House Church Talk - Re: There can not be male and female6

[SameSpecies]

"Niveknes" writes, you can tell by the single ">", Mike's writing has no ">"
or has two of them ">>":

> So is that the same way you'd translate the very same expression in
> 1.15?

I would start with this understanding of 1 Tim 1:15 "Faithful the Word, and
of all acceptance worthy, for (or because) Christ Jesus, come into the
world, sinners to deliver, of whom first am I".  Then I would touch it up
for a smoother translation that would convey that Paul was praising the
Living God, the Word, as Faithful, and worthy, followed then by the
statement of why, because Christ Jesus came into the world to deliver
sinners, of whom I am first or foremost. Could it be translated this way
Niveknes?

>And is that the way we're to translate every occurance of the
> word "Logos"?

No, as you pointed out below use "the context in which each word is found".

>What about Mat thew 5.37 in which the same word is used
> "the word" (or really, more accurately, "the statement"), but with your
> rules of grammar, we'd be forced to say this: "But let your God be ..."
> which makes absolutely no sense. Check Strong's listing for all the
> occurances of this phrase/word and apply your rule to each one and
> you'll start finding yourself in trouble with this narrow rule to
> translation.

Niveknes, I didn't say I would translate all occurrences of logos the way I
did in 1 Tim 3:1  or that I would consider all uses of the word "logos" as
God.  Also, I haven't assumed a narrow rule of translation, it appears that
you think I have, from your statements above.  We can see in all the English
translations that sometimes the word "logos" is deified and sometimes it's
not.
>
> You really must be careful in how you use Strong's. It's a wonderful
> tool to do word searches in. But to use it to determine every single
> occurance of a word's appearance destroys the context in which each
> word is found.

Again Niveknes, this is your assumption about me and not any practice I
have.  Who is not being careful here?

>It's interesting that there isn't an occurance in any
> translation where the translators have decided that this phrase should
> mean: God is faithful. I wonder why that is?

Here's one friend from the Recovery Translation  "Faithful is the word. ".
You can locate it at this link:
http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6588&lvid=6588  Is
this Greek text for the word "trustworthy" not also translated "faithful"?
Is the Greek text for this word "saying or statement" not also translated
"word"?  Is not this "word" also not deified at times in our translations?
Is God not faithful?

>Okay, can you give examples of the dozen different ways it could have
> been said that way... in the Greek NT? I don't think you can.

Your right, I exaggerated, I apologize.  Are you willing to admit that it
could have been written in the Greek text to make it male specific?

>I'm not disagreeing that the verb couldn't mean "he
> desires" or "she desires" or "it desires"... I just want you to be
> careful with the way you handle the Greek. If you're just basing it off
> English translations and English concordances with their Greek
> cross-references, you're going to find yourself in big trouble in your
> hermeneutic.  > In these cases, the gender to which a verb is referring to
must either
> be taken from the object of the verb or implied from the context. You
> cannot arbitrarily make the verb say what you want it to say.

Yes, I agree with you, and as you pointed out it could be "it desires" which
would then be translated "that one".  I know this because I had this
translation of mine reviewed by the two groups of Greek scholars at our
local Christian Colleges.  They agreed that it could be translated this way,
and concluded with saying, they didn't feel that the churches/denominations
were ready for it at this time, maybe in the future.

> It could just as correctly read "she desires" thus ruling out the
> possibility of any man desiring and filling such an office; especially
> if you apply your grammatical logic rules to this verb.

Yes, it could, but I personnel feel that God pours His Spirit out on both
males and females, and that we should allow Him to choose the functioning He
will give.  We have documented in past articles that God did place both
males and females as Judges of Israel, sent before Israel, prophets,
apostles, deacons, evangelist, labors, etc.

> First of all, what do other translations, versions and paraphrases say
> this verse should say? You seem to arbitrarily jump to the ones that
> seem to best fit your position.

Yes, I do tend to point out the translations that best fit my position.  I
do this to show people that there is exceptions to the rules, differing
translations and opinions, debate on how a verse is to be translated, etc.,
etc., among the scholars.  I readily admit my translation and understanding
is not the norm or majority opinion.  But, will you admit that my
translation is also a possibility?  I will admit that I am in a very small
minority.  I realize that what I am saying, is kind of like saying the world
is round, when everyone else knows its flat.  Jesus also said allot of
things in His day that rocked everyone's world and very few could see it.
Now, I am not comparing myself to Columbus or Jesus, I am just pointing out
to you what I have seen, you discern for now, and later it will be revealed
as to whether it was from the Holy Spirit or of my own spirit which has seen
nothing.  Lord, please forgive us all.

>If you're going to do that, the best
> approach to debate the point would simply be a literal, word-for-word
> translation of the Greek and then make the attempt to put it into more
> manageable English so it can be read more easily.

I do agree, and I thought that is what I did in at least a couple of places.
I find that staying as true to the Greek text order in the various Critical
Texts does give us a better understanding of what it is truly saying.  The
trouble in seeing this, is we first have to drop allot of false concepts we
were taught, or that false teaching will conflict with what it literally
says, then we will start rearranging, adding and deleting words, etc. to
make the text fit our understanding.  Now, please don't assume I am
establishing another hard and fast grammatical logic rule for myself.
However, I tend to find that following a literal in-line word for word
translation with out the added or deleted wording tends to give me a better
understanding of the intended message.  Again, first you have to realize
that allot of the things we have been taught in Christianity may not be the
reality of things.  I am sure all of us can relate to this in some area or
another.  I have personally experienced, as a result of this practice, when
examining the scriptures is that I have never found a conflict with in them,
it has also helped me to see many things much more clearly.  As for my
example in 1 Tim 1:15 above "Faithful the Word and of all acceptance worthy,
for (or because) Christ Jesus, come into the world, sinners to deliver, of
whom first am I".  I no longer see it as saying "This is a faithful saying,
and worthy of all acceptation, that. ".  Instead, I see that Paul was
actually praising God, the Faithful Word, worthy of all acceptance, and then
states why He is so faithful, and worthy of all acceptance. Well, you judge
it with your mind in the Holy Spirit and discern for yourself.  I think we
can both agree that the Word is faithful and worthy of all acceptance.  We
can also both agree that what Paul goes on to say is a true statement about
the Lord.  However, I personally feel that "Faithful the Word and of all
acceptance worthy" is a truer and closer rendering of the Greek text, and
for some reason it just makes my spirit jump for Joy.

> I could just as easily make my point using the NIV: the husband of but
> one wife
>
> Or the NASB95: the husband of one wife
>
> Or the KJV: the husband of one wife
>
> Or the AV: the husband of one wife
>
> Or the TEV: he must have only one wife
>
> Or Darby's: husband of one wife
>
> Or Young's: of one wife a husband
>
> Or New KJV: the husband of one wife
>
> Or the RSV: the husband of one wife
>
> Or switching to the New RSV, we get something different from what
> you're also proposing:  married only once
>
>
> The NEB is the only paraphrase that suits your choice of translation...
> that seems mighty convenient.

Yes, you could just as easily make your point that way.  Also, I appreciate
you pointing out that there is exceptions and debate, on this section of
scripture.  I guess, I would just encourage us all to seek the Living Word
(the Holy Spirit), for the correct understanding.  I know this is going to
sound a little bit crazy and probably not even very logical when we compare
it to our experience, or what the experts say, but, I really know that there
is a Living Word out there that will be your Teacher, guide you into all
understanding, and recall all things to your remembrance, if we will turn to
Him today, and hear His voice while it is still called today.  That this
"Living Word" is still speaking today, still prophesying, still Head and
Leader in the body, still wanting to be as vocal and have a personnel
relationship with you as He did with others 2000 years ago.  Still saying to
us as He did then; come to Me that you may have Life.  I submit that like
the Pharisees we will not understand what scripture truly says or is
pointing to until we come to the Living Word, the Life, then we will see
that we have just been taking a Holy thing (the scriptures) from God and
replacing it with the Living God, Who is wanting to be all things to us now
and in a real living way.  Wanting now to speak, lead, teach, etc., etc.

> Or it could also be "being of one woman a husband" gunaikos being the
> genitive singular form of gune, woman or wife.

Again, friend thanks for pointing out this.  Again, I guess we will have to
seek the Living God to give us a decision on it, clearly education,
opinion's of scholars and teachers, all our knowledge, and our wisdom that
is of our effort, and even our experience in the world, oh!, an a little
logic can't really prove it one way, or the other.  I am willing to admit
that I have come to the point of just giving up on my and other's efforts, I
am just willing to say Lord, I don't know, I can't figure it out, I am not
educated, I am not so smart either.  Lord what do you say about it all.  You
know Niveknes, He's never told me anything that would contradict what I can
find in the Greek text when I examine it.  That's right, I am one of those
crazy ones who waits and listens on a voice, that I believe is the Living
Word.  Yes, I'll even listen to that voice when it goes against popular
opinion, when it goes against what the experts in the laws, and scriptures
tell me is the truth.  I am that crazy, that foolish, that deceived, and I
have never had so much Joy and Peace.  And until, I heard that little voice,
I never had so much love for my brothers and sisters, and peace with those
that disagree with what I understand or see.

> Could you please be so kind to show other examples where the English
> translations have done this... switched the word order around in order
> for it to make good sense when reading it in English? Oh wait, the
> bandwidth to download the entire NT would be a bit much wouldn't it.

Well, here's an example of when they didn't switch things around, since you
have all ready pointed out, in your statement above, that they do.  Just
look at the first couple of verses in the New Testament, of course they did
leave some of the Greek text out.  But, hey, I admitted that I had
exaggerated above, what about you now?  Hey any chance we could find many
places they have switched things around and many places they haven't?  And
really Niveknes, try taking sometime, what the word for word Greek text
says, and see if just excepting what it says doesn't tend to make allot more
sense.  Let's go back to your example in 1 Tim 1:15, here it is in a literal
word for word format from the Greek text, see if by reading it this way for
yourself, if you wouldn't translate it differently then the majority have,
for what ever scholarly reasons; "faithful the word and of all acceptance
worthy for Christ Jesus came into the world sinners to deliver of whom first
am I", now here's the Greek Nestle-Aland 27th addition manuscript
transliteration for comparison with the word order, I have put in brackets
the English for all who don't have a way to compare them; "pistos [faithful]
ho [the] logos [word] kai [and] pases [of all]  apodoches [acceptance] axios
[worthy] hoti [for] Christos [Christ] Iesous [Jesus] elthen [came] eis
[into] ton [the] kosmon [world] hamartolous [sinners] sosai [to deliver] hon
[of whom] protos [first] eimi [am] ego [I]" Well, you discern, I already
admitted I am just a nut who listens to a Voice above all else.

> I ask forgiveness for my tongue in cheek remark, but you aren't showing
> any level of understanding for the process of translation at all.

I forgive you, and I hope you can forgive my ignorance.

>Both Hebrew and Greek use a different kind of ordering of words from
> English. And, unless we all would learn Greek the moment we become
> Christians, we must use words that are familiar to us.

Actually, not familiar, but that actually convey the correct understanding
to us today.  As for learning Greek, I guess it's not very probable that we
will all learn Greek the moment we become Christians, and as Jesus
demonstrated 2000 years ago, it is not even very probable that the experts,
will even get it right for us.  I personally feel that our experts are not
doing any better then the experts of Jesus' day, that is those experts in
the law, those expert scribes and Pharisees, and of course the ones in Jesus
' day sure had allot more going for them, concerning understanding the
languages in question, then we do today.  Well, thank-You Lord, You are a
Living Word that we can turn to, the Spirit for wisdom, knowledge,
understanding, and everything else, Lord help us to at least see that what
we can get from it, is the message to turn to You.  Help us to see Lord,
that without hearing and listing to You Lord, today, we are not any better
off then our ancestors, who killed all the prophets.

> This simply follows the number one rule of any interpreter's task:
> Context rules! Context rules. Context must dictate what the author's
> intended meaning was. We're attempting to see what it was the author
> intended when he wrote what he wrote to whom he wrote it. Context: the
> surrounding words, verses, paragraphs or even chapters and books
> determine the final outcome here.

I couldn't agree more, I thought I was doing that by the surrounding context
and other verses I sighted.  However, personally I don't feel that your
statement is correct, when it says that this determines the final outcome
here.  I wasn't going to say anything more about this woman issue in
scripture, but since I find myself answering your questions, let me also use
this to give you an example of how it works, and what I believe is used to
determine the final outcome.  Maybe you can relate to this example.  The
more we behold the Lord, the more we are just able to know if something is
not right when we read something in the scriptures, or when someone makes a
statement to us.  It's for a better lack of words, kind of a supernatural
thing, you just know it.  For example when I read the verses about women
being silent in church, not teaching over men or usurping their authority,
etc., etc., I just knew something was not quite right with these
translations, and our understandings of it all.  So eventually, I learned to
just turn to God and ask Him to teach me, explain it to me, and show me the
errors of it.  Then I would let it rest with Him and just move on to seek
Him in were ever He was leading next.  Then in a couple of days, sometimes
even within minutes, He would bring something before me, or to me to give me
the correct understanding.  He might have pointed something out to me in
something someone else was saying, not even related to the subject I had
questioned Him about, or I would just come across the answer while studying
in an unrelated area of the scripture, sometimes I will just hear His voice,
very clearly, and audibly.  This usually happens when I am in immediate
physical danger, and need to take another action right away.  Well, getting
back to the women issue, I for get how it was now, because it was just over
two years ago, but He broth it to my attention, that the way we viewed and
translated those verses that say women are to be silent in church, etc.,
etc., were wrong, then within a short time I was able to understand that the
Greek text we translate "woman" in those verses can also be translated
"wives", also that the text we translate "man" can be translated "husband".
Well, that answered that, and cleared up for me, what Paul had really said,
and it fit into all the other scriptures.  But, and I won't take the time
here to show it in detail however, I still knew in my spirit, that the Lord
was telling me, there was even more errors in these sections of scripture.
For example, concerning the section were we find the women be silent in the
church verse, in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, words we translated above that
verse, like "any man" were really "any one".  Then it gets even deeper and I
begin to see that Paul was not even setting up some rules for us to follow,
but instead he was pointing us to Whom we were to follow, that is the Holy
Spirit in our prophesying, etc.  I could see that "how is it then brothers"
was actually a "Whom" is it then brothers.  I could see that it was not a
rule like we have translated it "for you may all one by one", but instead
the Greek text actually said "you are able for by One all".  Well, of course
this is a guy speaking, who isn't educated at all, and listens to a Voice
speaking in his heart, rather then excepting what's written in black and
white, so I'll admit it, I am probably just a fool.  I just hope I am a fool
for Christ.

>Don't lose the forest for the trees
> in seeing three or four words in an order you're not happy about when
> there are hundreds of other words around them that must help us in our
> understanding.


I am sorry if you think that by taking four words in a verse, that you
pointed out were in debate or question, and then giving what I feel is the
correct translation, by comparing it to other scriptures, and surrounding
context, you think this means I have lost the forest for the trees.
Actually, I am happy with the words, if we would just leave them in their
order "to be of one wife husband".  I think that the text in it's order
makes the meaning very clear to most.  The meaning should be "to be of
one...".

> Wrong again! There are punctuation marks... not the ones we use in
> English, granted; and, not always in some of the oldest manuscripts;
> but the Greeks did use certain forms of punctuation marks.

I think you made things clear enough in your statement above when you stated
". not the ones we use in English, granted; and, not always in some of the
oldest manuscripts;."  Maybe you would take the time to give us a lessen on
what the Greek punctuation marks mean, do, how they relate to our English
punctuation marks, I feel this could only help with our understanding of how
it all works.
> I didn't ask this earlier... have you had any Greek instruction at all?

> How much? Where from? Using what books and grammars?

No formal Greek instruction, even failed English in High School, worked all
my life as a common laborer and servant, my dad was a common laborer too, my
mother pretty much just was a house wife.  They both loved the Lord, and
turned to the Lord very late in life, just as I have done.  In fact, I have
only been a believer for about 3 years.  I have not attended any Christian
schooling.  I use to like to read other commentaries, etc., in the first
year I turned my life over to the Lord, but now I just prefer to keep a few
bible study tools on hand, mostly Greek and Hebrew tools.  I can't think of
any qualifications the world or Christianity might view, as giving me any
right to do what I am doing.  I can only say "I just know", and I can only
say I just know because "I know the Truth", and because more and more each
day, I wait and listen to what the Truth says.  It took me a couple of
years, to realize I was replacing the Truth, with allot of good and even
Holy things from the Truth.  Well, now we all know, I am uneducated and
surely mad, so you're probably right, and I am wrong.


> See, now you're arbitrarily assuming punctuation that isn't there, or
> even words that aren't there. Greek has a word for our English "or" and
> it definitely isn't in this sentence!

I agree that the word "or" is not in the Greek text, I don't believe I ever
said it was in the Greek text.  Are you telling me that it can not be added
in?  Added in to the English translation to convey the correct meaning of
the Greek text, yes, as I would see it, and not others.
>
> > This would be supported by the fact that the Greek text did not use
> > punctuation.  In the English language were we would place a comma, or  a
> > dash, etc., they would not place a comma or dash, they didn't use
> > punctuation.
>
> Please, cite your sources for this statement.

Well, staying in 1 Tim, here's one example from the manuscript
transliteration for verses 3:2-5 "dei oun ton episkopon anepilempton einai
mias gynaikos andra nephalion sophrona kosmion philoxenon didaktikon 3 me
paroinon me plekten alla epieike amachon aphilargyron 4 tou idiou oikou
kalos proistamenon tekna echonta en hypotage meta pases semnotetos 5 ei de
tis tou idiou oikou prostenai ouk oiden pos ekklesias theou epimelesetai" It
wouldn't do any good to send the Greek because the fonts will not display.
Now here is the English literal translation of the same by Reynolds"It is
necessary then the overseer unimpeachable to be of one woman man temperate
sober minded respectable love to strangers able to teach 3 not with wine not
hitter but gentle non-fighter not-silver-lover 4 of the own house well
standing before children having in subjection with all gravity 5 if but some
of the own house to stand before not he knows how of assembly of God will he
take care".  Now, here's the English translation using the KJ's "A bishop
then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no
striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not
covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"  Notice all the English
punctuation when we move to the English translation.  Now, would you please
teach us how the English punctuation is represented by what you have called
the Greek punctuation, as you stated earlier.  I am open to learning this,
and having you show that it is not in any way subjective, and that these
things you have called Greek punctuation translate into our addition of
commas, dashes, etc.  I apologize in advance, if by suggesting that there
maybe some subjectiveness in it, that this, is putting words in your mouth.
Niveknes, is it not true that we even have to make decisions on were to
separate the Greek text in the Uncials, etc., for word choices, and sentence
brakes, etc?  Is it not true that this process also has some subjectiveness
in it, that not all scholars are in agreement on were certain text is to be
separated, and what the out come of their meaning is based on were each
decides to separate the text?  Or whether one part of a verse should be
retained at the end of another verse or at the beginning of a new verse.  Is
it not true, that for every word in the bible, there works out to be
approximately one variant to every three words, in the bible.  You can
verify my source for this in the Textural Criticism notes to the NET Bible,
and their website,  www.netbible.org
> > In places we might put an "and" or an "or" they wouldn't
> > necessarily.   When translating it to English however, we might add an
"and"
> > or "or".
>
> Only if you were going to "read into the text" your own understanding,
> which you obviously have accused other translators of doing, and yet
> you feel it's all right to do the very same thing with no basis other
> than all the other major translations don't seem to fit your liking.

Niveknes, will you not admit that we could find many places in the English
translations that have words added into the English translation, that are
not in the Greek, including ones that are not in Italic type to indicate
this.  That also, we could find many words that are in the Greek text that
are not placed in the English translations or translated into English.  Yes,
I read it with a different understanding, and hopefully it is not by my own
understanding.  And, I am not totally alone in my understanding, as allot of
the other brothers have pointed out over the last several days on this site,
when it comes to understanding of what Paul was saying, concerning the woman
issue, now better said wife issue.  And, yes so do other translators do just
the kind of  "read into the text", that you are accusing me of, and as I
have pointed out before, allot of how they translate a verse(s) is based on
their understanding, or of their doctrinal understanding.  You can see this
easily, just by comparing many verses between different English
translations.  I also know, because I have asked several of them, and read
many of them.  They don't call it "read into the text" thought, they have
technical terms for it.  What they are trying to do, in it all, is convey
the most accurate, and understandable meaning to us, in our language,
however, as they understand it.  Here is a quote from "Essential Guide To
Bible Versions" by Philip W. Comfort, Ph.D., page 106, and by the way Dr
Comfort does an excellent job of explaining bible translation in an easy to
understand format for beginners, and he is an avid proponent who up holds
the translations we have today.  I say that he is an avid proponent who up
holds the translations we have today, because in my opinion, the statement I
will quote from his book, I personally feel is also quite an understatement.
Here is his statement found in the section of the book on "The Theory and
Practice of Bible Translation", I quote "In the final analysis, we must
admit that there is no perfect translation of the Bible.  There has never
been one and there never will be, because it is impossible to convey in a
translated language all that is contained in the original languages.  There
is an old saying that "Every translator is a traitor" (Latin, translator
traducer) for not having done it just right.  I don't think any translator
would disagree, for everyone who has translated the Bible has felt the pull
of two forces: the desire to accurately render the original text and the
desire to do so in a way that communicates the message to modern readers.
This cannot always be done.  My own experience as the New Testament
coordinator of the New Living Translation taught me again and again how
daunting a task it is to produce a perfect translation.  English was not
created to do justice to Greek!"  Now, I can't take any more time either, to
quote how subjective allot of these area's of translation are, and how
little scholars will admit we actually know.  If anyone is really interested
in learning about it, start reading about it, try Dr Comfort's book for a
starter, then start reading the scholarly criticism of one translation for
another, or even better the scholarly criticism between religions, in
defense of their scriptures.  Well anyway, would it be to radical to just
propose that since we know at lest enough, to know that the scriptures point
us to Him as Life, would it be so inconsolable to just scrap it all, after
coming to this realization, and just turn to Him for Life, for our wisdom,
for our understanding, for our knowledge, for our everything?  I wonder who
is better off really, the ones who never had scripture, like Abraham and the
others who just listen to God's voice, or the ones that have had it.  I
wonder, if it's true, that is if it's true what 1 Cor 12:3-11 below shows
us.  Shows us how all these things are to come to us, or how they should
come to us.  If it's true what 1 Cor 12:3-11 tells us, and we have come to
the knowledge that The Word is living and speaking today, at this point
should we even have anything other then the Spirit, anything other then God,
as the Spirit of Jesus Christ, having His glory, His expression, in the
church today.  I just wonder sometimes how valuable the other Holy things
are.  I just wonder if like Paul is pointing out in 1 Cor 14:26, if we
shouldn't just be asking ourselves again, as Paul asked the Corinthians "How
is it then brethren? When ye come together every one of you hath. ".  How is
it or should it be Who is it by?, that we are to have revelation,
interpretation, even our doctrine?  I don't know, but sometimes, I just
wonder if I am not just missing THE TREE, for the forest.

1 Cor 12:3-11 "3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by
the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus
is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts,
but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the
same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God
which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to
every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another
faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same
Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to
another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to
another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and
the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

1 Cor 14:25-26 ". and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and
report that God is in you of a truth. 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye
come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a
tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done
unto edifying."
The Spirit of the Lord, the Tree of Life be with our spirits, and we will
all continue to see, how unclear we all really are, in all our own wisdom,
and all our knowledge, and that we need only One, that we need only rest
from our struggles, and rest in that One, Amen,

Mike