End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

No it says "Logical Connective". You are confusing what you see. You are looking at the links to the Lexicons that give a brief description of the word and how it CAN be translated. But the Aparatus labels it a connective.


And YOU are denying what you DO see . Here, let's try it again: "moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next" (there's absolutely nothing in the ellipsis above - just the way they put it). I am not "confusing" anything - I read it just fine (as I already explained).

You keep leaving out "AND" as well as the fact those Lexicons say when it's a continuation explanation de is translated AND or is not translated at all. Why is that. What Lexicon are you quoting?



The evidence I presented says when it's a connective with the idea of explaining the word AND is used or the word is just not translated at all. So apparently the translation you questioned that said "AND" is asserting it's connective and explaining as are several other translations I can list.


So? What's your point? I can list just as many translations as you can? Paul is clearly appending another thought "on top of" his thought in v. 34 - deny it until doomsday - it will still be there when you're finished !

Are you serious with "What's your point?" when it's staring you right the face? I've already told you the point and I will have to do it again I see.

The POINT is when you argued "de" means the two verses are NOT a continuation of the topic I can present evidence that is not always the case with "de" and that the Lexicons and the translations I provided showed that many Greek Authorities disagree with you by translating "de" as "AND" or not even translating it at all.


So again the point is when you argue "it's X", I have my own sources that say it's not.

And I have my own grammatical sources (as well as your own ) that equally say it IS - Now what?

The sources I posted did NOT say you are right. The sources I gave merely say either view is a possibility. I don't know how you can miss that over and over. Seriously.



When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated.


And then there is the source I quoted which specifically stated that this term is best translated as "Moreover" - not to re-mention how the NASB translates the conjunction. Or, how about we revisit your own source from Zodhiates - who says that most frequently the conjunction introduces a new thing!? Amazing how you can't (or won't) see this ?

Yes and what was your source? What Lexicon was it?

BTW I have no problems admitting you can find a translation to translate it your way. All that proves is your idea is a consideration but not an absolute.. We can revisit zodhaites as long as you are honest enough to read the WHOLE thing and not ... out what parts you don't agree with and blissfully pretend they never existed

Here is what Zodhaites REALLY said

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 again "Or simply CONTINUATIVE or EXPLANATORY"

See he gives examples

(II) Continuative, meaning but, now, and, also, and the like.

(A) Generally and after introducing a new paragraph or sentence (Mat_1:18; Mat_2:9; Mat_3:1; Mar_16:9; Luk_12:11, Luk_12:16; Luk_13:6, Luk_13:10; Luk_15:11, Luk_15:17; Act_6:1-2, Act_6:8-9; Act_9:7-8; 1Co_14:1; 1Co_15:17; 1Co_16:1). In this way it is sometimes emphatic, especially in interrogative clauses (2Co_6:14-16; Gal_4:20, "I could wish indeed" [a.t.]).

(B) Where it takes up and carries on a thought which had been interrupted, meaning then, therefore (Mat_6:7; Joh_15:26; Rom_5:8; 2Co_10:2; Jam_2:15). Also consequentially after ei (G1487), if, for epeí (G1893), seeing that, since (Act_11:17).

(C) As marking something added by way of explanation or example meaning but, and, namely, e.g., to wit (Mar_4:37, "and the waves," meaning so that the waves; Mar_16:8, "trembling also seized them" [a.t.]; Joh_6:10, "Now there was [or there being] much grass"; Act_23:13; Rom_3:22; 1Co_10:11; 1Co_15:56).

At this point it's clear you are going to ... out everything that you disagree with. I'm merely doing this so the others can see how these words are or can be used





2. copulative,
a. in explanatory clauses, ξυνέβησαν .. τὰ μακρὰ τείχη ἑλεῖν (ἦν δὲ σταδίων μάλιστα ὀκτώ) Th.4.66, cf. Il.7.48: when a Subst. is folld. by words in apposition, Ἀρισταγόρῃ τῷ Μιλησίῳ, δούλῳ δὲ ἡμετέρῳ Hdt.7.8.β ́; μήτηρ βασιλέως βασίλεια δʼ ἐμή A.Pers.152; so in answers, διπλᾶ λέγειν.—Answ. διπλᾶ δʼ ὁρᾶν Id.Th.974.


Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (371). Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Hmmm, wonder what the other definition Liddell & Scott gave (noticed that you only appealed to the "copulative" force - hmmmm)? And, even the copulative carries the meaning of "moreover" or "on top of" which is my whole point!

Yes all that shows is what I have already asserted, de does not have ONE meaning. You can cry to the cows come home that "de" means X but the fact is I have proven it means MORE than what you originally argued it does. Here LS show that it can be an explanatory clause which also agrees with the other Authorities I posted.

I repeat, given the context it seems that Paul is explaining his initial point about keeping silent in the church. Second I know that several Scholars agree by the way they translated "de" or left it untranslated (according to the Lexicon use of "de")

KJV "And'
ESV untranslated
NET Untranslated
BBE "And"
CEV Untranslated
GNB Untranslated
ISV Untranslated
RSV Untranslated
WEB Untranslated

And even "But" does not disagree with explanatory. Like if I asked you "Did you go fishing?" And you can answer "Yes I did BUT I did not catch anything"




1161. δέ dĕ, deh; a prim. particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.:—also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English].


Hmmmmm .

Yes I noticed you see ONLY that word and ignore the others


Strong, J. (2009). Vol. 1: A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (21). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

The context clearly is Paul continuing to explain what was said before.


Yes, & in doing so he appends another thought onto his previous thought in v. 34 as evidenced by his usage of this conjunction ! Exactly the point!

He explains it. Exactly YOUR point yes but not THE Point.



Nope


Yep & the grammar of the text says so (even your own source) - you just don't like it!

No the grammar and text and MY Sources support that it is NOT absolutely the way YOU say it has to be but can instead support my view that it should be translated AND or not be translated at all as an explanatory clause. That is exactly what the sources I posted said



I'll stick to what I have on my Logos.


Yea' - Imagine that !


Yeah, do you blame me when your offer is "Helps"?

Seriously? Can you imagine two great Debaters up on stage. One is using Logos or Bible works and the other is using the Freebie "Bible Helps"? Yeah that will go over real well

[rdp]

LOL - Praxeas - it is glaringly apparent you have not done your research on BibleHelps. It is a good program that includes a cyclical hermeneutical approach.


Tell ya' what - I'll be back a little later this evening to continue the party & demonstrate your textual errors (not to mention how you keep backing up on your original assertions) !


The conjunction is appending "on top of" the previous thought - just like the grammars say - & I will gladly post them later this evening !



Sorry, the Bible still militates against your false "woman-teacher-preacher" in the church dogma !


Back in a bit!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by RJR

The exact thing that a woman was forbidden to do.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I Timothy 2:8-15 (ESV)
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Paul is simply saying that a woman isn't to teach or exercise authority over a man. This would clearly imply that a woman cannot be an elder. However, if a woman is under her elder's authority and is sharing as he permits her to share, she's still well under a man's authority.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

We have to define what is meant by "speak". I believe that context clearly indicates that it is related to the interrupting questions that they were advised to ask their husbands at home.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I Timothy 2:8-15 (ESV)
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Paul is simply saying that a woman isn't to teach or exercise authority over a man. This would clearly imply that a woman cannot be an elder. However, if a woman is under her elder's authority and is sharing as he permits her to share, she's still well under a man's authority.



We have to define what is meant by "speak". I believe that context clearly indicates that it is related to the interrupting questions that they were advised to ask their husbands at home.

Where is the BIBLICAL authority for an Elder to give the woman the liberty to do what the Bible expressly forbids?

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by RJR

The exact thing that a woman was forbidden to do.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Strange you are hooked up on a couple verses when thousands of places she is told to make noise...
Of couse she can prophecy...The same Paul that quoted I Cor 14: 33 ..is the same Paul that gave the lady instuctions how to dress...told her about her hair and told her and all to desire to prophecy...and prophecy is to edify, exhort and comfor the CHURCH...He told here WHERE to prophecy...IN THE CHURCH.....

[Sister Alvear]

The Hebrew word for prophet, navi’, [feminine, navi’a] comes from an old word for speaker and came to mean a speaker or spokesperson for God.

[Sister Alvear]

Godly women spoke for God in the Bible and we will continue to do so...

[Sister Alvear]

In the next age we will all judge the world and the angels. 1 Corinthians 6:2 ..Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 1 Corinthians 6:3 ..Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? Surely if women are going to judge the world and the angels in the future, they are also to be mature Christians who are obedient to the command to judge prophetic utterances here in this life as Paul commanded in 1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Strange you are hooked up on a couple verses when thousands of places she is told to make noise...
Of couse she can prophecy...The same Paul that quoted I Cor 14: 33 ..is the same Paul that gave the lady instuctions how to dress...told her about her hair and told her and all to desire to prophecy...and prophecy is to edify, exhort and comfor the CHURCH...He told here WHERE to prophecy...IN THE CHURCH.....

Yes, he did give instructions on hair, and the instructions for men and women, both with hair, was different. The instructions were women it is a shame for you to be shorn or shaven, so let her be covered, for she is the glory of the man. Men it is a shame for you to have long hair, for he is the glory and the image of God.

Cannot you see, the instructions concerning the same subject was different for a woman as opposed to a man. Your fallacy in the example provided would be akin to say HAIR IS HAIR, so it is the same for a woman as it is a man. God gave distinct instructions for the genders involving the same subject.

It is the same with the subject under consideration, a woman can prophesy and pray. She is not to teach and exercise authority over the man. It is not permitted for them to speak, same word translated preach or one of its cognates 6 times, they are to ask their husband at home. By the way you have never dealt with 1 Tim 2, according to you that is husband and wife, if so... she is to learn at silence in the home...there goes asking her husband at home...and still have the injunction in 1 Cor 14 not permitting her to speak in the church. You are restricting the woman more than the scripture and at the same time implying the bible does not mean what it clearly does not permit.

Obviously your misinterpretation is attempting to make prophesy preaching. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Godly women spoke for God in the Bible and we will continue to do so...

I agree, but not permitted to preach in the church.

Prophesy...Yes,
Pray...Yes,
Teach younger women...yes,

Priest in OT...No
Apostle chosen by Christ...No
Female qualifications for deacon...No
Female qualification for Bishop...NO
Exercise authority over man...NO
Speak/Preach in the church...NO