Yes, you are absolutely right about my Greek scholarship that I used in Genesis. It was totally lacking, seeing as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. (I do not read the LXX because what is the point of translating a translation!?)
As for the Greek in the New Testament, going to one of the standard, recognized exegetical books of the New Testament on Greek, one hardly has to be a Greek scholar to see the obvious. As for the grammar, I speak 2 languages fluently and I can understand and read in 4 others. If you want me to write my posts in French, I could do that for you!
But basically, the grammar is pretty simple, if you know grammar. Present means now. Singular means referring to one person. Active means not passive. Imperative is a command. I am sure you can google this if you are not familiar with the terms. And I also said that has been translated quite well, in terms of it being present, active, imperative, and singular. Paul was addressing a single woman in 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Just re-read what you wrote. He is telling Timothy that SHE (3rd person singular) - a woman in the congregation that she should not be teaching the man. I have no problem with telling an individual woman or a man, for that matter, that they are teaching false doctrine, which I think this is in context of the book, what he is saying. (See 1 Tim. 5:13) In fact, bad doctrine and poor teaching are the purpose of a lot of Paul's epistles.
As far as wondering whether braiding hair is a universal command in post #104, I am really shocked anyone could believe that a woman should not specifically braid her hair in this day and age. In Greek and Roman culture, the women spent hours each day having slaves make up their hair into fancy hairdos, and that is what Paul was addressing. Personally, I do not dye my hair, and other than the occasional trim for split hairs (yes, I am splitting hairs here!!), I also feel it is important for women to dress modestly, because it is so hard for some men to control themselves.
I did not get into the word for authority earlier, but "usurp authority" which is in the KJV is probably a good translation. The word in Greek is authentein, and it is only found ONCE in Greek. It is not the same as other words for authority, and so therefore, Paul used it in a different sense than to mean leadership. The usual word for those in authority over others in Greek is exousia, which refers to delegated authority or leadership. Paul did NOT use the word here, and Paul knew his Greek a lot better than I do!!
Authentein means to "dominate over" or "usurp authority." So basically, in light of Paul's other teaching on mutual submission, there is no doubt that Paul is forbidding a woman who was trying to dominate and take over.
So my question was never answered:
DO YOU THINK WOMAN SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE UNDER THE CURSE OF THE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED BY JESUS CHRIST?
It really is sad that some people do not read posts, and do not understand grammar. They would rather rot in their ignorance than learn a truth which sets not only women, but men free!
Grammar counts!
But of course, my post was once again not read correctly as replied to by#104. No one was comparing 2nd person singular or plural (Possessive or genitive case of the pronoun-YOUR). I was discussing third person singular versus 3rd person plural. SHE versus THEY. Paul did not use the word "they", nor did he use the "all" women, or even "some" women. (OK, I am repeating myself in the desperate hope that some people will see it and get what I was saying, instead of twisting my words and the Biblical text.) The verb, once again, was μανθανανέω or manthananeo which means, "Let her learn."
The proper reading is A woman, singular, and "suffer" is not a good translation of "ouk eptrepo" anyway. My Greek books all say, "permit" or "allow." So Paul does not permit a particular woman to teach the man. THE is the definite article - it refers to someone in particular, although names are not given. I should mention that Rogers and Rogers mention that women were very uneducated in the 1st century AD, so probably Paul was pointing out that an unlearned woman, who was possibly disrupting things should wait to learn from her husband, or another man. (In the absence of a learned woman!)
But no one seems to want to discuss the main issues.
1. Adam was the only one IN THE TEXT who was commanded by God not to eat of the fruit. Gen. 2:16. There is no direct quote from God telling Eve not to eat the fruit, although she DID know, because she says so. So did God tell Eve? Coulda/shoulda/woulda. He might have, or he could have, but if you say anything more than it was possible, you are doing exogesis - reading into the test, based on your own personal bias and theology.
"Personally, I believe God did tell her as they often spoke to God in the garden. So your arguement that she was not told properly is dead wrong." (Danschance #103)
This is a fine example of an opinion taking over from what the Bible says. Just show me where it says God commanded her and I will back down. It is not going to be found, because it is not in the text. Did God tell Eve not to eat of the fruit? Well, she knew, which is something I have never denied. She was deceived and confessed it. But the Bible does NOT say how she found out, and it DOES say that Adam was commanded by GOD, NOT to eat of the fruit BEFORE Eve was created. And he directly disobeyed that command. I won't say more, because there is no more to say. That is what the Bible says!
2. Adam lied to God. He blamed the woman for the issue, instead of being honest and open and confessing his sins. He disobeyed a direct command from God and he did not accept responsibility for his actions.
If we are going to use Adam and Eve as a cast test for sin, Adam sinned more, because he committed two sins, not one. They were both complicit in the Fall. End of story.
As for women in leadership, it is bad hermeneutics to form a doctrine based on only two Scriptures, especially when there are so many other places that indicate women not only taught (Prisca or Priscilla teaching Apollo with her husband comes to mind - and in Greek, the more important person was mentioned first, which Paul does 2 out of 3 times) And of course, the case in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor. 14:34 are both local to a specific congregation or individual.
Christ came to set us free. Why do you men want to keep women in chains? Yes, I understand you want to stay faithful to the Biblical text, and that is admirable. But sadly, these poor doctrines rising out of a total lack of understanding of grammar, even in English. This indicates to me, that some men are simply hanging onto the bad doctrine they have been taught. I pray God will show them the truth about these passages, although in light of how badly my posts have been read by some, and twisted, I think they may have to wait for God to correct them on judgment day!
This is really getting boring. I show what the passages are actually saying, and having people come back with NO scriptural support, except for the verses I already explained in Greek. If you want to address my posts, perhaps you could study Greek and Hebrew for a year or two, and then we can have a discussion between equals. It is getting so hard to teach some uneducated men. SIGH!!!
PS Argument does not have 2 e's in it! And no, the verses from 1 Timothy 2 does not apply to Corinth. Because Timothy was the pastor of the church in Ephesus!!! (Post #104) No one said Eve was not deceived. She admitted it, I admitted it. But it is not recorded that God directly commanded her, and the way I see it, Paul was REALLY referring to a specific situation in Ephesus, because he only mentioned the Eve's sin, not the Adam's two-fold sin in the garden and used the singular not the plural.
