Do You Believe In Women Preachers?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Opened a thread, changing the topic of this one a hair: Do you believe in women Pastor's?

Many of you on this thread, side with Egalitarians, and you refute RDP's interpretation of 1 Tim and 1 Cor. However, I've also heard some of the same people say they either "don't believe" or "aren't comfortable" with women that pastor. What do you base that on?

Hmmm, I'm still waiting to see that "Refutation":___________? In all my years of debating this topic, I haven't seen one!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Amen, Sis. Alvear, when it's all said and done, it is GOD'S approval that will count!

Luke 6:26
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Falla39

Yes, & God is the one who instructed Paul to write I Tim. 2:11-15! Sis. Alvear is a soul-winner, which EVERYONE should do!

BTW, I didn't respond to your "bump" post because it's the usual "I can't deal w/ I Tim. 2:11-15 passages, so I'll go to others to cast doubt on the one's I can't deal w/" mentality. Simply put, it doesn't merit a scholarly analysis.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You mean like how the NIV used to go with Junias but now because of access to more manuscripts goes with Junia?

New International Version (©1984)
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.

Romans 16:7 (New International Version, ©2010)
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among[a] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Oh, I see, so you go w/ the latest edition instead of the earlier???? Loooove how you only quoted the NIV, BTW.

Look, I'm extremely busy for the next couple of weeks....so I'll have to pick this up again w/in a few weeks, BUT I can marshall many translation that adopt the "Junias" rendering....which YOU said "I couldn't even spell"....then you turn right around & post a translation that has it! Ho-Hum...this is what I waste my time w/?????

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh, I see, so you go w/ the latest edition instead of the earlier???? Loooove how you only quoted the NIV, BTW.

Look, I'm extremely busy for the next couple of weeks....so I'll have to pick this up again w/in a few weeks, BUT I can marshall many translation that adopt the "Junias" rendering....which YOU said "I couldn't even spell"....then you turn right around & post a translation that has it! Ho-Hum...this is what I waste my time w/?????

The reason I quoted the NIV is because I had access to a version of it from the 1900's and a version of it from the 2000's. You asserted that the older versions mostly used Junia and that the newer ones mostly used Junias. Isn't it interesting that what you said is exactly the opposite of what I found. I found an older version and a newer version of the same translation and it is actually the older version that uses Junias and the newer version that uses Junia. If what you were saying was true then I could see a version maintaining the translation of Junia if it previously used it... but I cannot see a version changing from Junias to Junia if all the newer resources still pointed toward Junias. In fact, I can't see the change happening unless the newer resources actually point to Junia.

What does this mean? Well it is evidence that translations in the 1900's favored Junias. It is evidence that something caused some of the translations that used to favor Junias to begin favoring Junia in the 2000's. It is evidence that rdp's information is out of date. 20 years ago what he said would have been perfectly true and it still has a grain of truth in it. That grain of truth is that before the 1900's almost everyone favored the use of Junia. Then in the 1900's Junias became the favored rendition. But now in the 2000's we have reverted back to the use of Junia.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Wrong about that just as you are "women preacher's"!! See the modern translations....which are baased upon far older & more manuscripts! Sinking again............

RDP isn't KJV-only?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

And, though I don't have the time right now, I could just as easily post quotes that say Junias is a man...not a woman! Again, the word is masculine...not feminine! What more do you want?????

Seems to be quite a scholarly disagreement on this point. Please copy/paste what you have. Or cite the good stuff.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh, I see, so you go w/ the latest edition instead of the earlier???? Loooove how you only quoted the NIV, BTW.

Look, I'm extremely busy for the next couple of weeks....so I'll have to pick this up again w/in a few weeks, BUT I can marshall many translation that adopt the "Junias" rendering....which YOU said "I couldn't even spell"....then you turn right around & post a translation that has it! Ho-Hum...this is what I waste my time w/?????

Why wouldn't you use the latest version? I do that for most everything else.

Why is this a waste of time? Sounds pretty relevant to me.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The reason I quoted the NIV is because I had access to a version of it from the 1900's and a version of it from the 2000's. You asserted that the older versions mostly used Junia and that the newer ones mostly used Junias. Isn't it interesting that what you said is exactly the opposite of what I found. I found an older version and a newer version of the same translation and it is actually the older version that uses Junias and the newer version that uses Junia. If what you were saying was true then I could see a version maintaining the translation of Junia if it previously used it... but I cannot see a version changing from Junias to Junia if all the newer resources still pointed toward Junias. In fact, I can't see the change happening unless the newer resources actually point to Junia.

What does this mean? Well it is evidence that translations in the 1900's favored Junias. It is evidence that something caused some of the translations that used to favor Junias to begin favoring Junia in the 2000's. It is evidence that rdp's information is out of date. 20 years ago what he said would have been perfectly true and it still has a grain of truth in it. That grain of truth is that before the 1900's almost everyone favored the use of Junia. Then in the 1900's Junias became the favored rendition. But now in the 2000's we have reverted back to the use of Junia.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting as well. Then you got a "Ho Hum" about using a later translation, which is what he suggested in his reply to you. Irony.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Socialite

RDP isn't KJV-only?

Nope... he's a whatever version best makes his point kind of guy.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, & God is the one who instructed Paul to write I Tim. 2:11-15! Sis. Alvear is a soul-winner, which EVERYONE should do!

BTW, I didn't respond to your "bump" post because it's the usual "I can't deal w/ I Tim. 2:11-15 passages, so I'll go to others to cast doubt on the one's I can't deal w/" mentality. Simply put, it doesn't merit a scholarly analysis.

In that first century the women were told to keep silence in the church.

When I was a "child" my parents told me to "listen and learn". Children are

to be seen and not heard seemed to be the thing.

Women in that first century listened and learned. How else would young

Timothy had the faith that was in his grandmother Lois and in his mother,

Eunice. His father was a greek, an unbeliever.

Could you not deal with the TWO posts I bumped! You seem to have all the

answers to the thread title.

Falla39