So, you don't want to defend the NLT's rendering of 1 Cor 11:2 which speaks of holding firmly to "
the traditions?" If so, then there is no more debate.
I don't need to be a Greek scholar to know how to use an Interlinear Bible:
Online Greek Interlinear Bible
Also don't need to be a Greek scholar
to use google. Josephus in the Antiquities in Book XIII CHapter 10:16 and in Chapter 16:2 uses the term "paradoseis" to mean "traditions" of the Pharisees, in context "
the tradition of our forefather."
So, the NLT is not inaccurate when it says "the teachings I passed on to you." However, the choice of "teachings" instead of "tradition" lacks a specific connotation that would have been obvious to Josephus, Paul, and Jesus when they all used the term. It is for this reason, when you use Strong's concordance or anything else, paradoseis is always defined as "tradition." A simple teaching that did not carry the weight of a tradition is referred to as "didache" in the Greek, just like the ancient Christian work that carries the name, The Didache.
I only bother going through all this detail, because any lurkers here following this conversation should be aware that the sort of argumentation both you and BlueLion employ is in my mind disingenuous. Ultimately, the traditionalists here argue "well, it simply says a woman cannot have authority or teach over a man." Because you guys don't want to submit to this literal teaching in the Scripture, you have devised word games and interpretive stretches based upon presuppositions you do not make clear to those reading, in order to confuse and intellectually overwhelm those who have never heard such things before.
However, if anyone actually does the research and digs deep, they will find that your arguments from the Greek are disingenuous, your history is made up, and your hermeneutic is inconsistent and convoluted. This is precisely why both have you have played games like "you didn't translate that one word right!" and "where in the Bible does it speak of ordaining a minister" and other questions meant to distract from the very simple point at hand:
A woman must not teach or have authority over a man. This is what the Bible teaches. There is zero evidence this was a temporary injunction. In fact, it is particularly offensive to me that you can even argue the Scripture will address issues that have zero import to us today. You have turned the Scripture into a bunch of irrelevant ancient documents and not the living word of God, sharper than any two edged sword that cuts right to the marrow.
Last, don't think I forgot what many of the lurkers here did: you may claim you hold to the inerrancy of Scripture but you most definitely do not. If you claim that you do, you lie and should repent of your dishonesty.
As a reminder to you and everyone else you wrote:
So, here we are arguing in circles about what the inerrant word of God says, but you flagrantly say that even when Paul says something "clear" he can be in the wrong, as we can all see in the above.
I will give BlueLion credit. Much of what he wrote is incomprehensible and indefensible from the evidence, but he has never taken the contradictory position you have claiming that the Bible is inerrant in one post and fighting over minor Greek details (that the vast majority of Greek scholars, translators, theologians, and CHristians over church history disagree with you about, but that's a "fallacy" right?) on one hand and on the other simply saying a clear statement from Paul could be wrong.
And, ultimately, this is what it all comes down to. In your gut, you think what Paul clearly says about women not teaching is wrong. It does not matter what the Greek, what the rest of the Scripture, what the context of the passage, what a consistent hermeneutic would have you believe, what all the early Christians believed, what all the Reformers believed, what all the modern Greek scholars would understand from the text---no, none of this matters. You simply do not like what it says and will employ inconsistent mental gymnastics to get the job done.
None of this is a personal attack, it is the God's honest truth. I say this in all love and Christian charity, it is fine if you are wrong on this issue but not the Gospel. However, what I have often found is those that get simple doctrines such as these wrong often do not know what the Gospel really is. We can agree to disagree. I think I have made my point.
