tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post6043697140185437460..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Authentein and GrudemWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-63855474567060856032007-03-21T23:15:00.000-07:002007-03-21T23:15:00.000-07:00It is clear that Grudem thought the data gave a le...It is clear that Grudem thought the data gave a lexical meaning of authority for authentein, but for Kostenberger there was no firm conclusion regarding lexical data. Just possibly K. was aware that in neither of the two contemporary examples was authentein translated as having authority. <BR/><BR/>Here is another quote from <A HREF="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_199912/ai_n8859385/pg_3" REL="nofollow">Kostenberger</A>,<BR/><BR/><I>This renders many of the criticisms set forth by opponents of a gender-inclusive approach invalid (such as Wayne Grudem's "Response to Mark Strauss' Evaluation of the Colorado Springs Translation Guidelines," JETS 41 [1998] 263-286).</I> <BR/><BR/>It is important to realize that egalitarians interpret some key scriptures differently from each other and so do complementarians. They do not necessarily agree on the fine points of translation.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-21736110084291914172007-03-21T17:29:00.000-07:002007-03-21T17:29:00.000-07:00Suzanne, As far as I can see Kostenberger does not...Suzanne, As far as I can see Kostenberger does not disagree with Dr Grudem, based on the article to which you linked.Glennsphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18157051195736064330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-22591920251283132532007-03-20T19:58:00.000-07:002007-03-20T19:58:00.000-07:00Glenn, Regardless of the interpretation I am still...Glenn, <BR/><BR/>Regardless of the interpretation I am still inerested in the appendix. Why was it added to the book when it doesn't support his thesis? Can you comment on this point? That is what my post is about? Do you have any thoughts on this?Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-64802945626753504492007-03-20T13:17:00.000-07:002007-03-20T13:17:00.000-07:00Bryan, none of that changes the fact that it is cl...Bryan, none of that changes the fact that it is clear and I'm truly sorry if that offends you, but if standing by what I see as clear and unambiguous makes me appear proud and arrogant then so be it.<BR/>In my 36 years of being a Christian the only people I have come across who think this is a difficult to understand passage have been those who did not want to submit to what it says. This has led me to the opinion that I stated earlier.<BR/>I have put forward what I believe in comments on this blog, but as the same ground is covered over and over and over again it becomes just a little tiresome to repeat everything, but if it will keep you happy, here is a very short list of SOME of the things I believe;<BR/>I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.<BR/>I believe in a literal 6 days of creation.<BR/>I believe in a literal global flood and that Noah's Ark was real.<BR/>I believe in a balanced approach to Word & Spirit.<BR/>I believe in the gifts of the Spirit being in operation today.<BR/>I believe in the Doctrine of Grace.<BR/>I believe that the leadership of God's Church was and is limited to men by God's design.<BR/>I believe that God gave different, but complimentary roles, to men (via Adam) and women (via Eve) at creation and therefore before the fall and the entry of sin into creation.<BR/>I believe in the cleansing power of the shed blood of Christ on the cross to wipe away the sins of those God calls to repentance and salvation.Glennsphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18157051195736064330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-13924007723058019632007-03-20T10:41:00.000-07:002007-03-20T10:41:00.000-07:00Thanks Peter. I must be getting old or something.Thanks Peter. I must be getting old or something.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-60218636223895905122007-03-20T10:10:00.000-07:002007-03-20T10:10:00.000-07:00Suzanne, you didn't format the link properly. You ...Suzanne, you didn't format the link properly. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><A REF="http://www.denverseminary.edu...<BR/><BR/>But you should have written<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.denverseminary.edu...<BR/><BR/>Here, I think, is <A HREF="http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2001/0200/0204" REL="nofollow">the correct link</A>.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-67881905912377035242007-03-20T09:34:00.000-07:002007-03-20T09:34:00.000-07:00Is that link above working for you? Here is the UR...Is that link above working for you? Here is the URL. <BR/> http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2001/0200/0204Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-65983310324375200082007-03-20T09:32:00.000-07:002007-03-20T09:32:00.000-07:00Guess I posted a bad link. I hope this works.Guess I posted a bad link. I hope <A REF="http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2001/0200/0204">this works.</A>Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-31429254511244408202007-03-20T08:40:00.000-07:002007-03-20T08:40:00.000-07:00This may help. It is a review of Poythress and Gru...<I>This may help. It is a review of Poythress and Grudem's book by a fellow complementarian, Craig Blomberg.</I><BR/><BR/>Suzanne, thanks for that helpful quote from Blomberg's review. Is it online anywhere? If so, would you now the address?Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-21739536234233120372007-03-20T04:42:00.000-07:002007-03-20T04:42:00.000-07:00"If you have a serious comment then please make it..."If you have a serious comment then please make it, but do not expect me to give the slightest credence to such a patently ridiculous line of (supposed) reasoning."<BR/><BR/>How ironic. It seems like one of your favorite thing to do is insult an argument and claiming it's unworthiness of you actually engaging it instead of actually doing just that. In fact I don't know if I've ever seen you actually put forth your own argument. <BR/><BR/>I didn't say we couldn't understand the Bible. I was speaking against your seemingly arrogant and prideful statement that the text is so clear (and people just don’t want to submit), when it obviously isn't. <BR/>Again when you speak of it’s clarity all you really mean is what’s clear to you from reading your English translation, your worldview, the place you were raised in, in the era you were raised in and according to what you’ve been taught by others. <BR/>Being that the Bible was written in other languages, in another time, to another people, it takes a bit more humility and work from us to discern what it says. <BR/><BR/>It's an insult to Bible translators (who are experts in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic as well as other languages that are important for studying the Bible), lexicographers, textual critics, historians and Biblical scholars in general (as well as many others) when you speak of how obviously clear it is when they've devoted their whole lives to understanding it (and are way more qualified than any of us) and they still don't share your view on it's obvious clarity. I find it ironic that they are the ones who’s work goes into making an English Bible and then those who only know the English Bible turn around and arrogantly speak of it’s obvious clarity.<BR/><BR/>Again that’s not saying that we can’t understand the Bible (much less the Gospel!), but that we need just a little more humility when we speak about that understanding, and grace towards others when their understanding doesn’t agree with ours (instead of making accusations towards them).<BR/><BR/>Blessings Brother Glenn<BR/><BR/>Bryan LBryan Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04144487212639973542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-14694555017700042292007-03-20T00:21:00.000-07:002007-03-20T00:21:00.000-07:00Glenn,This may help. It is a review of Poythress a...Glenn,<BR/><BR/>This may help. It is a <A REF="http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2001/0200/0204">review of Poythress and Grudem's book</A> by a fellow complementarian, Craig Blomberg.<BR/><BR/><I>What initially purports to be a linguistic debate quickly turns theological as one discovers what really annoys Grudem and Poythress. Men, according to their version of complementarianism, are the representative heads (in the sense of "authorities") for the human race, and therefore all but the very most cautious usage of inclusive language (e.g., "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" and "people" for "men" in certain but not all contexts) is muting the masculinity of Scripture and undermining the frequency with which readers can recognize the God-ordained rationale behind the use of masculine language. <BR/><BR/>At this point, they simply do not understand how language works and implicitly introduce a theory of linguistics that becomes absurd if one tries to apply it to languages that refer to gender in a considerably different fashion than does English (as a lengthy chapter in Carson's work discusses in detail, a chapter to which Grudem and Poythress offer no response except to say that they are not discussing the question of translating into anything other than English!).<BR/><BR/>Additional linguistic errors compound their theological arguments, as they claim that the Greek aner can never be generic (by the principle that if an exclusive interpretation is at all contextually possible, we can never assume that a generic meaning was meant!), and that adam in its first uses in Genesis already refers to maleness, despite the clear inclusiveness of both Genesis 1:26 and 27 before Adam is ever created.</I>Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-60818734307784505982007-03-19T19:01:00.000-07:002007-03-19T19:01:00.000-07:00On that basis Bryan we might as well give up as no...On that basis Bryan we might as well give up as none of us was alive in the first century (strangely enough!!)<BR/>If, to understand God's Word, one has to have lived in the first Century and have been a native speaker of Greek (again I assume during the first century) then we are left with the somewhat ridiculous situation that no Christian could have possibly have understood Gods word for the last over 1900 years.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I find that sort of thinking to be not only dubious, but farcical.<BR/><BR/>If you have a serious comment then please make it, but do not expect me to give the slightest credence to such a patently ridiculous line of (supposed) reasoning.Glennsphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18157051195736064330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-54132274633028737902007-03-19T18:16:00.000-07:002007-03-19T18:16:00.000-07:00As a result we get the endless streams of attack a...<I>As a result we get the endless streams of attack against the (certain) words of God under the guise of supposedly bringing new understanding and clarity.</I><BR/><BR/>Glenn,<BR/><BR/>As I have said so many times, I am just trying to get back to an older understanding, to the days <BR/>of the King James Bible, If you don't like the King James Bible then say so. Obviously Grudem either does not like it or is not familiar with it.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-51897331192452609502007-03-19T16:19:00.000-07:002007-03-19T16:19:00.000-07:00Glennsp,You said,"...it is very clear, despite som...Glennsp,<BR/>You said,<BR/>"...it is very clear, despite some claims to the contrary - the problem is simply that people don't want to submit to Gods word in this area."<BR/><BR/>Really? Are you a native speaker of Greek? Were you part of the original audience? Did you live in the first century in Ephesus? Were you part of the church that Paul was writing to?<BR/><BR/>The only way you can really say how clear it is, is if you can answer yes to these questions. Otherwise all you are really saying is it's clear to you based on your reading of an English bible, your world view and the understanding you bring to this verse based on what you've been taught and become convinced of.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you wouldn't just as easily say other verses, which seem to cause you trouble and that you're uncomfortable with, are that clear, and neither would you want to admit that you just don't want to submit to the word of God because you don't take those verses at "face value".<BR/><BR/>If you don't agree with Suzanne then answer and address the points in her argument. Don't just respond with rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Bryan LBryan Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04144487212639973542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-43182262230780432532007-03-19T15:09:00.000-07:002007-03-19T15:09:00.000-07:00And I would agree, that as a translator, it would ...<I>And I would agree, that as a translator, it would be best to leave these "as is" and not try to "fix" the difficulties.</I><BR/><BR/>That is what I think. In my opinion the ESV does more of this fixing than the TNIV. I don't think that changing the generic pronoun matters in terms of truth., on eway or the other. But the TNIV does not edit out the hard sayings. <BR/><BR/>But the ESV changes 1 Cor. 11:10, 1 Tim. 2:12 and Romans 16:7. The ESV just went around and tidied all these verses up thereby trying to close down debate. I am trying to keep debate open, keep people's eyes open to the Greek. <BR/><BR/>Then we can discuss interpretation after that.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-69872108477102669922007-03-19T14:11:00.000-07:002007-03-19T14:11:00.000-07:00Wayne,"we need to be open ourselves up to the poss...Wayne,<BR/><BR/><I>"we need to be open ourselves up to the possibility that authentein refers to a domineering kind of usurping authority away from men who had authority, and that the teaching referred to is connected with that power struggle."</I><BR/><BR/>I guess what I am saying, is that the authority part of the verse is a mute point when Paul has just said he doesn't allow women to teach (because many times in the whole argument on this passage it always comes back to teaching, not asserting authority...because how can you assert authority over someone if you can't speak in public? Sure, privately you might, and maybe that's what Paul is talking about here - but I've never heard someone talk about that). <BR/><BR/>Having authority over a man, regardless of what type it is - it is authority, once you have 51%, you have authority, even if you have 99% - so I don't think it matters.<BR/><BR/>But can someone really be in authority if they only have %49 of the power?<BR/><BR/>-NathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-29143300394590373622007-03-19T14:05:00.000-07:002007-03-19T14:05:00.000-07:00Suzanne,"Now, we can go back to the KJV. In 1 Tim....Suzanne,<BR/><BR/><I>"Now, we can go back to the KJV. In 1 Tim. Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach ..." But in Corinthians women were prohesying, women have always been prophets, prophets are ranked above teachers, so now what? ...."</I><BR/><BR/>You are right, there are things about Paul that make it difficult, besides our own culture. But, Paul never commands a woman to prophesy in church (yes, it does seem like they were and he even gives instruction about it in 1 cor. 11, which is again, a difficult passage), and yet he does command that they not teach and that they keep silent (the silent comes from the letter to the Corinthian church).<BR/><BR/>"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)<BR/><BR/>This is a hard saying. And I would agree, that as a translator, it would be best to leave these "as is" and not try to "fix" the difficulties.<BR/><BR/>-NathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-43804058971669967652007-03-19T14:01:00.000-07:002007-03-19T14:01:00.000-07:00The problem is not what Paul wrote - it is very cl...The problem is not what Paul wrote - it is very clear, despite some claims to the contrary - the problem is simply that people don't want to submit to Gods word in this area.<BR/>As a result we get the endless streams of attack against the (certain) words of God under the guise of supposedly bringing new understanding and clarity.Glennsphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18157051195736064330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-36540529165998296942007-03-19T12:30:00.000-07:002007-03-19T12:30:00.000-07:00Nathan,I understand what you are saying. There are...Nathan,<BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying. There are several different issues at stake here.<BR/><BR/>First, what is the correct translation? I favour something moderate - possibly ambiguous. I think interpretation should play a very modest role in bible translation. <BR/><BR/>Second, how do we interpret Paul? That is another question. I am trying here to work with the translation primarily. But if someone else says, "We can prove that the Greek is unambiguous" I need to show people that that is wishful thinking. These men are misguided. <BR/><BR/>Now, we can go back to the KJV. In 1 Tim. Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach ..." But in Corinthians women were prohesying, women have always been prophets, prophets are ranked above teachers, so now what? .... <BR/><BR/>Paul also says in 1 Tim. to get married, but in 1 Cor. that it is better not too. <BR/><BR/>There are two seemingly different ethics at work here. What do we make of it? <BR/><BR/>We must also remember that there are so many differences throughout history in social organization. Education divided into secular and sacred spheres, is relatively recent. Education and institutions have been at times segregated for men and women. So the very organization into spheres is not God given but variable. <BR/><BR/>In the early and medieval church, in the Catholic church until recently, there were abbeys run by abesses, with advanced training and influence. They reached the top as leaders of segregated institutions. This is usually no longer open to women today. <BR/><BR/>There has been no century without women leaders and teachers, and to posit a permanent role relationship between men and women of leadership - submission is to distort both men and women. <BR/><BR/>We need to be more aware of women through history, of Hilda of Whitby, a teacher of men and women, of Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, Anne Hutchinson, Phoebe Palmer, Florence Li Tim Oi. We need to really know who these women preachers were and are. They all google fairly well I think.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-21898256700284200412007-03-19T12:16:00.000-07:002007-03-19T12:16:00.000-07:00Nathan commented:I think Paul settled the whole wo...Nathan commented:<BR/><BR/><I>I think Paul settled the whole women pastor issue right then, he said women are not allowed to teach.<BR/><BR/>Yet, we have a problem with that - because of course, Paul could not have really meant what he wrote, what he wrote must mean something else. Our box doesn't have room for Paul.</I><BR/><BR/>We need to consider the possibility that we have not correctly understood the Greek of this verse. That's not Paul's problem, it's ours. Elsewhere Paul speaks positively about women teaching, such as Priscilla (with the help of her husband) teaching Apollos. And surely there was some kind of teaching going on when women prophesied, which Paul approved of.<BR/><BR/>I recommend that we need to be open ourselves up to the possibility that <I>authentein</I> refers to a domineering kind of usurping authority away from men who had authority, and that the teaching referred to is connected with that power struggle. We also need to look at the context of all of 1 Tim. where it is clear that there was false doctrine being taught. We always need to interpret commandments within the context in which they are given.<BR/><BR/>We need to notice, also, that when Paul elsewhere discusses the gift of teaching it is not connected to gender. If Paul believed that women should never teach in the assembly, one would think that he would have said that each time he referred to the teaching gift, not just when he wrote to Timothy where there were women at the church at Ephesus teaching false doctrine.<BR/><BR/>This is not an easy passage to understand. We need to be gracious to each person who tries to understand what Paul meant by what he said. This principle applies to each of us toward each other person who sincerely tries, with God's help, to understand what Paul was saying.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-91863516183722042992007-03-19T11:55:00.000-07:002007-03-19T11:55:00.000-07:00I understand and I don't mean to throw out my Engl...I understand and I don't mean to throw out my English Bibles anytime soon.<BR/><BR/>Your comment does make things clearer.<BR/><BR/>It is an interesting discussion, and sometimes I feel because of our preconceived ideas and our culture it makes it extremely difficult for us to come at this text and understand it.<BR/><BR/>I mean, Paul says he doesn't allow women to teach and then adds the part about authority. So is it, "I do not allow women to teach (because that is assuming authority over a man)", or "I do not allow women to teach if that causes them to assume authority over a man"?<BR/><BR/>I think Paul settled the whole women pastor issue right then, he said women are not allowed to teach.<BR/><BR/>Yet, we have a problem with that - because of course, Paul could not have really meant what he wrote, what he wrote must mean something else. Our box doesn't have room for Paul.<BR/><BR/>-NathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-68684846573296456042007-03-19T10:53:00.000-07:002007-03-19T10:53:00.000-07:00Nathan,I am saying the exact opposite of that. I t...Nathan,<BR/><BR/>I am saying the exact opposite of that. I trust the older traditional bibles in terms of translation more than some of the recent ones. <BR/><BR/>Here is this verse through the ages. <BR/><BR/>- Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. A.D.): “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man [neque dominari viro]. (209) <BR/><BR/>- Vulgate (4th-5th): “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man [neque dominari in virum].” (209) <BR/><BR/>- Geneva (1560 edition): “I permit not a woman to teache, nether vfurpe [usurp] authoritie ouer the man.” (210) <BR/><BR/>- King James Version (1611): “I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to usurpe authoritie over the man.” (210)<BR/><BR/>Why are we so eager to believe a group of men like Knight and Baldwin, who don't even notice which word in the sentence is a translation of <I>authentein</I>? They say that they have found something new. That <I>authentein</I> means to 'have a position of proper authority'. They made a mistake. <BR/><BR/>I say, no, let's go back to the traditional understanding of this verse, if anything.<BR/><BR/>And it is the same with Junia. It was in this century that men discovered, so they say, that Junia was known 'to the apostles' not 'to be among them'. <BR/><BR/>I stand for the traditional ground, for the firm and stable understandings of 19 centuries of bible translation. <BR/><BR/>So don't throw out your old bibles. Assuming that the KJV would be one of your old biblies. <BR/><BR/>Now I do not stand for women having the same status that they had in previous centuries. Nor do I condone slavery.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-43213568990242258112007-03-19T10:03:00.000-07:002007-03-19T10:03:00.000-07:00It's good to know we can't know and that all the B...It's good to know we can't know and that all the Bible translations in English up to this point have been wrong. I guess I go throw out all my translations now....<BR/><BR/>-nathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-74007594186571995042007-03-19T07:51:00.000-07:002007-03-19T07:51:00.000-07:00Jeremy,I was asked some specific questions about t...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>I was asked some specific questions about this topic. I didn't have time to deal with them before. This kind of research is vital. Someone has to read these studies thoroughly and understand if they have any validity. <BR/><BR/>Okay, I am a little bit surprised at what I found.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-55514470257168593592007-03-19T05:46:00.000-07:002007-03-19T05:46:00.000-07:00Suzanne,Maybe you should just start a new blog for...Suzanne,<BR/><BR/>Maybe you should just start a new blog for this topic. I used to enjoy reading this blog because I am interested in Bible translation. Now it just seems like a place for you to vent.<BR/><BR/>JeremyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com