Originally Posted by rdp (Post 859603)

Good grief, here we go again! Not one single reputable translation adopts such a rendering [out of approximately 1000 linguistical scholars]....but YOU see something that they missed????

Man, at least come up w/ something new. The verse could not be plainer..............

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859695)

Straw man? Is this your NEW fanciful word you are just throwing out? :ursofunny

Saying historical-cultural context is not part of the exegetical process is false. To elevate lexicons as the "primary exegetical tool" is false. There are many more things, but alas I'll stop at that. Please tell me what the straw man is here? Also tell me what "apologetics" have to do with anything here? Or "apologetic tricks?" lol

Stick to the Text... again you posture as a exegete, but don't seem to understand the whole process of interpreting scripture.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 859717)

Sheesh, this is about the 4th time that I've told you that history-cultural does indeed play a part in [the "whole process"] exegesis, but they do not celebrate the authority that Scripture itself does. What in the world can you not understand about this??

And don't blame me if you're obviously new to apologetics. You're the 1st person to EVER say that "apologetics has nothing to do w/ the conversation"??? Not real sure what to say about that one:ursofunny!

Gotta' go.................................

Originally Posted by Trouvere (Post 859715)

Easy....go to the Greek text instead of the translators.

What do you think the translators used? You apparently have not discipled yourself in textual criticisms very much. There are many literal translations out there [NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc.]...& NONE of them adopt your peculiar rendering. Hmmmmm.


They do the same with Oneness passages.Why do you not translate them yourself anyway? Why just pick up a version including KJV and not check the Greek to see if they properly translated the passages?
There are several renderings of the words in the translations. The translators usually pick the one that fits their own doctrines. Its not an issue.

When man and women is being spoken of then the words should be rendered man and woman. When husband and wife are spoken of then the translations should be rendered husband and wife. Every man is not an authority over every woman. Common sense tells us that. Also the Apostle Paul does not contradict himself in scripture or teaching. He would not on one hand allow women to prophesy and in another area deny them that opportunity.
We need to rightly divide the word. Never was it in the law ever commanded that the women keep silence in the church. If we look at the temple then we would see that there was a court of the women. So it sure wasn't an issue in the law.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859722)

New to it? Indeed, you are ignorant of that. Want to drop names?

Celebrate it above Scripture? The way you describe the historical-cultural context leads me to believe you see these as methods competing with each other, one supreme over the other, instead of a whole process. Plain enough put?

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 859725)

I see Scripture as authoritative in nature, but not "history"...plain enough put?

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 859598)

yes, you may Timmy...I wept and told her that if her mother was lost then someone else was lost for not going to her...I am a believer in Acts 2:38...however to whom much is given much is required...t those that are given little, little is required..these things of destiny we must leave in the hands of a just God I just do all I can to reach every person possible in my life time with the means I have...

Originally Posted by Timmy (Post 859752)

Do you believe that is true for everyone that dies lost? That someone else was supposed to tell them how to be saved, and didn't, and that someone is therefor also lost?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859728)

Respectfully, plainly ignorant.

I see, you can respect someone & yet throw out insults at the same time? From your demeanor, you're most likely a trinitarian [probably a Calvinist, but may be wrong].

We are talking about "interpreting" Scripture. Remember that?

Yea', such as "I do not allow a woamn to teach, or to excercise authority over a man."....Remember that?

There is no meaning without context. Ask the translators what they used.