Then tell us the source that he cites to come up with this strange interpretation...So what sources does he use to support this?</font>[/QUOTE]He IS a source. You're saying his expertise in the subject is wrong. If I can find you a written source, will you believe it? I don't believe you will. I think you'll just find a source to back up your view, and we'll go back and forth. It's not in the interest of ultrafundamentalism to accept anything different that your interpretation.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bible Translation: Christian Liberty?
- Thread starter kman
- Start date
Okay, well just for internet starters:
www.incommunion.org describes word word as :"in non-militaryuse the word was used to mean 'a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assumingresponsibility, and carrying a burden'
www.soencouragement.org states: "We err greatly when we do not place this text in the setting of mutual submission and love."
www.godswordtowomen.org states, "Paul's intended meaning [of submit] as being to identify with. It has nothing to do with being put under.
www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org talks about Pauls "mutualness" of the word by saying that two "can both be mutually obedient and obeyed at the same time. There is no distinction in this", according to Paul's context.
www.baraboowcg.org states: "Paul was telling women they should voluntarily, willingly and actively cooperate with" their husbands, not commanded by them, since the Greek word for this type of sumbission is different altogether.
I also stumbled upon numerous implications that suggest an implied relationship between Pauls' use of the word hupotasso (submit) and hupakouo (listen), and you'd think in many places, that these words could be interchangeable in the Greek common usage of Paul's time.
www.incommunion.org describes word word as :"in non-militaryuse the word was used to mean 'a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assumingresponsibility, and carrying a burden'
www.soencouragement.org states: "We err greatly when we do not place this text in the setting of mutual submission and love."
www.godswordtowomen.org states, "Paul's intended meaning [of submit] as being to identify with. It has nothing to do with being put under.
www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org talks about Pauls "mutualness" of the word by saying that two "can both be mutually obedient and obeyed at the same time. There is no distinction in this", according to Paul's context.
www.baraboowcg.org states: "Paul was telling women they should voluntarily, willingly and actively cooperate with" their husbands, not commanded by them, since the Greek word for this type of sumbission is different altogether.
I also stumbled upon numerous implications that suggest an implied relationship between Pauls' use of the word hupotasso (submit) and hupakouo (listen), and you'd think in many places, that these words could be interchangeable in the Greek common usage of Paul's time.
Pete Richert
New Member
I admit that I struggle a bit with KJV English. I'm sure if I read it more it would become more familiar. I spend a lot of time just trying to understand what the KJV is saying in English, even before I begin to figure out what God is telling His church. I can speed up the process quite a bit just by opening the NKJV.
I can't say the KJV is too difficult for the modern reader since I know many on this board use it with ease. But I often buy Bibles for non-belivers and I never consider the KJV. I want them reading and understanding God's word the moment they open the text (if I can even get them to do that) and not need to spend a couple of weeks or more getting used to the language that is not natural. I am in the electrical engineering world (Stanford and now Sun Microsystems) and most of my collegues and friends speak English as a second language (usually not terribly well). They have a particularily hard time reading from the KJV; indeed, they usually have a hard enough time reading any English.
I can't say the KJV is too difficult for the modern reader since I know many on this board use it with ease. But I often buy Bibles for non-belivers and I never consider the KJV. I want them reading and understanding God's word the moment they open the text (if I can even get them to do that) and not need to spend a couple of weeks or more getting used to the language that is not natural. I am in the electrical engineering world (Stanford and now Sun Microsystems) and most of my collegues and friends speak English as a second language (usually not terribly well). They have a particularily hard time reading from the KJV; indeed, they usually have a hard enough time reading any English.
What makes him a source? The fact that some can teach or that people listen to him does not make one a credible source. I am telling you that the text in question does not mean what you say it does based both on grammar and lexicography. When Paul told the wives to submit to the husbands, he meant just that. There is no place in Scripture where the husbands are told to submit to the wives. Peter informs us that not even unbelieving husbands are to be rebelled against; wives are to submit to them as well.Originally posted by Johnv:
He IS a source. You're saying his expertise in the subject is wrong.
I am not an ultrafundamentalist. I do not know what that means. What is more proper to say is that it is not in the interest of Bible-believers to accept anything other than what the Scripture teaches. I am perfectly willing to look up any source you might have that is a credible source. I want to see a grammar, a Greek commentary, or a lexicon. I don't want to see a website of someone with no credentials. Anyone can put up a website; it takes credibility to get published.It's not in the interest of ultrafundamentalism to accept anything different that your interpretation.
Here is a link to a published work that shows the teaching of Eph 5 to be incompatible with your claim. The reasoning is essentially this: Husband/wife is analogous to Christ and the church. There is not mutual submission between Christ and the church. It goes one way -- from the church to Christ. Husbands are to love their wives, not lord over them to be sure. But wives are to be subject to their husbands just as the church is to be to Christ. The article is by George Knight who is a respected and published Greek scholar. He did the NIGCT volume on the pastoral epistles.
Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church
[ June 12, 2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
What makes him a source? The fact that some can teach or that people listen to him does not make one a credible source.
He's certainly as knowledgeable on the subject as you are, probably more so, in my opinion.
When Paul told the wives to submit to the husbands, he meant just that. You're defining submitting as authoritarian manner, and, even if you disagree with my view, it's already been shown here that your view is only true in the root word's active tense, and Paul here did not write it in the active sense.
There is no place in Scripture where the husbands are told to submit to the wives. Then, going on your mentality, wives should not love their husbands, because it only says "Husbands, love your wives".
The whole context of the Bible is clear that both husbands and wives are to submit to ear other, and that both are to love each other.
Sorry brother, but I get from you that you feel only your view of the Bible is correct. Are you open to believing that you might have an incorrect view of what the bible teaches on some items? I know I am. I interpreted many things as you did once.
He's certainly as knowledgeable on the subject as you are, probably more so, in my opinion.
When Paul told the wives to submit to the husbands, he meant just that. You're defining submitting as authoritarian manner, and, even if you disagree with my view, it's already been shown here that your view is only true in the root word's active tense, and Paul here did not write it in the active sense.
There is no place in Scripture where the husbands are told to submit to the wives. Then, going on your mentality, wives should not love their husbands, because it only says "Husbands, love your wives".
The whole context of the Bible is clear that both husbands and wives are to submit to ear other, and that both are to love each other.
Sorry brother, but I get from you that you feel only your view of the Bible is correct. Are you open to believing that you might have an incorrect view of what the bible teaches on some items? I know I am. I interpreted many things as you did once.
I should hope he is more knowledgeable that I am since you say he is a teacher. However, you still have yet to give any support for your position that comes from a credible source. I have given support for mine. You have not. You haven't even given this guy's name, where he teaches, what his credentials and background are, or anything of the like. For all we know, this is some guy getting his Greek out of hte back of Strong's concordance. You have given us no reason to believe him. As I have said, I would love to have some references where this view is supported but so far your best effort is an unnamed teacher at an unnamed school and a few webpages. Give me something to work with here. I want to know what you are saying.Originally posted by Johnv:
What makes him a source? The fact that some can teach or that people listen to him does not make one a credible source.
He's certainly as knowledgeable on the subject as you are, probably more so, in my opinion.
First, the word is a variant in the Majority text (pres middle imperative). In the Eclectic text it is understood from v. 21 where it is a present pass participle. Second, the middle or passive means to "subject oneself, be subjected or subordeinated, obey" (BAGD, 848). Furthermore, with the dative (as in Eph 5:22) it is "of actual subordination to persons worthy of respect ... toward the husbandd ... parents ... masters ... secular authorities ... church officials ... God ... Chriist ... will of God ..." (BAGD, 848). It is certianly a voluntary yielding in love as you say. But the idea of reciprocity in submission is not found in any of these concepts. Thus, BAGD does not agree with your contention about the active tense.When Paul told the wives to submit to the husbands, he meant just that. You're defining submitting as authoritarian manner, and, even if you disagree with my view, it's already been shown here that your view is only true in the root word's active tense, and Paul here did not write it in the active sense.
That is an abuse of what I said and you know it. The dynamic of the husband-wife relationship is to be one of a loving leader in the husband with a respectfully submissive wife. Paul's point is talking about the leadership in the home -- the husband is the leader, the head of the house.There is no place in Scripture where the husbands are told to submit to the wives. Then, going on your mentality, wives should not love their husbands, because it only says "Husbands, love your wives".
This is funny ... You know about incorrect views because you interpreted things as I did once??? I am very willing to admit that I might be incorrect on some things. There are many things I do not understand ... like your view here. Unfortunately, you will not offer any credible support for it so I can study it.Sorry brother, but I get from you that you feel only your view of the Bible is correct. Are you open to believing that you might have an incorrect view of what the bible teaches on some items? I know I am. I interpreted many things as you did once.
However, when the text of Scripture speaks clearly to an issue, we do not have the option to disagree with it. I don't know what axe you are trying to grind here. Based on what you have said here, I think there may be some philosophical issues that are clouding your interpretation but who knows.
In the bottom line, the text is what we have from God. We better handle it with care.
[ June 12, 2002, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
In the interest of anonymity, I won't be divulging my own name, nor the name of my Bible teacher. Same reason I don't list the name of my church on my profile. There are others I attend with who are on this board as well, and it would infringe upon their right to privacy as well. This is, after all, the internet.
However, I can tell you that my Bible teacher is professor at Azusa Pacific University. He also taught at Fuller Theological Seminary, as well as spending a few years at Liberty Baptist. (He perfers the weather here in Southern California).
I can also tell you that he does have material published in regards to biblical lexicology, but I'm not sure if this subject has been put on paper.
I have indeed given you internet references to my point. You either did not look at them, or disregarded them. I assumed you would do one or the other. Since I haven't been in college in about 15 years, I really can't give you more than that without doing some library research.
As for your definitions, you're discussing tenses. I'm discussing voices. The active voice is authority. The middle is voluntary. The passive is even more so, but implies no authoritarian directive at all. But there's a probalem with what you'r saying. You're using definitions alone, without context. Context here is everything. Taking one verse here and using it is a bastardization on Paul's message.
As for your retort on husbands not having to love their wives, I'm using your method. You seem to neglect that Paul also tells us to submit to one another as to Christ. That means both husbands AND wives should submit to one another. In Paul's directive, if you both submit, then there's no leader, no authority. Mutual submission is by its very nature cooperative and voluntary, and is exactly the context of Paul's usage of the word in this verse. Man is not meant to be the authority of his wife, any more than woman is to be the sole lover.
If a man requires his wife to submit to him as though he were the authority, then the submission is not voluntary, not mutual, and not biblical. Likewise, if a woman does not allow her husband to love her, the same applies.
This is something I've thought long and hard over. I've prayed over this intently. I've asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this is clearly what the Holy Spirit tells me. You're insisting that I use a greek dictionary to back up what I'm saying. There's no way to do that. The only way to have a sense of this is to refer to experts who have detailed knowlege of the culture of the time. I've done that. Even if I brought Paul himself here to explain, I doubt many would listen, because they're so stuck on the letters of the words, they neglect the spirit of the words.
[ June 12, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
However, I can tell you that my Bible teacher is professor at Azusa Pacific University. He also taught at Fuller Theological Seminary, as well as spending a few years at Liberty Baptist. (He perfers the weather here in Southern California).
I can also tell you that he does have material published in regards to biblical lexicology, but I'm not sure if this subject has been put on paper.
I have indeed given you internet references to my point. You either did not look at them, or disregarded them. I assumed you would do one or the other. Since I haven't been in college in about 15 years, I really can't give you more than that without doing some library research.
As for your definitions, you're discussing tenses. I'm discussing voices. The active voice is authority. The middle is voluntary. The passive is even more so, but implies no authoritarian directive at all. But there's a probalem with what you'r saying. You're using definitions alone, without context. Context here is everything. Taking one verse here and using it is a bastardization on Paul's message.
As for your retort on husbands not having to love their wives, I'm using your method. You seem to neglect that Paul also tells us to submit to one another as to Christ. That means both husbands AND wives should submit to one another. In Paul's directive, if you both submit, then there's no leader, no authority. Mutual submission is by its very nature cooperative and voluntary, and is exactly the context of Paul's usage of the word in this verse. Man is not meant to be the authority of his wife, any more than woman is to be the sole lover.
If a man requires his wife to submit to him as though he were the authority, then the submission is not voluntary, not mutual, and not biblical. Likewise, if a woman does not allow her husband to love her, the same applies.
This is something I've thought long and hard over. I've prayed over this intently. I've asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and this is clearly what the Holy Spirit tells me. You're insisting that I use a greek dictionary to back up what I'm saying. There's no way to do that. The only way to have a sense of this is to refer to experts who have detailed knowlege of the culture of the time. I've done that. Even if I brought Paul himself here to explain, I doubt many would listen, because they're so stuck on the letters of the words, they neglect the spirit of the words.
[ June 12, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
John,
If you source has published materials, then I am pretty sure he won't mind his name being mentioned.
As for what the Holy Spirit tells you, I can assure you that he did not tell you something that contradicts what he said in the text.
As for tenses and voices, if you note my above post, I referenced teh passive middle voice. I have yet to reference a tense except to comment on the words in question. I cited the appropriate pages from BAGD that talked about the word in the passive voice. In other words, you and I were talking about the same thing. I gave proof besides the mystical and flexible "The Holy Spirit told me." What if I said, "The Holy Spirit told me you were wrong"? Will you change your view and agree with me since I claim the Holy Spirit? I doubt it for obvious reasons.
As for the internet references, I did not look them up and I told you why. I want established reputable Greek scholars. I don't want the word of any yo yo with a computer and a modem. I have yet to find one Greek scholar who agrees with you and you don't even have any. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.
However, since this is getting nowhere, I will back out. If you have some sources, please list them. I would love to see them.
If you source has published materials, then I am pretty sure he won't mind his name being mentioned.
As for what the Holy Spirit tells you, I can assure you that he did not tell you something that contradicts what he said in the text.
As for tenses and voices, if you note my above post, I referenced teh passive middle voice. I have yet to reference a tense except to comment on the words in question. I cited the appropriate pages from BAGD that talked about the word in the passive voice. In other words, you and I were talking about the same thing. I gave proof besides the mystical and flexible "The Holy Spirit told me." What if I said, "The Holy Spirit told me you were wrong"? Will you change your view and agree with me since I claim the Holy Spirit? I doubt it for obvious reasons.
As for the internet references, I did not look them up and I told you why. I want established reputable Greek scholars. I don't want the word of any yo yo with a computer and a modem. I have yet to find one Greek scholar who agrees with you and you don't even have any. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.
First, I did not ignore what Paul said, but that was not the verse you were talking about. Second, in Paul's directive there is very clearly an authority in the home (as well as in other directives in Scripture). I can't believe you are actually denying this (if indeed you are).You seem to neglect that Paul also tells us to submit to one another as to Christ. That means both husbands AND wives should submit to one another. In Paul's directive, if you both submit, then there's no leader, no authority. Mutual submission is by its very nature cooperative and voluntary, and is exactly the context of Paul's usage of the word in this verse. Man is not meant to be the authority of his wife, any more than woman is to be the sole lover.
Which experts did you listen to? This is what I am trying to find out from you. I want these references to these "experts who have detailed knowlege of the culture of the time."The only way to have a sense of this is to refer to experts who have detailed knowlege of the culture of the time. I've done that.
Paul wrote the letter of the words. The only way we know the spirit is by knowing the letter of the words. This is a common ploy on the part of many who wish to deny clear teaching of Scripture in order to foster their own views. I am not saying you are doing this; I am saying that many do and it is a very weak exegetical and theological method.Even if I brought Paul himself here to explain, I doubt many would listen, because they're so stuck on the letters of the words, they neglect the spirit of the words.
However, since this is getting nowhere, I will back out. If you have some sources, please list them. I would love to see them.
Out of curiosity, I am looking at John's supporting sources. The first one is from a Russian Orthodox website.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
...As for the internet references, I did not look them up and I told you why. I want established reputable Greek scholars. I don't want the word of any yo yo with a computer and a modem. I have yet to find one Greek scholar who agrees with you and you don't even have any. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.
Here are more excerpts from the article he cites:
"The idea of women submitting to their husbands, and of a husband being ''the head of thewife'', is admittedly not the sort of thing that you might read in most modern literature on thesubject. It seems to advocate a kind of marital state in which women's opinions are secondaryto their husbands', a situation which the women's movement has been trying to correct forseveral decades now.
Because it was our wedding, and because I feel strongly that the truth of this passage does notdeny ''women's rights'', I want to write something about what it means to me. I am not atheologian, and my knowledge of Orthodox theology is not strong."
However, she goes on to say:
"It's almost as if Paul were saying that a married couple is an icon, a way ofactually seeing the mystical truth of Christ and the church.
and
"Perhaps we, as women, have to examine our own reaction to being told to submit, to acknowledge someone else as our ''head''. This is admittedly a very difficult thing forintelligent, educated, healthy people to do. We bristle at the very thought. In Western culturetoday, intelligent women are those who recognize their own individual worth; many womenrefuse to change their names as a way of asserting their individuality; women demand to berecognized as equal before the law. So when it is suggested that we submit to our husbands,men ought to understand what an extremely difficult thing is being asked of us. But it is beingasked of us, because without our submission the icon of marriage is incomplete."
In the article, the writer tries to reconcile her modern feminist world view with her religion without admitting contradictions. In addition to the quote John cites, she acknowledges that she got her information from a concordance and that the word in question is used of man's required submission to God.
On the same website, an author who apparently is a theologian writes:
"While appreciating the social role of women and welcoming their political, cultural and social equality with men, the Church opposes the tendency to diminish the role of woman as wife and mother. The fundamental equality of the sexes does not annihilate the natural distinction between them, nor does it imply the identity of their callings in family and society. In particular, the Church cannot misconstrue the words of St. Paul about the special responsibility of husband who is called to be "the head of the wife" who loves her as Christ loves His Church, and about the calling of the wife to obey the husband as the Church obeys Christ (Eph. 5:22-23; Col. 3:18). These words are not of course about the despotism of husband or the slavery of wife, but about supremacy in responsibility, care and love. It should not be forgotten either that all Christians are called to "submit themselves to one another in the fear of God" (Eph. 5:21). Therefore, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God" (1 Cor. 11:11-12)."
If I understand John's argument, neither this site nor even the author of the article he quotes agrees with his position.
I just looked at the second of John's links. It is a couple who run a marriage and family counselling practice in the Bahamas. They apparently belong to the Seventh Day Adventist. In the article in question, the author offers no more textual proof than Johnv does.
Here is an interesting quote that gives the flavor: "Where do these ideas originate? Over the years we have developed our concept of manhood and womanhood based on traditional interpretation of scripture. I am encouraging men and women to take a second look at these traditions and Biblical passages. Why? As stated in my previous article, "A Deadly Formula or Violence," history shows that when rigid traditional family values are combined with rigid religious beliefs, there is always abuse, whether it be slavery, incest, communism, sexism, rape, or physical and emotional abuse."
So believing in the Bible and in a home where morality and obedience are expected causes these things?!!!
I scanned the article "A Deadly Formula for Violence." The author equates the SBC votes denying women leadership roles and stating that wives should submit to their husbands with abuse. He asks: "Why would they vote such an action? Is it because men are intimidated by the progressive leadership of women? Could it be it is a effort to keep women "in their place" below men, so that men can control the wealth of this world and monopolize apostolic and political authority?."...or perhaps they just read the Bible without filtering it through a politically correct worldview.
He boils it down to this: "My solemn question is "What qualifies a man to be the head of his wife when both of them are equally made in the image of God, endowed with the same power of self-determination: to reason, to think and to act?"
From what I have seen of his writings, he is willing to sacrifice the authority of scripture in favor of pop psychology when necessary.
[ June 14, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
Here is an interesting quote that gives the flavor: "Where do these ideas originate? Over the years we have developed our concept of manhood and womanhood based on traditional interpretation of scripture. I am encouraging men and women to take a second look at these traditions and Biblical passages. Why? As stated in my previous article, "A Deadly Formula or Violence," history shows that when rigid traditional family values are combined with rigid religious beliefs, there is always abuse, whether it be slavery, incest, communism, sexism, rape, or physical and emotional abuse."
So believing in the Bible and in a home where morality and obedience are expected causes these things?!!!
I scanned the article "A Deadly Formula for Violence." The author equates the SBC votes denying women leadership roles and stating that wives should submit to their husbands with abuse. He asks: "Why would they vote such an action? Is it because men are intimidated by the progressive leadership of women? Could it be it is a effort to keep women "in their place" below men, so that men can control the wealth of this world and monopolize apostolic and political authority?."...or perhaps they just read the Bible without filtering it through a politically correct worldview.
He boils it down to this: "My solemn question is "What qualifies a man to be the head of his wife when both of them are equally made in the image of God, endowed with the same power of self-determination: to reason, to think and to act?"
From what I have seen of his writings, he is willing to sacrifice the authority of scripture in favor of pop psychology when necessary.
[ June 14, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]