is showing.
Well, given the numerous errors and misunderstandings in what you have said, I am frankly not sure how "educated" your opinion really is, particularly when it comes to your use of Greek and your assessment of textual critical scholarship. In fact, Matthew, you strike me as being in a bit over your head in these areas.
As for your insinuation that I have demonstrated a Baptist bias, I will only say that I have not denied that I am a Baptist -- specifically a Reformed Baptist -- in my thinking. I have been completely up front about this in this forum. I will only add now that I have come to this position after many years of my own study, brother. And I, too, believe than mine is an "educated opinion."
quote:Hey that's no problem. As a matter of fact... I will pretty much just be chewing my RCC cabbage again ...and since I hate cabbage, I only want to say...
I have recently escaped from the IC having taught in church since I was 14. I am now 41. I now understand that I should have listened more ...and taught less.
Well, I am only only 43 myself, and I can honestly say that my time has been spent in both listening and teaching fairly equally over the past 23 years since the Lord saved me. I can also say that I should have listended better at times and that I should have seized more teaching opportunitites as well. I am sad to say that I have let too many of both kinds of opportunites get away from me over the years.
quote:Having said that, my only point is that The Bible offers total freedom. I have found it also states that we 1.)Love The Lord 2.)Love others. 3.)Show it.
That's my Good News, (and I'm sticking to it). Nuf said.
quote:As for your liking to use a Greek interlinear, I commend your desire to get at what the original text says, but I would caution you that interlinears can be dangerous if you don't know enough Greek to make proper use of them.
I say. What? Greek word above English below. Then you say;
quote:I am not sure you do understand where I am coming from. After all, you haven't really gotten to know me yet. I hope you aren't just responding to me -- or rather, not responding to me on some things -- because of some preconceived idea you have about what I must believe. None of us likes to be pigeon-holed rather than listened to.
However, you later say;
quote:As for your insinuation that I have demonstrated a Baptist bias, I will only say that I have not denied that I am a Baptist -- specifically a Reformed Baptist -- in my thinking. I have been completely up front about this in this forum. I will only add now that I have come to this position after many years of my own study, brother. And I, too, believe than mine is an "educated opinion."
Proving that I have "pigeon-holed" you correctly! Then you say;
quote:First, where did I ever say that "women in the church have nothing to say"? I was only making the point that Paul does not allow women to each or have authority over men in the church, but this is not the same thing as saying that women have nothing to say.
Then you say;
quote:Your language here amounts to nothing more than a straw man, by which you apparently seek to paint a complementarian view in a negative light (as being "anti-woman"). And it may reveal that you yourself may have a modern, culturally influenced feminist bias.
However, you later say;
quote:I am not sure as to the reason why the KJV did not translate diákonos as deacon when referring to Phoebe, but I agree with their conclusion and would guess that their reasons had to do with their understanding of Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3.
You have your "chauvinistic guess". I have my "culturally influenced feminist bias."
Question. What good is your guessing when you openly admit your RB bias? Here are examples. "If they saw Acts 6:1-6" "the KJV translators may have" "I think this is probably a good guess". This is NOTHING but speculation! It is much easier to prove what The Bible doesn't say, that to prove what it does. Here is an example of one of your assumptions.
quote:This statement of qualifications indicates that men only were to be deacons, since it specifies both that a deacon must be the husband of one wife and that a deacon must rule his own home well.
No. This only goes to show that no women were being addressed at this time! Your statements of "fact" are not facts at all, but personal learned bias.
And you say things like this;
quote:First, there really isn't any significant textual debate as to whether the verses in question are a part of 1 Corinthians 14. That is, there is no good manuscript evidence that does not include them.
These are statements taken directly from the site I posted to you (the one you claimed to "looked at".)
Those who defend the text as original are compelled to resort to constructions for help. These verses are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued..., but a post-Pauline interpolation... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Gen 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 11:5.
The injunctions reflect the misogynism of 1 Tim 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40. [Written by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ibid., pages 811-812.]
Some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Letters (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Letters. See also Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1-6.
(1 Tim 2:8-15, part of a letter generally regarded as written by a later Paulinist, not by Paul himself). This latter option is favored by many commentators, and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts place verses 34-35 at the end of the chapter, rather in their present location; that might indicate that they were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by scribes a varying points in the the original text...
All things considered, this passage is best explained as a gloss introduced into the text by the second- or third-generation Pauiline interpreters who compiled the pastoral epistles.
The similarity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is striking: Both command women to "learn" in silenced and submission. Such directives assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline churches. (page 247)
That's my Good News (even for women), (and I'm sticking to it).
Be a blessing, Matthew
Oh, and one more thing... I'm impeaching you as a witness [above] (by showing you your own contradictory statements) and just adding brief notes.
quote: And by the way, the English word commissioner is not a good translation for the Greek term apóstolos. It can refer to a person who has been commissioned to do something, but it doesn't refer to a commissioner. I am not sure what interlinear you are consulting, but if it gives this translation, it has led you astray.
The fact is, it has not led me astray. Is that all you have? Let's say that they were just called "the twelve". The fact is, there is still no assighned authority. The word is not as important as the use. I can call myself a Pomawm, and everyone can think that I'm a king ...when I'm really a "poor old middle aged white man". The name only denotes their jobs, not rank.
quote:Keith T also said: As for your liking to use a Greek interlinear, I commend your desire to get at what the original text says, but I would caution you that interlinears can be dangerous if you don't know enough Greek to make proper use of them.
...what interlinear you are consulting, but if it gives this translation, it has led you astray.
There are so many problems and errors in this paragraph, it is hard to know where to start responding...
I am surprised that you would say that "the King James was not published until 1894," when it is common knowledge that it was first published in 1611. This is just another error on your part.
Again I see some errors, or perhaps just some confusion on your part.
In fact, Matthew, you strike me as being in a bit over your head in these areas.
You say, "None of us likes to be pigeon-holed."
I however love being "pigeon-holed" as you have so eloquently done, and also named it. Someone who is fool enough to underestimate their opponent ...often ends up looking like the fool themselves.
However, you obviously know best...
Also, if you wish to post to me, please address one topic at a time. There is no posting limit here. Also, please keep them in the correct place. The Moderator has threatened to move all of the things in my garage into my bedroom (or something like that). Since I keep all of the thing one normally keeps in their garage, in my bathroom, this would be very confusing!
quote:I am surprised that you would say that "the King James was not published until 1894," when it is common knowledge that it was first published in 1611. This is just another error on your part.
"One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611."
"The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version." Seems backwards huh? "The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version." NOTE: The true 1611 reads like this, "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
Why 1894? "Even accepting that the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener, however, who studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. (No doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text."
So, my oops? Like I said, I use The Greek Interlinear. TR is the best thing the KJV has, and it's fabricated! Somehow I don't feel "in a bit over [my] head in these areas."
posted
Matthew, I will try to respond to all that you have said -- in the last four posts -- in summary form, since it is easier for me to do in a timely fashion, and since I think it will be easier for others to follow as well.
1. In response to my caution about the use of Greek interlinears, that it "can be dangerous if you don't know enough Greek to make proper use of them," you said: "What? Greek word above English below."
Your response appears to demonstrate the very problem I was warning against. For if you think that you can properly assess the correct meaning of the text merely by knowing which Greek word underlies the English translation, then you apparently don't understand the issues involved. This is especially true of prepositions, which can carry different meanings in relationship to different nouns or case endings, or of verbs, which can sometimes have different nuances of meaning when they are used in a different tense, voice, or mood. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek understands these basic concepts.
2.When you say that my openness about being a Reformed Baptist proves that you "have 'pigeon-holed' [me] correctly," you don't appear to have gotten my point. When I beseeched you several times not to make unwarranted assumptions about what you thought I must think, it was because you were apparently assuming things about me that simply are not true of myself or other Reformed Baptists I know. So, when you assert that my "baptist is showing," for example, you do not seem to mean the same thing by the term "baptist" that I mean when I refer to myself as a Reformed Baptist.
3.When you say that "You have your chauvinistic guess'. I have my 'culturally influenced feminist bias,'" you are responding to three separate quotes from me, not all of which have to do with the same thing. For example, in the first quote I was addressing your having inaccurately portrayed me as having argued that "women in the church have nothing to say." I was not guessing here about about anything. I was telling you that you were wrong to insinuate such a thing about me based upon what I had said (which, by the way, is another example of your assuming things about my view that are flatly incorrect).
In the second quote I was responding to your having portrayed English translations that agreed with me -- and thus also portraying me in the context -- as being "anti-woman." But I was not guessing about anything here either. I was correctly reacting to what I perceived to be a an unfair straw man attack. My complementarian views -- which I believe to be solidly Biblical -- do not amount to being "anti-woman."
As for the third quote, I did say that I was offering a "guess" as to why the KJV translators chose to use the term servant rather than deacon in Romans 16:1. I believe it is a pretty good, educated guess based upon what I know of the views of Christians at that time. But I wasn't guessing when I said that I thought they were right in their translation choice. For I gave Scriptural reasons that I said I agreed with. And you have completely avoided responding to these Scriptural arguments.
You have failed to distinguish between my speculation as to what may have influenced the KJV translators and my arguments for why they were right in any case. And I was not speculating about these arguments.
4.I asserted with regard to 1 Timothy 3:12 that "This statement of qualifications indicates that men only were to be deacons, since it specifies both that a deacon must be the husband of one wife and that a deacon must rule his own home well." Your response to me was to say, "No. This only goes to show that no women were being addressed at this time! Your statements of 'fact' are not facts at all, but personal learned bias."
Where in the context does Paul indicate that his commands regarding elders were only for that time? On what basis do you so limit his command as applying only to that time? I would argue -- as my references to other passages indicated -- that the larger context of Paul's teaching and the rest of Scripture indicate otherwise, since Paul anchors his teaching about the proper roles of men and women in both the creation order (e.g. 1 Tim. 2) and the nature of Christ's relationship to the Church (e.g. Eph. 5).
5. Now I will address the series of quotes you have listed from the site you linked to -- and which I did examine closely enough to understand:
quote:Those who defend the text as original are compelled to resort to constructions for help. These verses are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued..., but a post-Pauline interpolation... Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Gen 3:16) un-Pauline, but the verses contradict 11:5.
I have already addressed this in the very post you are responding to. I argued that there is no textual, manuscript evidence that does not include the verses under discussion and that, therefore, there is no textual basis for arguing that they do not belong in 1 Corinthians 14. And nothing you have cited from this site counters this argument. Instead they just argue that there are supposed "difficulties" with accepting it as genuine, most notably the supposed contradiction with 11:5, which I also addressed above, although I am beginning to wonder if you read most of what I wrote.
Your simply quoting from that site the same points that I have already countered does not amount to an argument as to why my counter arguments must be wrong.
quote:The injunctions reflect the misogynism of 1 Tim 2:11-14 and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. place these verses after 40. [Written by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ibid., pages 811-812.]
First, I strongly object to the idea that Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 reflects "misogynism" (hatred of women) on his part. This amounts to a straw man attempt to undermine what he plainly asserts by painting it in the most negative light possible. But, Matthew, teaching that their is a God-ordained distinction in roles between men and women does not amount to hatred of women.
Second, I have already addressed in my previous post the fact that there are some manuscripts that "place these verse after verse 40." But the point is that the Greek manuscripts do contain these verses, however much some today may find it disconcerting.
quote:Some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Letters (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Letters. See also Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1-6.
This citation clearly reflects a liberal bias that questions the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, after which it says "See also Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1-6," all of which reflect the same view of men and women taught in the Pastorals. That there are "some scholars" who who want to regard 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as not being original is hardly surprising. I can find "some scholars" who will question the genuineness of just about any passage that happens to challenge modern cultural mores. The point is that these "scholars" aren't making any good arguments for their point of view.
quote:(1 Tim 2:8-15, part of a letter generally regarded as written by a later Paulinist, not by Paul himself). This latter option is favored by many commentators, and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts place verses 34-35 at the end of the chapter, rather in their present location; that might indicate that they were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by scribes a varying points in the the original text...
Here again we have the liberal view that the Pastoral Epistles really weren't written by Paul, a view for which no good argument can be made. What you have here is the kind of speculation that you didn't seem to like earlier in your post. But at least my speculation about the reasoning of the KJV translators was in line with what is accepted as historically true, and at least my speculation about the KJV translators wasn't the kind of speculation that seeks to question the originality or reliability of the Bible when I might not be comfortable with what it says!
quote:The similarity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is striking: Both command women to "learn" in silenced and submission. Such directives assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline churches. (page 247)
Imagine that. Two passage written by the same author that teach the same ideas. In my opinion, the fact that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is so close to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is just one more reason to regard them as genuine.
As for the outrageous notion that "Such directives assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline churches," I can only say that it seriously begs the question. It assumes the very thing that needs to be proved, and it seeks to set aside the clear evidence that disproves it merely because it disproves it! This is a clear case of deciding what one wants to find and then making the evidence fit that finding. And if it can't credibly be understood as supporting what one wants to find, then it is simply dismissed as illegitimate. Liberals have been at this nonsense for so long that they can't see how utterly nonsensical it really is!
But you see this as "good news"? It is good news to you that parts of Scripture are being jettisoned just because they don't fit what many in our modern culture want to believe? Again, I ask, where does such an approach end when once it is embarked upon? There is no end to what people may conveniently ignore in God's Word if not liking what it says is sufficient reason to throw it out.
6. I said, "And by the way, the English word commissioner is not a good translation for the Greek term apóstolos. It can refer to a person who has been commissioned to do something, but it doesn't refer to a commissioner. I am not sure what interlinear you are consulting, but if it gives this translation, it has led you astray." I also immediately cited at least four reputable Greek lexicons to support my contention. But here was your response:
quote:The fact is, it has not led me astray. Is that all you have? Let's say that they were just called "the twelve". The fact is, there is still no assighned authority. The word is not as important as the use. I can call myself a Pomawm, and everyone can think that I'm a king ...when I'm really a "poor old middle aged white man". The name only denotes their jobs, not rank.
I must admit I am perplexed by this response. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
First, you have not admitted that you were in error when saying that the Greek word apóstolos means commissioner, but nor have you given any evidence that this is the correct meaning (from an interlinear or elsewhere). You have simply denied that whatever interlinear you may have used did lead you astray on this point. Oh well, if I can't convince you by citing the most prominent lexical works available, I give up.
Second, I don't follow what you are trying to say with the rest of this quote. You seem to think that you have made a case that the term apóstolos "only denotes their jobs, not rank," but 1) you haven't really offered any arguments that this is so, and 2) you are back to using the word "rank" again, as though arguing against what you mean by that term is an argument against my view (?). But I have repeatedly said to you in past posts that I don't like that term, nor do I use it, with reference to Apostles or pastors, and that it carries connotations that I don't agree with myself. So who are you responding to? It doesn't seem to be me, unless you are back to your pattern of having decided what you think I must really think, rather than listening to and responding to what I am actually saying.
At any rate, I can't find a good argument for what you are saying in what you are saying, and it doesn't appear to relate clearly to what I have been saying anyway.
7.These assertions don't aid your cause at all:
quote:You say, "None of us likes to be pigeon-holed."
I however love being "pigeon-holed" as you have so eloquently done, and also named it. Someone who is fool enough to underestimate their opponent ...often ends up looking like the fool themselves.
However, you obviously know best...
So, with more of your characteristic sacrasm, you are saying that I am "foolish" because you think that I have underestimated you? You are saying that I look like a fool for doing so? And you are saying that you "love" this?
This reminds me of a Proverb:
Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him."
With that, I am finished interacting with you, in this or in any other thread. I guess that means the fourth of your most recent posts in this thread will have to go unanswered. And whatever you write in response will have to be the last word between you and me.
posted
Since I have been informed that Matthew is no longer part of the forum, I will sometime soon respond to the last few posts in which he addressed me. When I wrote ...
quote: I am finished interacting with you, in this or in any other thread. I guess that means the fourth of your most recent posts in this thread will have to go unanswered. And whatever you write in response will have to be the last word between you and me.
... I was under the assumption that he was still around, and I had no desire to interact with him any longer.
I appreciate the kindness and maturity the rest of you have demonstrated on this forum and hope to be able to interact a bit more in the future.
posted
I had told Matthew that I was surprised that he said "the King James was not published until 1894," when it is common knowledge that it was first published in 1611. This was just one of his many errors. Now I will deal with his response to my having pointed this out.
quote:"One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611."
Although Matthew puts these words in quotes, he doesn't indicate who it is he is quoting, so I have no idea as to the source. It is an accurate statement for the most part. Most people with a KJV really do have the 1769 version. But this doesn't mean that someone can say that the KJV wasn't published until 1769, let alone 1894 as Matthew said. Such a statement gives the impression that there was no KJV until 1894, which is wrong. It is simply not true that that "the King James was not published until 1894." It was, in fact, published as early as 1611.
quote:"The Textus Receptus 1894 Greek text is the corresponding Greek text to the 1611 King James Version." Seems backwards huh? "The Scrivener text is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus in which changes have been made to reflect the readings chosen by the KJV translators. Scrivener's intent was to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version." NOTE: The true 1611 reads like this, "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."
Again we are left wondering who is the source of these quotes. But we cannot miss the problem with the way Matthew is using the cited information. He has taken the fact that Scrivener published his version of the Textus Receptus in 1894, which is claimed to be the closest to the actual text that was used by the KJV translators, as evidence that the KJV translation itself was not published until 1894. This is, to put it mildly, ludicrous.
The KJV translation was first published in 1611, even if no one bothered to try to put together a Greek text that brought together all of the variant readings chosen by the translators until 1894 (which may be true).
quote:Why 1894? "Even accepting that the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener, however, who studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. (No doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text."
Should we assume that Jay Green is the source of the earlier quoted portions of Matthew's post as well as these portions? Who knows. As for the material cited here, however interesting this information may or may not be, it has nothing to do with when the KJV was originally published. And, again, to say, based on such information, that "the King James was not published until 1894," giving the impression that it was not actually published before then, is just plain wrong, and nothing in the material cited by Matthew demonstrates otherwise. It only demonstrates that Matthew doesn't seem to understand how to assimilate such information.
quote:So, my oops? Like I said, I use The Greek Interlinear. TR is the best thing the KJV has, and it's fabricated! Somehow I don't feel "in a bit over [my] head in these areas."
First, I reassert my earlier warnings about the use of interlinear translations.
Second, none of the information Matthew has shared warrants the conclusion that the Textus Receptus is wholly fabricated, which is the impression left by his remarks.
Third, whether Matthew felt that he was in over his head or not does not change the fact that he quite clearly was. He obviously didn't know what to do with the information he was citing, apparently because he lacked understanding of the issues being discussed.
posted
Keith, I appreciate your willingness to take the conversation to a scholarly level.
Matthew has, indeed, taken his spiritual hunger elsewhere and joined some of us who want to focus on salvation and obedience in our own home and community to the plain and easily understood commands of Jesus, rather than spend a lot of time on popular arguments about text and so-called doctrine.
While some texts may become confusing when you look at various versions/translations/paraphrases/historical texts, nowhere does Jesus say we needed to worry about that.
The way I see it, I will have all of eternity to enjoy these Greek-style debates, but only a few hours to "Make disciples of all nations and teach them to OBEY MY COMMANDS".
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There is no "chain of command" ever spoken of, or ever put in place in The New Testament, but one. No one was ever directly named as a shepherd, but Christ Himself. There is a huge difference between shepherding someone, and being a shepherd! Also, there is no difference made between men and women!!! Did you know that women were even call apostles!?! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
