End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

So good to see those "unbiased" & "fair" AFF administrators !


Just don't get it do you .\
So it's only ok for you guys to be unbiased and unfair? Odd...he said it first and when I repeat it, it's suddenly no longer "OK" to do..

[rdp]

Praxeas: Ah..actually it was your other voice who said they preached the gospel TO the church. I argued against that. However in this verse it does not say Preach to the church. But I said a long time ago that preaching can be done in the church but that most of the time the word is applied to preaching the gospel to the Lost.


Now you are craw-fishing saying "Well, sometimes this word can be applied to the church". Well, make up your mind Prax - does the word "preach" apply to the church-members or not?


So that's my point then...can a woman preach the gospel to lost souls since she is not doing it IN church?


I have said over & over that women can & should witness to the lost. And, I have even gone so far as to say that if you want to call that "preaching" per-se- then I can even see that .


But, the whole tone of this thread has been what modern "women-preachers" do today (so I'm told). That is, getting up IN A CHURCH-SETTING, taking a text from the Bible & expositing to men in the church. When she does that - or is allowed to do that - she (as well as the man who allowed it) is completely out of order viz I Timothy 2.11-14.


So, I am again asking you if you accept Paul's prohibitions regarding women teaching men in I Timothy 2.11-14? So far, you (& virtually every one else in your camp) are only chasing rabbit trails which lead away from the plainness of the passage .



Praxeas: And YOU have defined it in a way that does not match what Jesus did. The Apostles were not quoting Acts 2:38 when they preached. The NT was not even written yet.


Duh - Ya' think not ?


And YOU have defined "preaching" in such a way that limits its semantic range - all to cram in your typical preference. So, here, let's try this question again - since you completely ignored it:


I am asking how in the world someone can "preach" to the lost without ever referencing the Scriptures ??

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Nice quote from your Logos software Prax. I am well familiar with Zodhiates & the force of this Greek term (but thank you for the reminder ).

It wasn't Logos


You are only assuming that these terms are not being used synonymously - but you have offered no textual evidences - only what you believe.

No, I'm looking at the grammar. It's redundant to say "Teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach", which is what you are arguing by insisting they are synonyms


Using your logic above, because the NT says God "AND" Father - Is "God" now not the same as the "Father" ?

"God" and "Father" are not Synonyms in THAT respect. It's instead describing someone who is BOTH Our God AND Our Father.


I am asking you once again (& would appreciate an answer) - Are you suggesting that when they were "teaching" they ceased to "preach" ??

Im not suggesting anything. Im speaking very clearly without ambiguity. Teaching and Preaching are two DIFFERENT things.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: Ah..actually it was your other voice who said they preached the gospel TO the church. I argued against that. However in this verse it does not say Preach to the church. But I said a long time ago that preaching can be done in the church but that most of the time the word is applied to preaching the gospel to the Lost.


Now you are craw-fishing saying "Well, sometimes this word can be applied to the church". Well, make up your mind Prax - does the word "preach" apply to the church-members or not?

I have no idea what "craw-fishing" means. I made up my mind. Most of the time it seems to be about proclaiming in a public venue the gospel.


So that's my point then...can a woman preach the gospel to lost souls since she is not doing it IN church?


I have said over & over that women can & should witness to the lost. And, I have even gone so far as to say that if you want to call that "preaching" per-se- then I can even see that .

Good. Then we are in agreement once again! You believe women can preach their hearts out as long as it's not at a church meeting.


But, the whole tone of this thread has been what modern "women-preachers" do today (so I'm told). That is, getting up IN A CHURCH-SETTING, taking a text from the Bible & expositing to men in the church. When she does that - or is allowed to do that - she (as well as the man who allowed it) is completely out of order viz I Timothy 2.11-14.

Yes, I was aware that was your position


So, I am again asking you if you accept Paul's prohibitions regarding women teaching men in I Timothy 2.11-14? So far, you (& virtually every one else in your camp) are only chasing rabbit trails which lead away from the plainness of the passage .

I haven't decided if Paul's Prohibition was a cultural precedent or an Eternal injunction



Praxeas: And YOU have defined it in a way that does not match what Jesus did. The Apostles were not quoting Acts 2:38 when they preached. The NT was not even written yet.


Duh - Ya' think not ?


And YOU have defined "preaching" in such a way that limits its semantic range - all to cram in your typical preference. So, here, let's try this question again - since you completely ignored it


I am asking how in the world someone can "preach" to the lost without ever referencing the Scriptures ??

I already answered that. I said do you think they all quoted Peter in Acts 2:38 when Acts was not even written yet?

The very word "PREACH" does not inheritly have anything to do with scriptures unless one is explicitly PREACHING the Scriptures.

Sometimes they "Preached" Jesus...do you think those Preachers in Acts all opened up their NT and preached about Jesus from the gospel of Mark?

[rdp]

Praxeas: It's Connective

89.87 καίb; δέb: markers of a sequence of closely related events—‘and, and then.’
καίb: εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐδίδασκον ‘at dawn they entered the Temple and taught’ Ac 5:21.
δέb: Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac was the father of Jacob’ Mt 1:2.


LOL - Really Prax - Let's test this below shall we (see quote)?


"Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de (moreover, next) introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story - Now for the rest." De' does not convey simple addition (like kai), but rather subjoins something distinct and different, though not necessarily sharply opposed to to it. (WS, 717 - http://www.helpsbible.org/)


From this (& I have much more if you like?) we see exactly what I was telling you earlier - by Paul's usage of this particular conjunction (contra the usual connective kai) he was appending another thought "on top of" v. 34.


My whole point!

[rdp]

Praxeas: The very word "PREACH" does not inheritly have anything to do with scriptures unless one is explicitly PREACHING the Scriptures.


Since this is only the real point of disagreement - it's the only post I've copied.


I would disagree that the word "PREACH" does not inherently have anything to do with Scriptures - I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without referencing the text of Scripture?


This makes no sense Prax.




Sometimes they "Preached" Jesus...do you think those Preachers in Acts all opened up their NT and preached about Jesus from the gospel of Mark?


Ahhh, but you see, the moment one mentions "Jesus" - they just referenced Scripture - contrary to your claim regarding the term "preach."

I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without ever referencing the text of Scripture?

[rdp]

Praxeas: Odd...he said it first and when I repeat it, it's suddenly no longer "OK" to do.


I was merely pointing out that the AFF Admin. can indeed be just as snarky as anyone - & yet it's always the "ultra-cons" who get blasted for being abrasive when the "ultra-libs" are equally as rough.


I know how you can be Prax - remember we were on CARM for many years together .

[rdp]

No, I'm looking at the grammar. It's redundant to say "Teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach", which is what you are arguing by insisting they are synonyms.


I am not insisting anything - I am allowing the context & interchangeable usages to inform my posturing in this area. And, numerous examples have already been provided which demonstrate that these terms are used interchangeably - unless you're going to argue that when one is "teaching" they have ceased "preaching" ??


"God" and "Father" are not Synonyms in THAT respect. It's instead describing someone who is BOTH Our God AND Our Father.

I am well aware, but your argument was that these terms cannot be used synonymously because they are distinct & juxtaposed alongside one another. You did not make an argument based upon a particular "respect" - but rather you made an argument based upon distinct terminology - which is false.


Im not suggesting anything. Im speaking very clearly without ambiguity. Teaching and Preaching are two DIFFERENT things.


Then "God" & "Father" are "two different things" (BTW, I have many more examples of synonymous-interchangeable terms) - It's called a consistent hermeneutic !

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: It's Connective

89.87 καίb; δέb: markers of a sequence of closely related events—‘and, and then.’
καίb: εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐδίδασκον ‘at dawn they entered the Temple and taught’ Ac 5:21.
δέb: Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac was the father of Jacob’ Mt 1:2.


LOL - Really Prax - Let's test this below shall we (see quote)?


"Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de (moreover, next) introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story - Now for the rest." De' does not convey simple addition (like kai), but rather subjoins something distinct and different, though not necessarily sharply opposed to to it. (WS, 717 - http://www.helpsbible.org/)


From this (& I have much more if you like?) we see exactly what I was telling you earlier - by Paul's usage of this particular conjunction (contra the usual connective kai) he was appending another thought "on top of" v. 34.


My whole point!
I went to your link and there was nothing there supporting your assertion

Since you were fond of Zodhaites

δέ
dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Generally it has the meaning of but, and, or also, namely.

Notice that part?

δέ (Hom.+) one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated (Denniston 162–89; Schwyzer 2, 562; B-D-F §447

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (213). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Notice that part?

δέ (Root: δε, LN: 89.87; conjunction, logical, connective)

Lukaszewski, A. L., Dubis, M., & Blakley, J. T. (2011). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, SBL Edition: Expansions and Annotations (1 Co 14:35). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

In this case, looking at the context, it's clearly connecting the two ideas.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: The very word "PREACH" does not inheritly have anything to do with scriptures unless one is explicitly PREACHING the Scriptures.


Since this is only the real point of disagreement - it's the only post I've copied.


I would disagree that the word "PREACH" does not inherently have anything to do with Scriptures - I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without referencing the text of Scripture?


This makes no sense Prax.

The word for Preach is a word used BEFORE the NT writers used it. As I said the only scriptures they HAD was the OT and you don't find Acts 2:38 in the OT. So no Preaching did not inheritly mean to Exegete the OT scriptures and it certainly did not mean exegeting NT scriptures that did not even exist yet

If they preached Jesus and the Resurrection, they were not quoting NT scriptures and exegetically expounding on them. They were proclaiming what they were taught by Jesus. They weren't saying "And now church, turn to Mat 16 verse...because it didn't exist yet. There was no book of Matthew




Sometimes they "Preached" Jesus...do you think those Preachers in Acts all opened up their NT and preached about Jesus from the gospel of Mark?


Ahhh, but you see, the moment one mentions "Jesus" - they just referenced Scripture - contrary to your claim regarding the term "preach."

Oh yes, Paul was quoting the gospel of Matthew there in Acts 19...ah yes I see. So every time someone says "Jesus" they are preaching...ok

I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without ever referencing the text of Scripture?

Im not gonna keep answering that just because you either did not read my answer the first time or just did not like it. But like I said I have sat in meetings where the Preacher never got to a specific text and exegetically expounded it