The Problem with Dynamic Equivalence

Nas What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Nkjv What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You him?

Any wonder we prefer more formal translations?

 

1 Timothy 2:12

NIV : "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."'

Paul is saying he does not permit or allow a woman to teach. She is not to assume authority over a man. That is she is not allowed to exercise authority over a man. She is not to supplant a man's position or place of authority. She is not to take it upon herself to take his role.

BDAG: "To assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to."

The KJV renders it as 'usurp' which pretty much means the same thing as assume.

So, to summarize: Paul is telling us that a woman can't teach or have authority over a man. She is to remain quiet.

Are we clear here?

 

Is there any wonder why you can't understand plain English?

I take the time to explain, again, and whoosh, it's like you can't take in English basics.

 

The Nas states it as not allowing a women to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, seems to be stronger language...

 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (NIV)

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

I would argue that the NIV seems more forceful. "She must be quiet" vs. "But to remain quiet".

Either way, it would be an over reach. Both translations have the same exact meaning.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I don't have those versions.

 

Our brother Rippon really disagrees that there was ANY christian feminist agendas behind the new translations, but they does indeed seem to be a concerted effort to "Demasculinize" the Bible!
And Jesus Himself stated as you said, that He to be found in the OT scriptures, so would trust His view over some contemporary translations!

 

Brother Rippon posted what the niv stated on those verses, what do you think?

 

In Ezekiel the term son of man is used more than 80 times. It has no reference to Christ.

Don't let your zeal overwhelm common sense and decency. This has nothing to do with a feminist plot. You and Y1 are a bit zany for saying such things repeatedly.

" Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (Fee and Strauss)

"These quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general." (John MacArthur)

Three out of four commentaries on Hebrews do not think that the term 'son of man' functions as a Messianic title.

 

So you are saying that you have never stated that my view concernng Christian feminism creeping over into Bible translations was wrong?

 

Jesus keep pointing back to the Hebrew OT Son of man as Him being foreshadowed, so why would we want the translators to not agree with Him on this issue?

 

I said that the term son of man is used more than in 80 times in the book of Ezekiel and is not referencing Christ. Do you dispute that?

A distinction without a difference. It's your fantasy boogieman.

Do you think john MacArthur and D.A. Carson subscribe to your nonsense conspiracy? If so you are wacko.

The point is --you have no point. Your reasoning is like that of a KJVO.

The translators that you so often demean are honoring the Word of God and honest in their attempt at translation.

You are simply throwing mud.

 

You are zany.

In past threads I have quoted from the 2011 NIV
1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9
Col. 3:18
1 Tim. 2:11-13
1 Peter 2:1,5, 7

You made no comment on any of those verses. There is no feminist plot in any of them. There is no blurring of gender roles. There is nothing in your absurd charges that you have made over the past 96 months regarding the NIV. You make stuff up constantly. But a lie is still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. A Christian is not to lie --but you do. And you seem to enjoy the practice. You relish the opportunity to engage in falsehood as often as possible with no hint that you feel any shame.

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
See the real need for the revision !

 

Well worth repeating. Y1 cannot bear the thought of dealing with actual content.

Tell me the passages above as rendered in the NIV support your wild-eyed contentions.

Can't do it? Then don't manufacture lies in the first place.

 

Below is a snip of what albert Barnes had to say about the term son of man in Psalm 8.

"Any descendant of man --any one of the race. What was man, as he was originally made, that such exalted honor should have been conferred on him; and what has any one of his descendants become, in virtue of his native faculties or acquired endowments, that he should be thus honored? ….there was nothing in man, considered in any respect, that entitled him to this exalted name."

 

Don't look for Him when He is not there.

For some examples in the KJV and NKJV it says in the book of Mark that He came into Capernaum, but based on the best documentation they came into that city. (9:33)

See also 11:19 where your favorite version has He, but it should read they went out of the city.

 

Jesus tied Himself into the OT prophecies of the Son of Man, so why would we try to exclude Him from being there?