woman preaachers

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

What makes you think it is an interpolation? If you think it is then, by whom?

OK, so you didn't look into it. That's fine. Here's something if you want to investigate > Why would 1 Cor 14:34-35 be an interpolation?

These are the basic points (from another website):

Payne starts with a list of five hallmarks of interpolations in which he draws parallels between 1 Cor 14:34-35 and the PA in John 7:53–8:11:

1. In both, the doubtful verses occur at different locations in the text.
2. Manuscripts of both display a high concentration of textual variations.
3. Both contain word usage atypical of the book’s author.
4. In both, the doubtful verses disrupt the narrative or topic of the passage.
5. In both, marginal symbols or notes indicate scribal awareness of a textual problem. In particular, Vaticanus has a distigme at the beginning of both passages.​

​

I frankly don't think the issue is that big of a deal. I can't say it's an interpolation or not, but the evidence is certainly strong enough to be not dogmatic about the issue.

 

[Sugar_Orchids]

i was breezing through, and the hot topic of woman preachers came up(i am a baptist, we call leaders preachers). i guess 1st timothy was in greek(i plead ignorance= i don't make my money preaching or spelling). but could the translators have got it so wrong from the manuscripts that he is saying there it is ok for a woman to preach and lead a church. i don't think so. i am not a bible scholar. can someone please help me with this? Praise Jesus! and i am not an english professor either! it might have been in hebrew? i am not a theologian either!

This is a hot topic in every Christian community discussion forum. And there are always two sides. That which argues God would never pick a woman to spread the good news of Salvation. And those that say being how important it is when God wants no one to perish in their sins, is it rational to imagine God would practice gender discrimination? When he says he wants no one to die condemned? When God has made it so that women outnumber men in the world, is it reasonable to think he'd not whisper to a one of those females through the Holy Spirit that leads them toward all truth ? And that he wants that woman to speak his truth so that souls may be saved?

No!
God made all of us. It is utter silliness to think he then decreed one sex unfit to teach his word. Especially when churches seem to have no problem at all with women preaching to children and leading them in the way they should go in Sunday school. See what I did there?

 

[shrume]

You have no idea what you are talking about here and I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you...

OK.

Since your mind is made up, there is no point in continuing.

Next time, in case I do choose to reply, please try and format your response a little better.

 

[maxwel]

I think women should bake pies.

And it's well known in neural science women have a unique area of the brain devoted to pie baking, called the pie-frontal cortex.

--------

 

[oldhermit]

OK, so you didn't look into it. That's fine. Here's something if you want to investigate > Why would 1 Cor 14:34-35 be an interpolation?

These are the basic points (from another website):

1. In both, the doubtful verses occur at different locations in the text.
2. Manuscripts of both display a high concentration of textual variations.
3. Both contain word usage atypical of the book’s author.
4. In both, the doubtful verses disrupt the narrative or topic of the passage.
5. In both, marginal symbols or notes indicate scribal awareness of a textual problem. In particular, Vaticanus has a distigme at the beginning of both passages.

I frankly don't think the issue is that big of a deal. I can't say it's an interpolation or not, but the evidence is certainly strong enough to be not dogmatic about the issue.

​

I frankly don't think the issue is that big of a deal. I can't say it's an interpolation or not, but the evidence is certainly strong enough to be not dogmatic about the issue.

The first three possibilities could be said of quite a number of texts whose authenticity is not challenged. What makes this passage different is because it is of such a controversial nature. People do not like what it says so, they try to find some way to discredit the text.

Regarding the fourth point, I will be happy to challenge that assumption. I have discovered that most people who talk about context of a given passage could not find the context with both hands and written instructions.

As to the fifth point, There are many difference between the four major codices. You know as well as I do that this argument could be raised on a great many difference between the major texts. This is not enough evidence to challenge the authenticity of 2Cor 14 or any other text.

 

[oldhermit]

OK.

Since your mind is made up, there is no point in continuing.

Next time, in case I do choose to reply, please try and format your response a little better.

Sorry about the formatting. LOL. I am still trying to figure out this new system. How do you reply in quotes on this system when there are multiple responses?

 

[shrume]

Sorry about the formatting. LOL. I am still trying to figure out this new system. How do you reply in quotes on this system when there are multiple responses?

I do not know how everyone else does it, but I always just click the "<=REPLY" link, then break apart the sections I am responding to by manually typing begin-quote [ quote ] and end-quote [ /quote ] tags (with no spaces near the brackets, of course..).

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The first three possibilities could be said of quite a number of texts whose authenticity is not challenged. What makes this passage different is because it is of such a controversial nature. People do not like what it says so, they try to find some way to discredit the text.

Regarding the fourth point, I will be happy to challenge that assumption. I have discovered that most people who talk about context of a given passage could not find the context with both hands and written instructions.

As to the fifth point, There are many difference between the four major codices. You know as well as I do that this argument could be raised on a great many difference between the major texts. This is not enough evidence to challenge the authenticity of 2Cor 14 or any other text.

Have you studied the matter or are you just shooting from the hip?

 

[oldhermit]

I do not know how everyone else does it, but I always just click the "<=REPLY" link, then break apart the sections I am responding to by manually typing begin-quote [ quote ] and end-quote [ /quote ] tags (with no spaces near the brackets, of course..).

Thanks, I'll try that.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Sorry about the formatting. LOL. I am still trying to figure out this new system. How do you reply in quotes on this system when there are multiple responses?

Try highlighting the text you want to respond to, then click on the Reply thingie at the bottom right of the selected text. You can do that multiple times on the same page.

 

[Samie28]

You have no idea what you are talking about here and I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you about something of which you clearly know nothing. I have seen every bit of supposed 'evidence' and to put it bluntly THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

The truth is that there is evidence they are not authentic. Those two verses appear in different places in some manuscripts. They break the flow of what Paul is saying, and more.[/QUOTE]

Instead of being nebulous, suppose you present your so-called evidence.

[/QUOTE]While you are correct that it does not specifically say Chloe ran the church, the Greek is more literally "the ones of Chloe".[/QUOTE]

I know what the Greek says, I can read it for myself. There is absolutely nothing in this text to suggest that this means that the
Church even met in Chloe's house. Even if it did, it would not further suggest that she in any way occupied any type of leadership role in the Church. All you are doing is grasping at straws.

[/QUOTE](KJV) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
(NIV) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
(NKJV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
(NRSV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
(ASV) Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.[/QUOTE]

Different translation render it differently. This does not meant it is refering to Junia as an apostle. She was simply well know by the apostolic band.

[/QUOTE]But it does show that Priscilla had a part in instructing Apollos.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but not in the assembly. This is and entirely different issue.

[/QUOTE]If half the church is prevented from teaching because they are the wrong sex, that is most certainly hobbling the church.[/QUOTE]

The Lord did not seem to thinks so. These are his instructions. There are may prohibitions of function placed on people in the Church, both men and women. These prohibitions did not come from Paul, the came from the Lord.

[/QUOTE]Yes. And some women are assign to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.[/QUOTE]

No, they are not. No record of this anywhere in scripture. Like I said, when women take this upon themselves, they do so in spite of what scripture says and not because of what scripture says.[/QUOTE]
I really admire you
fighting your corner! Courageous 💛 You certainly know your stuff!

 

[Deade]

preaching is an action just like prophsying

preaching does not give you the office of Preacher/Pastor

no more than prophesying make you a prophet.

prophesying is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the word of God. you can do that as God leads you to and guess what SO can a women

Yes CS1, preaching is an action. Some denominations insist you have the proper anointing before tackling that action. We draw a fine line and many insist the Bible says women don't preach. If one wants to preach, they had better be a preacher some call elders.

 

[oldhermit]

Have you studied the matter or are you just shooting from the hip?

I have simply noticed from a lot of past research that these kinds of arguments could be raised about a great may passages where such differences exist yet, more often than not, no challenge is made regarding authenticity. What is most generally argued is which text is to be preferred, not which is authentic.

 

[dcontroversal]

i was breezing through, and the hot topic of woman preachers came up(i am a baptist, we call leaders preachers). i guess 1st timothy was in greek(i plead ignorance= i don't make my money preaching or spelling). but could the translators have got it so wrong from the manuscripts that he is saying there it is ok for a woman to preach and lead a church. i don't think so. i am not a bible scholar. can someone please help me with this? Praise Jesus! and i am not an english professor either! it might have been in hebrew? i am not a theologian either!

I am fairly confident that the words "if an ADULT MALE desire the office of a Bishop" <---translated from the Greek is clear enough......

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I have simply noticed from a lot of past research that these kinds of arguments could be raised about a great may passages where such differences exist yet, more often than not, no challenge is made regarding authenticity. What is most generally argued is which text is to be preferred, not which is authentic.

Well I would recommend getting over your judgmental bias (frankly I was offended by some of what you said) and study the matter thoroughly. I will refrain from discussing this matter further with you until you've actually studied it.

But to answer on of your points, no writing of Paul has text that appears in different locations in different manuscripts except 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

 

[oldhermit]

Well I would recommend getting over your judgmental bias (frankly I was offended by some of what you said) and study the matter thoroughly. I will refrain from discussing this matter further with you until you've actually studied it.

But to answer on of your points, no writing of Paul has text that appears in different locations in different manuscripts except 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Here is the problem, and I have watched this trend develop over the last 40 years over several controversial issues. The first step people take in challenging texts they believe to be controversial in scripture is to try to spin the translation. When that fails, they attempt to find some way to challenge the validity of the translation. When that fails, they then move to the latter stage of trying to find some way to discredit the text altogether. They, challenge the MSS evidence trying to find some way to claim manipulation, addition to the text, or removal from the text in later copies. These typically turn out to be red herrings.

 

[CS1]

You have no idea what you are talking about here and I am not going to waste any more time trying to convince you about something of which you clearly know nothing. I have seen every bit of supposed 'evidence' and to put it bluntly THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

The truth is that there is evidence they are not authentic. Those two verses appear in different places in some manuscripts. They break the flow of what Paul is saying, and more.[/QUOTE]

Instead of being nebulous, suppose you present your so-called evidence.

[/QUOTE]While you are correct that it does not specifically say Chloe ran the church, the Greek is more literally "the ones of Chloe".[/QUOTE]

I know what the Greek says, I can read it for myself. There is absolutely nothing in this text to suggest that this means that the
Church even met in Chloe's house. Even if it did, it would not further suggest that she in any way occupied any type of leadership role in the Church. All you are doing is grasping at straws.

[/QUOTE](KJV) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
(NIV) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
(NKJV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
(NRSV) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
(ASV) Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.[/QUOTE]

Different translation render it differently. This does not meant it is refering to Junia as an apostle. She was simply well know by the apostolic band.

[/QUOTE]But it does show that Priscilla had a part in instructing Apollos.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but not in the assembly. This is and entirely different issue.

[/QUOTE]If half the church is prevented from teaching because they are the wrong sex, that is most certainly hobbling the church.[/QUOTE]

The Lord did not seem to thinks so. These are his instructions. There are may prohibitions of function placed on people in the Church, both men and women. These prohibitions did not come from Paul, the came from the Lord.

[/QUOTE]Yes. And some women are assign to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.[/QUOTE]

No, they are not. No record of this anywhere in scripture. Like I said, when women take this upon themselves, they do so in spite of what scripture says and not because of what scripture says.[/QUOTE]


Interesting very Interesting

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here is the problem, and I have watched this trend develop over the last 40 years over several controversial issues. The first step people take in challenging texts they believe to be controversial in scripture is to try to spin the translation. When that fails, they attempt to find some way to challenge the validity of the translation. When that fails, they then move to the latter stage of trying to find some way to discredit the text altogether. They, challenge the MSS evidence trying to find some way to claim manipulation, addition to the text, or removal from the text in later copies. These typically turn out to be red herrings.

Like I said to you or someone else - I don't have an agenda except knowing what the truth is.

 

[oldhermit]

Like I said to you or someone else - I don't have an agenda except knowing what the truth is.

I do not think the acquisition of truth can be obtained when our starting place is to question the legitimacy of scripture, especially those with which one disagrees.

 

[Nehemiah6]

woman preaachers

Since you have stretched out "preaachers" you could say "woman reachers". Women as preachers are simply reaching.