Women in Mininstry: A Debate

[OldShepherd]

Today at 12:08 PM nikolai_42 said this in Post #120 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693627#post693627)

 I know that. Your original statement ("Biblical Hebrew has always meant what it has always meant.")I took to mean one of two things:

1.)  Biblical Hebrew has always been biblical Hebrew and ITS meaning has not changed.

or

2.) Biblical Hebrew has been carried through to modern day and word X still has the same meaning as word X meant in bible days - and no change in meaning for any word in Biblical Hebrew has occurred (and no words have disappeared and no words have changed form etc...)

Obviously, definition 1 is not useful because it is a given that Biblical Hebrew has always been interpreted as Biblical Hebrew (and not as Russian or Arabic or French etc...). So we are left with definition 2. And by analogy, if a modern day English speaker were to try and read Chaucer, they'd think they were reading a foreign language even though he wrote in English (of the day).

How could you possibly get number 2 out of what I said? Here are my two previous posts.

• 
  #102 posted 4th March 2003 at 03:53 PM
  
  "I wonder how the pre-Christian Jews interpreted the creation passages? After all they are God's chosen people, the scriptures were given to them, in their language, Hebrew. Do you think maybe they know how to interpret these passages? Or should everyone interpret them in ways that seem plausible to each individual?"
  
  #110 posted Yesterday at 09:54 PM
  
  "Biblical Hebrew has NOT evolved it means what it always meant. This is more muddying up the water."

Therefore I must conclude that you simply refuse to understand what I say. Which is what I said in the beginning.

The digression was yours because you brought up the thought that we should be looking to a Hebrew speaker because that was who the word was entrusted to.

Again you refuse to read and understand what I said. I did NOT say just any Hebrew speaker, but a pre-Christian Jew. Now what resources might one find from that category? Talmud, Mishna, Gemara, Zohar, Targums,and LXX to name a few off the top of my head. And lets not forget the DSS and Qumran writings.

I am saying that if we compare that to English, should God have entrusted the same word to Englishmen of the early middle ages, a modern Englishman is as qualified to translate Chinese as he is early english.

I don't even understand this sentence. What does this have to do with finding credible Hebrew authorities to help us understand the O.T.?

Israel was 'overturned' many times and was scattered among the nations (for the most part). So their speech would have changed as well. Not only that, but as language is heavily influenced by culture (or vice-versa), meaning carries heavy connotations that people of the day would be very familiar with but those who come centuries later would not be familiar with it.

Irrelevant! My God IS able to preserve His word as He said in Isa 55:11.

How many in Israel accepted Jesus as the Christ? Yet they had the scriptures that adequately foretold His coming. Clearly, the scriptures are not enough. Even the ones who followed Christ still had to have their eyes 'opened'.

Irrelevant! The scriptures cannot, do not say conflicting things in the same verse. The writer meant ONE thing when he wrote. Unless the writings I mentioned completely contradict the literal Hebrew then they can aid our understanding.

I note also, in the links you put up, that you present a case for 'usurp' but not for 'teach' as regards 1 Timothy 2:12. While I agree the word for 'usurp' is there very strong, the combination with 'teach' changes the connotation (if the definition in Strong's is accurate - as it seems to be. The same word is used many times for what Jesus did - preach).

Or the context of "by one's authority" also modifies "teach", which is supported by Rom 16:1 and Gal 3:28 and the many verses which state God is NOT a respecter of persons and Acts 18:26 where Priscilla, a woman, taught Appollos, a man, the "way of God more perfectly." Which according the good ol' boys club she could NOT do, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances. And I don't see any nonsense about Priscilla having to get Appollos, or any other man's, permission to teach him either.

I did not just post Strongs but also Liddell-Scott-Jones Classical Greek lexicon. And they are both in agreement.

As I said before (and you even mentioned in one of the links), I could easily accept that this was just one of Paul's ideas and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. His support is scriptural. Could one be wrong while being apparently scriptural??

Paul did state at least one place that he was speaking, that he did not have a commandment from the Lord. And how many times does Paul use the personal pronoun"I", for a word from the Lord?

Also we could assemble ALL the relevant scriptures, NOT just the few "good ol' boy" verses, and see what the preponderance of scriptures support. Comparing ALL of Paul's writings to the few "good ol' boy" verses and see if 1 Cor 14:34-35, for example, is being misinterpreted by ignoring verses like Gal 3:28, Rom 1:16, Acts 18:26. And I would still like to see how women are to keep silence in the church but pray and prophesy at the same time. Prophesying would most certainly have a teaching aspect. The hearers would be taught something they did not know before.

 

[nikolai_42]

OS, you said:

Again you refuse to read and understand what I said. I did NOT say just any Hebrew speaker, but a pre-Christian Jew. Now what resources might one find from that category? Talmud, Mishna, Gemara, Zohar, Targums,and LXX to name a few off the top of my head. And lets not forget the DSS and Qumran writings.

I perfectly understood that. But what I was saying was that we don't have any of the authors around to act as living verification of meaning. As an admittedly limited example (only going back a couple hundred years for this one, and forms had already changed to being recognizable to today's speaker), if I called you 'nice', would you generally consider that to be a compliment? And if I called you 'mean', would you generally accept that I was referring to your attitude? But not 200 years ago, a 'mean man' could simply refer to a commoner and have NOTHING to do with his attitude. And a 'nice man' was an insult, not a compliment. The dictionary definitions were hardly changed, but the connotations and implications have changed radically. Never mind that if you went back another 500 years, you wouldn't recognize English as being today's English.

You are well aware that culture and experience shape language and Hebrew is no different. There have to be ways to express modern ideas if one wishes to communicate modern thoughts. Thus, over time, language evolves to the point that certain forms are simply inexpressible in modern language. That's because either the meaning has actually changed, or the implication and connotation of a word has changed to such a degree (and the word has taken on a very 'narrow' definition) as to severly restrict its use - while that was not the case centuries ago. So unless you have Moses around (or a contemporary of his) you don't know how he will describe a car. And unless we can go back in time and experience what the Israelites did first hand we will never be able to understand exactly what they did experience. While broad events may be accurately portrayed, the impact or significance of said events in the culture (and these are things that affect the language) will be largely lost on the modern reader. Translators certainly do what they can to bridge the gap, but they are restrained in that they have to remain as faithful to the individual words as possible. But in being faithful to an individual word, they may use a word that, in the broader context, changes the meaning to a modern reader.

As far as Acts 18:26 goes, I think you'll find that this teaching was in private, not in public. It wasn't a usurpation of authority, but a use of the gift of ministry, not authority. Personal relationship (and revelation) vs. public declaration.

Finally, as far as preserving His Word, even the bible doesn't point to itself AS that Word. It may convey it, but it isn't it. The Word of God is alive, living (quick), powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. It divides even unto soul and spirit, between the joints and marrow. There is no written letter that does that. The letter, while glorious, is passing away and in it is only death. The letter is the (glorious) ministry of death. Only in the spirit is life. The power of life is in the spirit, not the letter. THAT is why the eyes need to be opened REGARDLESS of how much one 'understands' the bible. Just ask Paul and the men on the road to Emmaus. The bible will get one as close to God as an autobiography will get one close to the author.

So while I agree that what Paul was saying may well not be God's position, I don't find the spirit of the word supporting it. I'll say one thing, though, I'm starting to get an education in Hebrew and Greek. I'm willing to admit defeat in the debate, though I still don't buy the conclusion. There are other things that don't seem to add up in your position, but I am at a loss to properly express them. So until I can find that expression (which may be never, I admit), it's probably better that I consider the matter further in quiet. But I think I'll stay subscribed to the thread - I should like to keep up on the debate (and read some of the posts I simply haven't had time to read).