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.
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
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.
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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".
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.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,372
113
"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.
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

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
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.
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.
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,343
10,628
113
"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.
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.
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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.
It is not the case with the word "husband." That is correctly translated.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,343
10,628
113
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!
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

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
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."
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?
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,372
113
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.
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.
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.
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.....
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,372
113
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.
The Greek does not work that way......it points back to the subject which is the Husband of one wife.....
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
447
83
55
The Greek does not work that way......it points back to the subject which is the Husband of one wife.....
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
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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
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.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,372
113
Yes. But the result is either male, female, or nongender specific.
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.....
 
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
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.....
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.