woman preaachers

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 would encourage you to read through the currently-active thread, "Woman can't teach in the congregation". You are welcome to contribute there; that will keep the discussion focused in one place.

You can find a bit of a study Here on this subject...

All the NT was in Greek, not Hebrew and no, there is no mistranslation in the text from the original language. It means precisely what it says.

There is some evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

That is debatable. There is evidence that 1 Cor 14:34-35 are an insertion, and not authentic, and 1 Tim 2:12 can certainly be translated, or understood, a different way than so many orthodox churches do.

In Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3:28).

Chloe ran a church in her house (1 Cor 1:11).

Junia would have had a tough time being an apostle if she could not teach (Rom 16:7).

Both Aquila and Priscilla expounded the word of God more perfectly to Apollos (Acts 18:26).

God would not hobble half the church simply because they were born the "wrong" sex.

The question is: what is it saying?

There is no evidence of any kind that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Anyone who makes that claim really does not know what they are talking about.

Truth is found in the grammatical structure of the language of the text and there is no evidence of any kind to suggest these two texts are not authentic. The truth is that people just do not like what they have to say.

Cloe is not said to "run" a Church in her house. Here is what the text says "My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you." There is nothing here to suggest she 'ran' a Church or that the Church even met in here home.

Junia was not an apostle. The text merely says that she was well known by the apostles. "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me."

The example of Aquila and Priscilla has nothing to do with the prohibition of the these two texts.

This has nothing to do with "hobbling" the Church. This is simply a matter of assigned function within the Church and this comes from the Lord.

If women insist on preaching and teaching in the assembly, they do it in spite of what scripture tells us, not because of it.

i was referring to first 1st timothy. woman are not to teach or lead men, period.

I don't have an agenda regarding what it says other than to discern the truth. There absolutely is evidence that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are an interpolation. Did you study the matter after I mentioned it in your thread a short while back?

amen. and i do not always like that i must be peaceable. i don't like that i have to clean up my act.

What does that have to do with women teaching in the assembly? I don't like boiled okra, but it doesn't really pertain to women teaching in church...

i quote from my liberty annotated king james study bible=is that credible enough="all agree the matthew was the author of this gospel and that he originally wrote it in hebrew(probably meaning aramaic, the common spoken language of the early christians). however, there is no trace of the aramaic "original", the earliest quotations are in greek. however, an examination of the greek gospel does not substantiate the idea that it is a translation". is that confusing enough?

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

That's simply not true. Check into it before you make such claims. You might disagree with it, but there is 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.

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


(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.

But it does show that Priscilla had a part in instructing Apollos.

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

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

That is a deeply embedded belief in many churches, but it is not true.

well, nevermind, it's ok.

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

i am new and i am replying to the wrong threads. but i don't like being peaceable, and i don't like the fact i cannot run roughshod. i was replying to the woman , that said a lot of folks just don't like what the bible reads. capeche

1. memawsboy said:

   i quote from my liberty annotated king james study bible=is that credible enough="all agree the matthew was the author of this gospel and that he originally wrote it in hebrew(probably meaning aramaic, the common spoken language of the early christians). however, there is no trace of the aramaic "original", the earliest quotations are in greek. however, an examination of the greek gospel does not substantiate the idea that it is a translation". is that confusing enough?

   Click to expand...

I can assure you that in spite of what the commentary in your "liberty annotated King James Study Bible" says, there in no evidence OF ANY KIND to suggest ANY part of the NT was originally written in Hebrew. That is a claim made by the Hebrews Roots movement and they have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim...NONE! The OT was written in Hebrew with some Aramaic words occasionally used but, not the NT.

other scholars believe this claim. edward hindson, wayne brindle, edward dobson, jerry falwell, paul fink, 9 total scholars. by the way, what difference does it make. just believe on him whom he hath sent, and you ought to be ok.

am i posting in the right places? i am not used to this forum.

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.

[/QUOTE]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.