woman preaachers

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#101
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#101
So, trofimus, what would you say to someone who came in here and said that it originally said "man" in our translations and so this means women cannot be followers/disciples of Jesus?

You would say that it had not been translated as well as possible and that the original greek word that was translated as "man" was not gender specific but included women, correct?

And keep in mind that there is no dispute such as this with the word "husband" in the verses in question. That is correctly translated.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#102
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#102
For example in my language (its similar to Greek):

English word "green". She is green, he is green. The person must be expressed. Or it can be just said generally "green people" or something like that.

In my language:
zelená - green female
zelený - green male
zelené - green something, 3rd person

zelené - green females
zelení - green males
zelená - green multiple somethings

So, obviously, to translate to English from languages that use these inclinations, its needed to add the person.
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#103
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#103
trofimus said:
But "man" in English does not have to mean male. At least thats what they taught us in school. It can mean "human" or "whoever", so its not like "he".
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct in English.
Greek is another matter. Greek is very specific, with a noun being masculine or feminine or non gender specific.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#104
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#104
trofimus said:
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Whoever is a good choice. I am not sure where you see plainly "man". But is not "man" in English containing both males and females?

To say "man" is ambiguous. To say "he" is specific.
Click to expand...
Like I said above...the qualifications are found woven into the HUSBAND of one wife....the use of HE, His and Him are obvious based upon the construct of the verses in question.....the SUBJECT of verses 3 through 7 is found tied to the HUSBAND of ONE WIFE......it amazes me that people reject this and try to interject women where women are not indicated and or supported by the text.....
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#105
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#105
Stunnedbygrace said:
So, trofimus, what would you say to someone who came in here and said that it originally said "man" in our translations and so this means women cannot be followers/disciples of Jesus?

You would say that it had not been translated as well as possible and that the original greek word that was translated as "man" was not gender specific but included women, correct?

And keep in mind that there is no dispute such as this with the word "husband" in the verses in question. That is correctly translated.
Click to expand...
Regarding the verse you brought (about being a disciple), I would look at Greek and see that its "whoever" in context. So I would suppose that "man" means "human, both male and female".

But this is not the case of 1Tm.
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#106
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#106
So the dispute is not over places where the original greek was referring to a man only or to a woman only.
The dispute is over places in which it was non gender specific in the greek but the English translation does not convey the intent of the greek.

In English, to convey non gender specific as the greek intends, we would have to say "he/she" or "any person" or "any human person."
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#107
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#107
trofimus said:
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Whoever is a good choice. I am not sure where you see plainly "man". But is not "man" in English containing both males and females?

To say "man" is ambiguous. To say "he" is specific.
Click to expand...
While that is generally true in 2018, as late as about 2005, "he" was still considered inclusive of females except where the context demanded otherwise. "He" being essentially exclusive to males is a very recent change in English.
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#108
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#108
trofimus said:
Regarding the verse you brought (about being a disciple), I would look at Greek and see that its "whoever" in context. So I would suppose that "man" means "human, both male and female".

But this is not the case of 1Tm.
Click to expand...
It is not the case with the word "husband." That is correctly translated.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#109
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#109
dcontroversal said:
Like I said....you guys want to believe a woman has the right to hold the office of a Bishop/Pastor...have a ball.....hahaha--> GENETIC FALLACY<--wow....what exactly does that mean?....excellent choice of words...NOT!
Click to expand...
Both the tone of your response and your ignorance of logical fallacies reflect on you. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the concept of "disagree respectfully". I thought higher of you.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#111
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#111
Stunnedbygrace said:
So the dispute is not over places where the original greek was referring to a man only or to a woman only.
The dispute is over places in which it was non gender specific in the greek but the English translation does not convey the intent of the greek.

In English, to convey non gender specific as the greek intends, we would have to say "he/she" or "any person" or "any human person."
Click to expand...
Just a terminology... what do you mean by "non gender specific in Greek", can you give me some example?

Do you mean "neutrum", i.e. "it", like: τὸ δῶρον?
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#112
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#112
It is easiest to refer you back to posting #82, trofimus.

Overseer - nongender specific.
Husband of one wife - gender specific
Then Paul continues on again in nongender specific.
Then he goes gender specific again concerning women.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#114
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#114
Dino246 said:
Both the tone of your response and your ignorance of logical fallacies reflect on you. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the concept of "disagree respectfully". I thought higher of you.
Click to expand...
Stunnedbygrace said:
It is easiest to refer you back to posting #82, trofimus.

Overseer - nongender specific.
Husband of one wife - gender specific
Then Paul continues on again in nongender specific.
Then he goes gender specific again concerning women.
Click to expand...
Dino246 said:
Both the tone of your response and your ignorance of logical fallacies reflect on you. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the concept of "disagree respectfully". I thought higher of you.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, You do understand that you disagreed with me using an insult right....the Log in your own eye seems to stand out from the teachings of Jesus.....
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#115
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#115
Stunnedbygrace said:
It is easiest to refer you back to posting #82, trofimus.

Overseer - nongender specific.
Husband of one wife - gender specific
Then Paul continues on again in nongender specific.
Then he goes gender specific again concerning women.
Click to expand...
The Greek does not work that way......it points back to the subject which is the Husband of one wife.....
 
Laish

Laish

Senior Member
#117
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
449
83
58
#117
dcontroversal said:
The Greek does not work that way......it points back to the subject which is the Husband of one wife.....
Click to expand...
I have thought about that verse so it a lot . So it also means that he has to be married too correct?
So no single guy no matter how qualified can’t hold the office.
Blessings
Bill
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#118
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#118
Laish said:
I have thought about that verse so it a lot . So it also means that he has to be married too correct?
So no single guy no matter how qualified can’t hold the office.
Blessings
Bill
Click to expand...
And that's the danger of the letter without the spirit of the word.
Try to fit THAT in with Paul saying it's better to not marry!

The logical illogical conclusion is that it's best not to marry BUT if you don't you cannot be an overseer!

We go wrong everytime we try to make a new system of law, whether it be The Law of Paul or some other system of law.
We immediately shackle men and yoke them over again when we do it.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#119
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,402
113
#119
Stunnedbygrace said:
Yes. But the result is either male, female, or nongender specific.
Click to expand...
No it is not.....GOD does not promote that which is contrary---> the SUBJECT is the HUSBAND <-----MALE.....not female.......that is what is being missed by most.....the following clauses and qualifications are tied to the MALE (HUSBAND) he does not switch gears to a female.....How can this be so hard to understand.....
 
S

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
#120
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
823
113
#120
dcontroversal said:
No it is not.....GOD does not promote that which is contrary---> the SUBJECT is the HUSBAND <-----MALE.....not female.......that is what is being missed by most.....the following clauses and qualifications are tied to the MALE (HUSBAND) he does not switch gears to a female.....How can this be so hard to understand.....
Click to expand...
No...the subject of what paul is saying is overseers.
He is talking of the...office? of overseer.
You would not title the passage: about husbands.
You would title the passage: about overseers.

Now within the subject of overseers, he does mention that they should not practice polygamy, but the subject of the passage is overseers, not husbands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.