tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post4685206274876780116..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Bible translation and keys to the kingdomWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-48506964368800666532008-03-22T17:50:00.000-07:002008-03-22T17:50:00.000-07:00Peter, I'd love to engage you some more in these m...Peter, I'd love to engage you some more in these matters, but we need to get back to translation issues.<BR/><BR/>I believe that is the impression I got.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-86572772750822434732008-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:002008-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:00TC put forward as an apparent argument against wom...TC put forward as an apparent argument against women elders:<BR/><BR/><I>[In the Old Testament] each clan had elders who were at the gates to advise the people. In each case, these elders were males.<BR/><BR/>We see this model carried over into the Gospel narratives in the days of Jesus and into the narrative of Acts, and provided the model for eldership in the NT church and I see no change in gender in this regard.</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, the early church continued the customs of their culture which were not explicitly taught as normative in Scripture. This was a good thing in that culture, but before we consider anything like that normative for our own very different culture we need to consider whether this model is without exceptions, or whether the exceptions are condemned in Scripture:<BR/><BR/><I>with the exceptions of Miriam and Deborah, males were the prophets and judges</I><BR/><BR/>Well, there were other female prophets like Huldah, and other women leaders like Athaliah (but she is condemned). God accepted Miriam, Deborah and Huldah as leaders of his people, and thereby proved that there is no general rule against women being leaders.<BR/><BR/>So, TC, your own evidence actually implies the opposite to your conclusion.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-17314694773971352712008-03-21T21:09:00.000-07:002008-03-21T21:09:00.000-07:00tc, I need to make something clear. I have not bee...tc, I need to make something clear. I have not been saying that the exegetical options I have presented are what I believe. I need to repeat that I am in process. I am studying these issues. I do feel that the categorical position I was taught when I grew up is not as clearcut in the Bible itself as I previously thought.<BR/><BR/>I have tried to respond to your categorical claim that women could not have been elders by pointing out what some exegetes have said. What I'm trying to do is point out that there is evidence in the Greek of the N.T. text about gender issues that can call into question some categorical statements about women's roles in a local assembly. There are good exegetes who argue for different positions in the gender debates today.<BR/><BR/>As a Bible translator I need to be aware of those different possibilities and not translate in a way that cuts out an option that has exegetical evidence which can support it, or an option which discredit a translation in the eyes of a local church which might consider using that translation.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Paul wrote ambiguously. I am suggesting that we today do not always understand what Paul meant by what he wrote. (Lack of clarity is technically different from ambiguity.)<BR/><BR/>I do not know of any Bible passage which teaches that women cannot be elders in an assembly of believers. I thought that you had claimed that it was clear from the Bible that women could not. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. If I did understand you correctly, however, I think it would be helpful for you to support your claim by citing any specific Bible passage which says that women cannot be elders, or that only men can be elders. I know that the Bible nowhere says that woman *can* be elders. But I also do not know of any passage that says that they cannot be. Those who believe that women cannot be elders, ISTM, are basing their belief on inferences drawn from a number of passages, none of which directly address the issue of whether or not women can be elders.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-83838234294884587562008-03-21T19:58:00.000-07:002008-03-21T19:58:00.000-07:00I don't think it matters in the least whether ther...I don't think it matters in the least whether there were women elders in the NT times. There are many things that have changed considerably. Women are perfectly capable of learning and teaching biblical lgs. theology, exegesis, etc. in the church and I think all talk of restricting women is a great affront to God's design and his wisdom in creation. <BR/><BR/>Just my opinion, but I don't think I would want to read anything but the plain meaning into the Greek myself. This is why the Junia hypothesis shocked me so much. It is utter nonsense to have changed the translation for that. Of course she was called an apostle, whatever that means. And authentein has no "plain meaning". Ultimately I don't think there is any reason why women should be restricted to a list made up by another human being somewhere. We are all responsible to God. <BR/><BR/>I am pretty conservative on what the text says, and I think far too much is made of some very ambiguous verses. Naturally it says for men to be the husband of one wife. I don't think polyandry was in style at the time. There is always room for men who have no wife at all, although this is strictly against the plain reading of the text. If we want to exclude women we should exclude Paul as well, who had no wife at the time.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, TC, hang around. I am here to talk about the text not about church polity.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-25938677560653996882008-03-21T19:11:00.000-07:002008-03-21T19:11:00.000-07:00Wayne said, ISTM, it only logically follows if we ...Wayne said,<BR/><BR/><I> ISTM, it only logically follows if we know, for sure, that 1 Tim. 5:1-2 is only referring to old men and women, not to assembly elders (who may not have been much of a developed "office" at the time that 1 Tim. was written).</I><BR/><BR/>Not even the distinguished Fee, who is also Egalitarian, argues this in his commentary on the Pastorals in the NIBC series.<BR/><BR/>One of the arguments against Pauline authorship of the PE is that surrounding church polity. I think it has been convincingly answered.<BR/><BR/>At the outset of his second missionary effort, we find Paul and Barnabas ordaining elders in each church (Acts 14:23, TNIV). This is some 10-15 years before the writing of 1 Timothy.<BR/><BR/><I> Then here's a fun one, notice that the office this person aspires to is grammatically feminine, episkope. I'm pulling on your leg a bit here when I say that if we take grammatical gender as seriously as some do (e.g. Grudem), then those who are the feminine gender who be the best fit to fill an office which is referred to in Greek by feminine grammatical gender! :-)</I><BR/><BR/>I used Grudem's systematic in seminary--a good work, but he's no authority on NT Greek.<BR/><BR/><I> I don't know of anything in the Greek pericope (1 Tim. 3:1-7) on those who desire the office that says that these people are men, do you? Even the phrase mias gunaikos andra of 3:2 is said to have been semantically extended to refer to both men and women, i.e. to anyone who is faithful to their spouse.</I><BR/><BR/>The episkope qualities extend even to his authority over his household (vv.4, 5). Do you believe this is ambiguous too?<BR/><BR/>Regarding mias gynaikas andra, a similar construction is used of widows, henos andros gyne (5:9). Now you'll have to make the same argument there. Not even Fee ventures such arguments.<BR/><BR/>Even closer still is 3:12 is respect to the diakonoi who were to be mias gynaikos andres. But here's the issue: if mias gynaikos andres is ambiguous to the point of referring to either gender, Why the separate treatment of women, gynaikas, in v.11?tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-83215809707002594042008-03-21T16:15:00.000-07:002008-03-21T16:15:00.000-07:00Or it means "elder women" in the Christian assembl...<I>Or it means "elder women" in the Christian assembly.</I><BR/><BR/>Right, that's the other exegetical option. If we choose that option, then we also would need to choose the non-office option for the men of 1 Tim. 5, and that would make sense in this context.<BR/><BR/><I>Are we then to have separate "office" for the younger women?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't understand your question. I mean, I understand it, but I don't logically understand how it follows. ISTM, it only logically follows if we know, for sure, that 1 Tim. 5:1-2 is only referring to old men and women, not to assembly elders (who may not have been much of a developed "office" at the time that 1 Tim. was written). In any case, we have the exegetical option here. I, personally, do not the evidence to be very strong in 1 Tim. 5:1-2 for these verses to be referring to spiritual offices in the assembly, but since you asked about evidence (remember, I'm in process, not convinced one way or another; I'm seeking truth), I'm giving evidence that has been claimed by some exegetes.<BR/><BR/><I>If these women are to be understood as elders, why weren't they considered in chapter 3?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I think the claim from some exegetes would be that they are so considered, including in 3:1. Notice that there is no gender to the indefinite pronoun of 3:1, <I>tis</I>. It is simply translated to English as "whoever".<BR/><BR/>Then here's a fun one, notice that the office this person aspires to is grammatically feminine, <I>episkope</I>. I'm pulling on your leg a bit here when I say that if we take grammatical gender as seriously as some do (e.g. Grudem), then those who are the feminine gender who be the best fit to fill an office which is referred to in Greek by feminine grammatical gender! :-)<BR/><BR/>I don't know of anything in the Greek pericope (1 Tim. 3:1-7) on those who desire the office that says that these people are men, do you? Even the phrase <I>mias gunaikos andra</I> of 3:2 is said to have been semantically extended to refer to both men and women, i.e. to anyone who is faithful to their spouse.<BR/><BR/>What Greek evidence are you thinking of in 1 Tim. 3 that excludes women from the office of <I>episkope</I>?<BR/><BR/>Happy Easter to you, as well.<BR/><BR/>Christ is risen!Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-28661005652664484172008-03-21T15:19:00.000-07:002008-03-21T15:19:00.000-07:00Wayne said: For a start, notice 1 Tim. 5:2. The fi...Wayne said:<BR/><BR/><I> For a start, notice 1 Tim. 5:2. The first word in the Greek is feminine. It means 'women elders'. It is the feminine counterpart to the masculine Greek word for elders.</I><BR/><BR/>Or it means "elder women" in the Christian assembly. Are we then to have separate "office" for the youner women? <BR/><BR/>If these women are to be understood as elders, why weren't they considered in chapter 3?<BR/><BR/>I hope you're having a blessed Easter.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-81879685814997924802008-03-21T13:43:00.000-07:002008-03-21T13:43:00.000-07:00tc wrote:Give me some of the results of your studi...tc wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Give me some of the results of your studies on the matter.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry I wasn't clearer, tc. I am in the process of studying these issues. I have discovered that what I was taught is not always as clearcut as I previously thought.<BR/><BR/>For a start, notice 1 Tim. 5:2. The first word in the Greek is feminine. It means 'women elders'. It is the feminine counterpart to the masculine Greek word for elders.<BR/><BR/>Some exegetes believe that Paul restricts eldership to men. I have not yet seen any explicit biblical texts which make that clear. How about you?Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-38606160118062428342008-03-21T09:40:00.000-07:002008-03-21T09:40:00.000-07:00Kurk,I think I'll buy that book on Ruth for my dau...Kurk,<BR/><BR/>I think I'll buy that book on Ruth for my daughter's birthday. Just what I wanted!Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-31507284627225042922008-03-21T09:37:00.000-07:002008-03-21T09:37:00.000-07:00What? No bickering, no blood in the water, no shib...<I>What? No bickering, no blood in the water, no shibboleth?</I> <BR/><BR/>That was all just hype from the peanut gallery. :-)Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-7431423232262028902008-03-21T06:21:00.000-07:002008-03-21T06:21:00.000-07:00I believe you have made a believer out of me on th...<I>I believe you have made a believer out of me on that issue</I>, TC says to Suzanne in public.<BR/><BR/>What? No bickering, no blood in the water, no shibboleth?<BR/><BR/>Sounds as pathetic as Zondervan's recent book (which pays all too much attention to verses 3,<B>5</B>,6, & 18 of Matthew chapter 1 and neglects the majority of the verses flowing through the geneaology):<BR/><BR/>"Naomi is no longer regarded as a bitter, complaining woman, but as a courageous overcomer. A Female Job. Ruth (typically admired for her devotion to Naomi and her deference to Boaz) turns out to be a gutsy risk-taker and a powerful agent for change among God’s people. She lives outside the box, and her love for Yahweh and Naomi compels her to break the rules of social and religious convention at nearly every turn. Boaz, the Kinsman Redeemer, is repeatedly caught off-guard by Ruth’s initiatives. His partnership with her models the kind of male/female relationships that <A HREF="http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310263913&QueryStringSite=Zondervan#productdetails" REL="nofollow">the gospel intends for all who follow Jesus</A>."J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-90101542390943046792008-03-21T01:47:00.000-07:002008-03-21T01:47:00.000-07:00Suzanne said, I will keep my discussion strictly t...Suzanne said,<BR/><BR/><I> I will keep my discussion strictly to the text. We have no indication that God intended to exclude women from 2 Tim. 2:2 or 2 Tim. 3:17. I am referring strictly to these scripture verses and the vocabulary they contain. A translation which opts for "man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17 is going to obscure the fact that the author of the LXX has not translated ish literally into aner, and a stylistic aspect of the text will be lost. The translation will quite simply be less literal and less faithful to the original. I do think that the translation that would best reflect the original would be person of God.</I><BR/><BR/>From my devotional reading in 2 Kings, I ran across quite a number of "man of God" expressions. Well, here's one from the LXX at 5:9:<BR/><BR/>καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνὴ πρὸς ,<B>τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς</B> [her husband] Ἰδοὺ δὴ ἔγνων ὅτι <B>ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιος οὗτος</B> [this holy man of God] διαπορεύεται ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς διὰ παντός.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I see your point with 2:2 and 3:17, and the needed annotation. I can live with that.<BR/><BR/>I believe you have made a believer out of me on that issue.<BR/><BR/>O woman of God!tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-46171984366999714392008-03-21T01:14:00.000-07:002008-03-21T01:14:00.000-07:00The ESV already has a note of considerable length,...The ESV already has a note of considerable length,<BR/><BR/>"That is, a messenger of God (the phrase echoes a common Old Testament expression"<BR/><BR/>I do not think that there is any point in obscuring the fact that the LXX did not create a correspondence between ish and aner here. This would just be a case of the English translators editing the text in order to make the NT appear to agree with the OT even when it doesn't.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-27718482332636427032008-03-21T01:02:00.000-07:002008-03-21T01:02:00.000-07:00TC,I will keep my discussion strictly to the text....TC,<BR/><BR/>I will keep my discussion strictly to the text. We have no indication that God intended to exclude women from 2 Tim. 2:2 or 2 Tim. 3:17. I am referring strictly to these scripture verses and the vocabulary they contain. A translation which opts for "man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17 is going to obscure the fact that the author of the LXX has not translated ish literally into aner, and a stylistic aspect of the text will be lost. The translation will quite simply be less literal and less faithful to the original. I do think that the translation that would best reflect the original would be person of God. <BR/><BR/>The annotator could add that this is a translation of ish ha-elohim. IMO the reader will miss the connection with Moses in any case if there is not a footnote, so I think a footnote or cross reference is a good point. <BR/><BR/>Personally I would favour the "person of God" with a footnote for the OT connection. <BR/><BR/>I am trying to be strictly literal here. I do not think that we should just assume either that it refers only to men, or to both men and women. I prefer something that everyone can agree is literal.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-3301578978494840882008-03-20T23:47:00.000-07:002008-03-20T23:47:00.000-07:00Suzanne said,Regarding Rom 10:15, that is one more...Suzanne said,<BR/><BR/><I>Regarding Rom 10:15, that is one more example that the ancients did not have the goal of a concordant or exact translation. I think this case argues very much for a footnote rather than just translating 2 Tim. 3:17 as "man of God". That really misses the connection with 2 Tim. 2:2, which is "faithful people".</I><BR/><BR/>I'm appropriately impressed with this argument. At any rate, I don't think we can just dismiss male leadership as seen in the OT.<BR/><BR/>For example, when a person was chosen from each tribe/clan to spy out the Promised Land, we find that only males were chosen (Num 13). And with the exceptions of Miriam and Deborah, males were the prophets and judges and I believe the ancients knew this while they were penning sacred Scripture.<BR/><BR/>We cannot successful divorce this male element from the penmanship of the ancients.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-8799581124693463972008-03-20T23:39:00.000-07:002008-03-20T23:39:00.000-07:00Wayne said,But after getting some biblical languag...Wayne said,<BR/><BR/><I>But after getting some biblical language study done, I've come to realize it really is open to debate as to whether or not those elder instructions are only addressed to males. And that is why we have the complementarian / egalitarian divide. Different people read the same text, but understand it differently. Sometimes we are influenced by the assumptions we bring from our backgrounds or theology.</I><BR/><BR/>Give me some of the results of your studies on the matter.<BR/><BR/>Regarding a person's background and how it affects this whole debate, you will be glad to know that I've going through the OT with the TNIV this year.<BR/><BR/>I've gone through the Pentateuch and now working my way through the Historical books, and I've notice this one thing: each clan had elders who were at the gates to advise the people. In each case, these elders were males.<BR/><BR/>We see this model carried over into the Gospel narratives in the days of Jesus and into the narrative of Acts, and provided the model for eldership in the NT church and I see no change in gender in this regard.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you can prove me wrong.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-51101242684346398532008-03-20T20:45:00.000-07:002008-03-20T20:45:00.000-07:00I have found an article which quotes Towner here. ...I have found an article which quotes Towner here. However, the <A HREF="http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/1timothy.pdf" REL="nofollow">author has written,</A><BR/><BR/>"Together they draw a silhouette of a 'man [person] of God.'<BR/><BR/>I do not think that the original languages were saying anything at all about gender in this expression, either in Hebrew or Greek. So the only question is which concordance and which semantic components seem important to translate and which ought to be in the footnotes.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-91870813162605416602008-03-20T20:27:00.000-07:002008-03-20T20:27:00.000-07:00I am poor so I don't own the NICNT. Does Towner ar...I am poor so I don't own the NICNT. Does Towner argue simply that the one phrase refers back to the other; or, does he say that anthropos tou theou *ought to be* translated as "man of God?" I am curious.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Rom 10:15, that is one more example that the ancients did not have the goal of a concordant or exact translation. I think this case argues very much for a footnote rather than just translating 2 Tim. 3:17 as "man of God". That really misses the connection with 2 Tim. 2:2, which is "faithful people".Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-74632173463640325442008-03-20T20:10:00.000-07:002008-03-20T20:10:00.000-07:00Suzanne said, The trouble is that each individual ...Suzanne said,<BR/><BR/><I> The trouble is that each individual person wishes to keep concordance with the original language in a different way. It can't be done. However, everyone tries. I do too sometimes.</I><BR/><BR/>Translating the sacred Scriptures is no easy task. But I do believe in being consistent, culturally relevant, and readable.<BR/><BR/>Then we can get into that biblish syndrome of what "words" are biblical and so on.<BR/><BR/>I do agree with the NIV/TNIV choice on hilasterion, "a sacrifice of atonment." But our theologies favor "propitiation," and along with "expiation," there're no few debates.<BR/><BR/>Well, the average reader doesn't really understand what is a translation and what is a transliteration.<BR/><BR/>Towner's source material is his commentary in the NICNT on the Pastorals. I believe I pointed that out in an earlier post (I'm sorry you missed it).<BR/><BR/><I>So I consider that concordance and traditional translation equivalent interact very strongly with literalness and desire for masculine representation.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't instructive that Paul when quoting Isaiah 52:7 he pluralizes (Rom 10:15), but the source text is a grammatical singular?tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-11318071293372959092008-03-20T19:20:00.000-07:002008-03-20T19:20:00.000-07:00TC,I appreciate your bringing the Towner article t...TC,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your bringing the Towner article to my attention. I could only find references to it but not the full article on the internet. <BR/><BR/>The trouble is that each individual person wishes to keep concordance with the original language in a different way. It can't be done. However, everyone tries. I do too sometimes. <BR/><BR/>For example, I much prefer "atonement" to "propitiation" because it maintains concordance with the word in same word in the Hebrew scriptures, the "mercy seat/day of atonement". For me, the word "propitiation" just messes up all the associations present in the Greek. <BR/><BR/>But others disagree. <BR/><BR/>Another example would be El Shaddai as either transliteration or "Almighty". Almighty is in no way a translation of El Shaddai. However, some people are used to it. <BR/><BR/>These matters of personal preference have no connection to being either egal or comp. <BR/><BR/>So I consider that concordance and traditional translation equivalent interact very strongly with literalness and desire for masculine representation. <BR/><BR/>There are so many variants. Without reading Towner's article I am in the dark here. But I appreciate the notion that there is an association of ανθρωπος του θεου in both places. <BR/><BR/>Tell me more about Towner's argument. Does he say that it must be translated as "man of God" or just that there is an association. Can you quote something of Towner's? I am interested in which variables are important to him. Carson also.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-2756099446326705682008-03-20T16:55:00.000-07:002008-03-20T16:55:00.000-07:00The instruction to be an elder in the NT is exclus...<I>The instruction to be an elder in the NT is exclusively addressed to males.</I><BR/><BR/>That's what I was taught also. But after getting some biblical language study done, I've come to realize it really is open to debate as to whether or not those elder instructions are only addressed to males. And that is why we have the complementarian / egalitarian divide. Different people read the same text, but understand it differently. Sometimes we are influenced by the assumptions we bring from our backgrounds or theology. But sometimes there are honest differences based on how the Greek text can be understood. Exegesis is often not clearcut. That's why we need grace toward one another about how to understand what the text is saying, just as we need grace toward each other in many other areas.<BR/><BR/>And grace to you,<BR/>and me,<BR/>Christ is risen!Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-23995024836096927002008-03-20T16:14:00.000-07:002008-03-20T16:14:00.000-07:00Peter said: So, TC, in the light of Suzanne's comm...Peter said:<BR/><BR/><I> So, TC, in the light of Suzanne's comments, what would you think of a consistent "person of God" in OT and NT for Moses and Timothy as well as in 2 Timothy 3:17? I guess the problem is that macho American men, unlike macho Spanish speakers, don't like being called "person(a)".</I><BR/><BR/>That's that culturally based influence on language, from which we can never truly extricate ourselves.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-58718472676789115172008-03-20T16:11:00.000-07:002008-03-20T16:11:00.000-07:00Suzanne said:The only way to exclude women from an...Suzanne said:<BR/><BR/><I>The only way to exclude women from any of the instructions of the NT would be to deny women full citienship in the kingdom of God.</I><BR/><BR/>The instruction to be an elder in the NT is exclusively addressed to males. This, however, should not be viewed as an ontological difference, but simply functional.<BR/><BR/>I guite agree with the inclusive use of both ish and aner, and we see that in the OT, LXX and classical Greek.<BR/><BR/>But I want you to keep in mind that Dr. Carson is complementarian while Dr. Towner is Egalitarian, yet Towner argued for "man of God" in 2 Tim 3:17.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-14658049340702745592008-03-19T17:32:00.000-07:002008-03-19T17:32:00.000-07:00TC,I think that the points you have brought up abo...TC,<BR/><BR/>I think that the points you have brought up about the use of man of God in 1 and 2 Timothy are quite interesting. I disagree with Towner and Carson, but at least now I understand better why I disagree with them. These were good verses to discuss.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-7238661943892679692008-03-19T16:46:00.000-07:002008-03-19T16:46:00.000-07:00So, TC, in the light of Suzanne's comments, what w...So, TC, in the light of Suzanne's comments, what would you think of a consistent "person of God" in OT and NT for Moses and Timothy as well as in 2 Timothy 3:17? I guess the problem is that macho American men, unlike macho Spanish speakers, don't like being called "person(a)".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com