Challenging traditional Translation choices.

[RipponRedeaux]

Van's fixation about using the word 'person' in the first clause of 1 Cor. 11:3 is patently absurd. The person, Van, stands alone in his 'translation.' There is not a single legitimate version that uses that word there.

Let's see how much sense it makes in some snippets later on in the following verses.

v. 4 : Every person who prays or prophesies...
v. 7 : A person ought not to cover their head...
v. 8 : For people did not come from women...
v. 12 : For as women came from people
v. 14 : if a person has long hair

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:

This version of 1 Corinthians 11:3 is apparently consistent with Greek grammar:

Yet I am willing you be aware that the head of every person is the Christ, even so the head of a wife is the husband, as God is the head of Christ

While each born anew person's head is Christ, the wife models our relationship with God by acting under the authority of her loving husband, as we operate under the authority of our loving God. This helps to imbue our families with an understanding of doing for others based on love. For example, if you love God, you will keep His commandments.

Just as organically the body takes direction from the head, in the spiritual body of Christ, the members submit to the leadership provided by the organization. Thus the head of the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed refers to the One who anointed the Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, thus God is the head of Christ. Born anew members of the body of Christ of course have Christ as their head, regardless of whether they are physically male or female. And within the God ordained relationship of marriage, both members are taught to submit to one another, with the husband commanded to sacrifice himself for his wife, and the wife commanded to submit to the godly leadership of the husband.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yet I am willing you be aware that the head of every person is the Christ, even so the head of a wife is the husband, as God is the head of Christ

But I want you to know...
But I want you to understand...
But I want you to realize...

There is no point in saying "Yet I am willing." That's weak. "I want you to..." is plain and to the point.

Aside from "Yet I am willing you be aware" being atrocious English, it isn't direct English.

"Willing you be aware" or even, more properly, "willing that you should be aware" is roundabout language. Why not use the straightforward approach?

And again, it's not "the head of every person." It is the head of every man. It's not the word 'person' connected in parallelism to the word 'wife.' It needs to be 'man' linked to 'woman.' Or, 'man' linked to 'wife.' You destroy Paul's meaning by your insistence of using 'person' and 'wife.'

To be consistent with your errant view, you would have to convert the wording of Ephesians 5:23 to "because the person is the head of the wife." But you are not known to be the hallmark of consistency Van. Ephesians 5:23 reads "because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church --he himself being the savior of the body." (NET). If you admit that in Ephesians 5:23 it should properly be "the husband is the head of the wife" ---then you should correct your 1 Cor. 11:3 'translation' to reflect the correct scriptural doctrine.

 

[Van]

SNIP

Returning to topic:

This version of 1 Corinthians 11:3 is apparently consistent with Greek grammar:

Yet I am willing you be aware that the head of every person is the Christ, even so the head of a wife is the husband, as God is the head of Christ

While each born anew person's head is Christ, the wife models our relationship with God by acting under the authority of her loving husband, as we operate under the authority of our loving God. This helps to imbue our families with an understanding of doing for others based on love. For example, if you love God, you will keep His commandments.

Just as organically the body takes direction from the head, in the spiritual body of Christ, the members submit to the leadership provided by the organization. Thus the head of the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed refers to the One who anointed the Christ to be His Lamb, His Redeemer, thus God is the head of Christ. Born anew members of the body of Christ of course have Christ as their head, regardless of whether they are physically male or female. And within the God ordained relationship of marriage, both members are taught to submit to one another, with the husband commanded to sacrifice himself for his wife, and the wife commanded to submit to the godly leadership of the husband.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But I want you to know...
But I want you to understand...
But I want you to realize...

There is no point in saying "Yet I am willing." That's weak. "I want you to..." is plain and to the point.

Aside from "Yet I am willing you be aware" being atrocious English, it isn't direct English.

"Willing you be aware" or even, more properly, "willing that you should be aware" is roundabout language. Why not use the straightforward approach?

And again, it's not "the head of every person." It is the head of every man. It's not the word 'person' connected in parallelism to the word 'wife.' It needs to be 'man' linked to 'woman.' Or, 'man' linked to 'wife.' You destroy Paul's meaning by your insistence of using 'person' and 'wife.'

To be consistent with your errant view, you would have to convert the wording of Ephesians 5:23 to "because the person is the head of the wife." But you are not known to be the hallmark of consistency Van. Ephesians 5:23 reads "because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church --he himself being the savior of the body." (NET). If you admit that in Ephesians 5:23 it should properly be "the husband is the head of the wife" ---then you should correct your 1 Cor. 11:3 'translation' to reflect the correct scriptural doctrine.

Amen to the above.

 

[agedman]

Typical of the OP’s methods, when confronted with facts, there is entrenchment into error.

To make the translation read “person” is submitting to the typical politically correct views of the modern translations. There is a lack of willingness to stand for truth in the light of being economically viable.

@Van even brings the accusation that the KJV is inaccurate!!!

The KJV mat certainly carry some archaic phrases that some may miss the depth of meaning, however, it is still the standard of accuracy that others reach to emulate.

For the record, I am not KJV only.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Typical of the OP’s methods, when confronted with facts, there is entrenchment into error.

To make the translation read “person” is submitting to the typical politically correct views of the modern translations. There is a lack of willingness to stand for truth in the light of being economically viable.

@Van even brings the accusation that the KJV is inaccurate!!!

The KJV mat certainly carry some archaic phrases that some may miss the depth of meaning, however, it is still the standard of accuracy that others reach to emulate.

For the record, I am not KJV only.

There is no modern version which has "person" in that verse. Van's 'translation' is totally unique and without any support whatsoever.

 

[Van]

Typical of the OP’s methods, when confronted with facts, there is entrenchment into error.

To make the translation read “person” is submitting to the typical politically correct views of the modern translations. There is a lack of willingness to stand for truth in the light of being economically viable.

@Van even brings the accusation that the KJV is inaccurate!!!

The KJV mat certainly carry some archaic phrases that some may miss the depth of meaning, however, it is still the standard of accuracy that others reach to emulate.

For the record, I am not KJV only.

The KJV is deeply flawed and to deny this basic truth is to engage in disinformation. Full Stop
To deny the word in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that is translated as "man" in the KJV means person as every born anew person, male or female has Christ as their head, is to assert fiction and not "stand for truth."
This poster when confronted with facts runs into entrenched error.

 

[agedman]

The KJV is deeply flawed and to deny this basic truth is to engage in disinformation. Full Stop
To deny the word in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that is translated as "man" in the KJV means person as every born anew person, male or female has Christ as their head, is to assert fiction and not "stand for truth."
This poster when confronted with facts runs into entrenched error.

Your contention is with merit or factual support for both the KJV and the passage of this thread.

But that is typical of your assertions in which you build a scaffolding of your own design.

If such construction were a singular occurrence on the BB, it might be pardoned.

 

[Van]

Your contention is with merit or factual support for both the KJV and the passage of this thread.

But that is typical of your assertions in which you build a scaffolding of your own design.

If such construction were a singular occurrence on the BB, it might be pardoned.

Yet another off topic personal attack. This all the advocates of falsehood offer. On the other hand, the topic of the meaning of the word translated wrongly as man in the KJV (and just about all others) actually means person because it includes born anew females. Did this poster address that "scaffolding" or was the topic dodged? Go figure.

 

[agedman]

Yet another off topic personal attack. This all the advocates of falsehood offer. On the other hand, the topic of the meaning of the word translated wrongly as man in the KJV (and just about all others) actually means person because it includes born anew females. Did this poster address that "scaffolding" or was the topic dodged? Go figure.

Van, there is not any reputable translation which can with any veracity translate as you have. It just isn’t correct.

You admit, “the word translated wrongly as man in the KJV (and just about all others) …” yet cling to some agenda driven wording that is just not correct. The translations are against you as well as those who are schooled in the language as has been demonstrated on this thread.

 

[Van]

Van, there is not any reputable translation which can with any veracity translate as you have. It just isn’t correct.

You admit, “the word translated wrongly as man in the KJV (and just about all others) …” yet cling to some agenda driven wording that is just not correct. The translations are against you as well as those who are schooled in the language as has been demonstrated on this thread.

Why not answer the question? Is Christ the head of female believers? Why run from truth and post deflection?
The word is translated as person, thus these word-smiths say "reputable" or "legitimate" translation so any translation that uses person can be discarded. Pure Twaddle!!!

 

[agedman]

Why not answer the question? Is Christ the head of female believers? Why run from truth and post deflection?
The word is translated as person, thus these word-smiths say "reputable" or "legitimate" translation so any translation that uses person can be discarded. Pure Twaddle!!!

Why should I have to answer the question, when the Scriptures are plainly set out for you in this thread by others?

You don't seem to respond to correction from them, and historically not from me, so to what value would warrant a response from your own denial of the truthful rendering of Scriptures.

Your thinking is not merely a matter of gender preference elimination, in which you seem to have bought into, but it is an affront to the very veracity of the Scriptures dictated and recorded accurately.

 

[Van]

SNIP

Failure to address truth demonstrates obfuscation.
Is Christ the head of female believers? The answer is of course, so person rather than man is the intended meaning in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

 

[Van]

There is no modern version which has "person" in that verse. Van's 'translation' is totally unique and without any support whatsoever.

No one professing worshiper of truth pushed back against this obvious falsehood. What did MLK say concerning how evil flourishes if good people take no action?

 

[Van]

Luke 11:31-32 The Queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, something greater than Solomon is here! The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them – and now, something greater than Jonah is here! (NET)

tn Grk “men”; the word here (ἀνήρ, anhr) usually indicates males or husbands, but occasionally is used in a generic sense of people in general, as is the case here (cf. BDAG 79 s.v. 1, 2). The same term, translated the same way, occurs in v. 32.

James 1:20 For human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. (NET)

tn The word translated “human” here is ἀνήρ (anhr), which often means “male” or “man (as opposed to woman).” But it sometimes is used generically to mean “anyone,” “a person” (cf. BDAG 79 s.v. 2), and in this context, contrasted with “God’s righteousness,” the point is “human” anger (not exclusively “male” anger).

The premise that "anhr" could not be used generically in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is false, and to deny Christ is the head of every believer, male and female is false. Women are taught to submit to their husbands as they submit to the Lord, thus Christ is their head too.

 

[Van]

MLK Jr is quoted as saying:

1. "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
2. "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

How many posters have acknowledged that Lexicons allow "anhr" to be translated as referring generically to people?
How many posters have acknowledged an available translation renders "anhr" as people in 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

[Van]

Here is another example of how easy it is to entrench masculine identity into the text.
NASB95 (James 1:8) being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

The Greek word translated "man" is "anhr" and contextually seems to be better translated as "person." However what does "his" indicate if not a man? Is there a handy way to have autos translated as indicating a person of either gender? Nope. Some change the singular into a plural, thus "unstable in all their ways." But if you stick with translating according to the grammar of the Greek, then that choice introduces error. Some eliminate the word, thus unstable in everything. And to go with "unstable in all of that one's ways" seems awkward. No, I am not claiming the KJV translators took the easy way out into error, but just that fixing a view that many accepted as true is not easy.

Here is a way the verse could be translated: "being a double-minded person, unstable in all that one's ways."

To claim James was only addressing male doubters and intended on excluding female doubters is dubious.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

No one professing worshiper of truth pushed back against this obvious falsehood.

No version (at least all listed on BibleGateway) has the word 'person' in I Cor. 11:3. You are continually waging a war against facts Van. Come out from among the non-truthers Van, and join the ranks of Bible believers.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Here is another example of how easy it is to entrench masculine identity into the text.
NASB95 (James 1:8) being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

The Greek word translated "man" is "anhr" and contextually seems to be better translated as "person." However what does "his" indicate if not a man? Is there a handy way to have autos translated as indicating a person of either gender? Nope. Some change the singular into a plural, thus "unstable in all their ways." But if you stick with translating according to the grammar of the Greek, then that choice introduces error. Some eliminate the word, thus unstable in everything. And to go with "unstable in all of that one's ways" seems awkward. No, I am not claiming the KJV translators took the easy way out into error, but just that fixing a view that many accepted as true is not easy.

Here is a way the verse could be translated: "being a double-minded person, unstable in all that one's ways."

To claim James was only addressing male doubters and intended on excluding female doubters is dubious.

James 1:8 is not 1 Cor. 11:3. I think you need to know that distinctive factoid.