Silly translation.

[37818]

In verse 14 it is very clear, by γυνή, that WOMEN were present! you are just arguing to show that you are right, even when you are not! See my response to John in #35

You only understand a thing the
way you want a thing to mean.
V.15, "And . . ."

 

[SavedByGrace]

You only understand a thing the
way you want a thing to mean.
V.15, "And . . ."

in case you didn't know, καί is usually used to "join words and sentences". Carrying on from verse 14. bear in mind in the originals there are no chapters and verses! had δέ been used, it would have been different.

 

[37818]

look at the context. in verse 19 it says, "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath". Here we have "ἀδελφός", and "ἄνθρωπος", both that are used also to include "women" in Scripture, as this very passage shows! What of Romans 4:8? Are you suggesting that this is only about "males"?

Do not forget this thread is about the sillyness of addressing men as "and sisters."

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do not forget this thread is about the sillyness of addressing men as "and sisters."

Which is not silly at all!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do not forget this thread is about the sillyness of addressing men as "and sisters."

I am sure that you mean "silliness"

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do not forget this thread is about the sillyness of addressing men as "and sisters."

but it was you in the OP that made this rather bold statement, "Now the first word ανδρες alway is addressing men, never women", which is incorrect!

 

[37818]

in case you didn't know, καί is usually used to "join words and sentences". Carrying on from verse 14. bear in mind in the originals there are no chapters and verses! had δέ been used, it would have been different.

Your unbelief is problematic.
In Acts of the Apostles 1:15, is a change from verse 14, saying "And in those days . . ." is a change in what was being said in v.14.

There are some unmentioned core issues, the main one in this thread has to do with translation and the immutability of the written word of God.

Who is held responsible in the fall, the man or the woman?

 

[37818]

but it was you in the OP that made this rather bold statement, "Now the first word ανδρες alway is addressing men, never women", which is incorrect!

Not really. It is not correct in what is now our western culture. God chose to use the male bias in His immutable word, did He not? In English "he" would be used in writing rather than "he or she" in time past. So in some sense what was said of only males was always understood to be true of persons, whether man, woman or even a child. But that Greek term ἀνήρ was nevertheless always referred to males when being addressed directly.

 

[Deacon]

Your unbelief is problematic.
In Acts of the Apostles 1:15, is a change from verse 14, saying "And in those days . . ." is a change in what was being said in v.14.

There are some unmentioned core issues, the main one in this thread has to do with translation and the immutability of the written word of God.

Who is held responsible in the fall, the man or the woman?

(1) The conjunction “AND” with its greatest understanding certainly denotes a continuing thought.
At its least it signals an end of the previous sentence and the beginning of another (like our period mark.).

(2) Translation methods are a point of debate. Personally I encourage readers of Scripture to consult many different versions for the very reason that sometimes varying translation methods can clarify and bring out meanings that a single source cannot.

(3) Now “immutability” is a topic that you alone have brought up.
Pardon me but don’t be so high-minded to think that your opinion is the only correct way to think and so you are arguing God’s truth.
Nowhere is immutability an issue in this discussion, both are opinions, viewpoints, (unless you take the position that translations are fully re-inspired by God).

(4) Follow out the opinion that “Men and brothers” is the only way the phrase should be translated...does that mean women are excluded from fellowship?

Rob

 

[37818]

(3) Now “immutability” is a topic that you alone have brought up.
Pardon me but don’t be so high-minded to think that your opinion is the only correct way to think and so you are arguing God’s truth.
Nowhere is immutability an issue in this discussion, both are opinions, viewpoints, (unless you take the position that translations are fully re-inspired by God).

God is inerrant so His word is inerrant. God is immutable so His word is immutable. Psalms 119:89, Isaiah 40:8.
I understand translation cannot always convey every nuance of God's word from one language to another. Such as idioms from one language to another. I understand inerrancy is with God's words is not in the reader or the transslations in textual variants.

 

[37818]

(4) Follow out the opinion that “Men and brothers” is the only way the phrase should be translated...does that mean women are excluded from fellowship?

Where that was done it is a matter of the historical events, not the exclustion of women from fellowship any more than women being excluded from being Pastors does.

 

[Rob_BW]

The 6 places where "and sisters" is added,
Acts 1:16
Acts 2:29
Acts 13:26
Acts 13:38
Acts 15:7
Acts 15:13
The 8 places where in CSB it is only translated "brothers" do to context.
Acts 2:37
Acts 7:2
Acts 7:26
Acts 13:15
Acts 22:1
Acts 23:1
Acts 23:6
Acts 28:17

What resource are you using for your CSB? A quick look shows that 15:7 and 15:13 do not include "and sisters" since the 2020 revision.

 

[37818]

What resource are you using for your CSB? A quick look shows that 15:7 and 15:13 do not include "and sisters" since the 2020 revision.

Ok. Good to know.
My copy is the 2017 edition.

 

[John of Japan]

"Brethren"
Since you are claiming that I am wrong, now you have to present your evidence

I disagree. I am going with standard Greek pedagogy. I checked a half dozen lexicons, and none of them had your opinion in them. Plus, I've translated the entire NT from Greek to Japanese, and many books into English, and did not find a single instance where ἀνηρ meant anything but male.

So, you prove your own unsupported theory, please.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I disagree. I am going with standard Greek pedagogy. I checked a half dozen lexicons, and none of them had your opinion in them. Plus, I've translated the entire NT from Greek to Japanese, and did not find a single instance where ἀνηρ meant anything but male.

So, you prove your own unsupported theory, please.

Romans 4.8 is a good example where it is used to include both sexes. There is no other way to take this

 

[SavedByGrace]

I disagree. I am going with standard Greek pedagogy. I checked a half dozen lexicons, and none of them had your opinion in them. Plus, I've translated the entire NT from Greek to Japanese, and did not find a single instance where ἀνηρ meant anything but male.

So, you prove your own unsupported theory, please.

As is James 1.20

 

[John of Japan]

Romans 4.8 is a good example where it is used to include both sexes. There is no other way to take this

Sure there is. It is the generic usage of the word. It does not indicate females.

 

[John of Japan]

As is James 1.20

Same thing--the generic usage. Don't project 21st century feministic linguistics into the male-dominated 1st century society.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I disagree. I am going with standard Greek pedagogy. I checked a half dozen lexicons, and none of them had your opinion in them. Plus, I've translated the entire NT from Greek to Japanese, and many books into English, and did not find a single instance where ἀνηρ meant anything but male.

So, you prove your own unsupported theory, please.

This is what Dr Edward Robinson says in his Greek lexicon

Inset. A man, i.e. one of the human race, a person. And gives a few Scripture references including Romans 4.8 and James 1.20

 

[SavedByGrace]

Sure there is. It is the generic usage of the word. It does not indicate females.

Generic means BOTH men and women. You should know that! And you are a Bible translator!