End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[rdp]

You keep leaving out "AND" as well as the fact those Lexicons say when it's a continuation explanation de is translated AND or is not translated at all. Why is that. What Lexicon are you quoting?


Though I am not a personal fan of Thayer (because his work was published prior to the great papyrologic finds of the late 1800's), his contributions are still noteworthy & appealed withing the halls of academia:


δέ (related to δή, as μέν to μήν, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2, p. 355), a particle adversative, distinctive, disjunctive, but, moreover (Winers Grammar, § 53, 7 and 10, 2).


1. universally, by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement: ἐάν ὀφθαλμός κτλ. Matthew 6:23; ἐλεύσονται δέ ἡμέραι, Mark 2:20; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of — either with strong emphasis: ἐγώ δέ, Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; ἡμεῖς δέ, 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 10:13; σύ δέ, Matthew 6:6; ὑμεῖς δέ, Mark 8:29; οἱ δέ υἱοί τῆς βασιλείας, Matthew 8:12; αἱ ἀλώπεκες ... ὁ δέ υἱός τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58; πᾶς ὁ λαός ... οἱ δέ φαρισαῖοι, Luke 7:29f; ὁ δέ πνευματικός, 1 Corinthians 2:15, and often; — or with a slight discrimination, ὁ δέ, αὐτός δέ: Mark 1:45; Mark 5:34; Mark 6:37; Mark 7:6; Matthew 13:29, 37, 52; Matthew 15:23ff; Luke 4:40, 43; Luke 5:16; Luke 6:8; Luke 8:10, 54; Luke 15:29; οἱ δέ, Matthew 2:5; Mark 3:4; Mark 8:28, etc., etc.; with the addition also of a proper name, as ὁ δέ Ἰησοῦς: Matthew 8:22 (Tdf. omits Ἰησοῦς); (R G Tr brackets); (Tdf. omits Ἰησοῦς); ; Mark 1:41 (R G L marginal reading Tr marginal reading); ἀποκροκριθεις δέ (ὁ) Σίμων, Luke 7:43 R G L brackets; ἡ δέ Μαρία, Luke 2:19, etc.


2. μέν ... δέ, see μέν.


3. after negative sentences, but, but rather (German wohlaber): Matthew 6:19f (μή θησαυρίζετε ... θησαυρίζετε δέ); f; Acts 12:9, 14; Romans 3:4; Romans 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 7:37; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (not Rec.); Ephesians 4:14; Hebrews 2:5; Hebrews 4:13, 15; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:26; Hebrews 12:13; 1 Peter 1:12 (οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν (Rec. ἡμῖν) δέ); James 1:13; James 2:11.

4. it is joined to terms which are repeated with a certain emphasis, and with such additions as tend to explain and establish them more exactly; in this use of the particle we may supply a suppressed negative clause and give its force in English by inserting I say, and that, so then, etc.): Romans 3:21f (not that common δικαιοσύνη which the Jews boasted of and strove after, but δικαιοσυνεσς ... διά πίστεως); Romans 9:30; 1 Corinthians 2:6 (σοφίαν δέ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου); Galatians 2:2 (I went up, not of my own accord, but etc.); Philippians 2:8; cf. Klotz ad Dev. ii. 2, p. 361f; L. Dindorf in Stephanus Thesaurus ii. col. 928; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 443 (412)).

5. it serves to mark a transition to something new (δέ metabatic); by this use of the particle, the new addition is distinguished from and, as it were, opposed to what goes before: Matthew 1:18; Matthew 2:19; Matthew 10:21; Luke 12:13; Luke 13:1; John 7:14, 37; Acts 6:1; Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Corinthians 8:1, etc., etc.; so also in the phrase ἐγένετο δέ, see γίνομαι, 2 c.



"To pin down the various uses of by different NT authors is not easy. I think it is safe to say that is an adversative particle. It signals change (cf. Buth 1981a:17). Its various functions should correlate with this basic idea. Therefore a change of participants is acceptable, but introduction of participants is not. (Of course, if is used to change scenes,then new participants will come along.) A change from event-line to background or from background to event-line is also acceptable. That it may introduce a response as suggested by Levinsohn (1977:3) is questionable, but it may well introduce an adversative, uncooperative, or hostile response. A co-operative, expected response would be introduced by or asyndeton (http://www.academia.edu/749516/Notes..._New_Testament).



δέ is used 2792x's in the NT as either ascensive, connective, contrastive, explanatory, or transitional ( Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 666-678). However, this is what your own beloved Zodhiates states:


δέ

dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Generally it has the meaning of but, and, or also, namely.



So, according to Zodhiates - out of these 2,792 times, while this conjunction can indeed be connective (which does absolutely no violence to the points I've made) - "more frequently (this conjunction) denotes transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else."



Still not convinced?



"Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story" (or) "Now for the rest." Source is taken from the Discovery Bible (the program that I cannot copy-paste - but have faithfully copied word for word. See here for more on the program: http://www.lockman.org/catalog/helps.php & http://christianity.about.com/u/revi...thing-Else.htm



Here are the endorsements for this program:


James I. Packer, Regent College, author, "The Discovery Bible New Testament is a landmark volume. It makes available to students of the English Bible dimensions of meaning that the Greek verb tenses and word-order convey, but that cannot be expressed in ordinary translations because English is a less subtle language. The markings in the text and the glossary of synonyms reflect impeccable linguistic scholarship. The system of symbols is easy to learn and the effect of working with the volume is like adding color to black-and-white photos. "The would-be teacher who wants to bring out the full weight of meaning that the New Testament carries now has two choices. One is to spend some years studying Greek, classical as well as New Testament, so as to be able to spot each nuance accurately for oneself. The other is to use The Discovery Bible, and start getting it all right as of now. Gary Hill and Gleason Archer, who devised this precious students' aid, deserve our profoundest thanks."

Walter Kaiser, Jr., previous Academic Dean, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL and former President, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, MA, "The method employed in The Discovry Bible New Testament is so totally new that no current aids to Bible study fulfill the same task envisaged in this major triumph in New Testament scholarship."

John MacArthur, pastor, Grace Community Church; author; radio speaker,
"The Discovery Bible New Testament, by Gary Hill, opens the meaning of the Greek text even to those who don’t have the advantage of being able to do firsthand language study."

R. C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries, professor, radio speaker, " . . . an outstanding tool for understanding the New Testament. The care in its preparation is outstanding. Here is a book that is as useful as it is profound."

Dr. Norman Geisler, prolific author, professor, " . . . the very valuable aid of understanding the emphasis of the original Greek, not otherwise available to the English reader. It is a very valuable tool for the English student of Scripture."

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, famed Anglican commentator on the Greek New Testament, "The Discovery Bible New Testament is a product of precise and expert scholarship. It will not take the place of the original text in the Greek language, but it will open the way for deeper study and understanding of the sacred text for those whose linguistic competence is limited to the English language. Indeed, I venture the opinion that The Discovery Bible will be a safer guide to sane interpretation of the text than the acquisition of a superficial acquaintance with the original language. The admonition of Alexander Pone: 'A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring,' applies with special force to well-meaning Bible students who dabble in Greek and Hebrew. I commend The Discovery Bible as a valuable source of learning for those who are willing to apply their minds to the instruction it provides."

Dr. Nigel Turner, (Oxford) Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vols. 3-4,
" . . . a most important work."

Dr. James Boice, pastor, former Tenth Presbyterian Church, author,
"In The Discovery Bible New Testament, Dr. Gleason Archer and Mr. Gary Hill have provided the student who does not know Greek with an accurate and most valuable Bible study tool."

Dr. Earl Radmacher, former President, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary,
" . . . a unique tool, . . . helps to convey more vividly the emphasis and emotion of the original Greek."

Dr. W. A. Criswell, former pastor, First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX,
"The Discovery Bible New Testament has accomplished the impossible. . . . Here is one volume that should be placed in the hands of every serious Christian layman."

John F. Walvoord, former President and Chancellor, Dallas Theological Seminary,
"The Discovery Bible New Testament is a breakthrough in clarifying truth."

Dr. Paige Patterson, President, SW Baptist Seminary, " . . . This Moody Press publication is an enormous favor for pastors and congregations alike."

Dr. Harold Lindsell, Editor-emeritus, Christianity Today, "The Discovery Bible New Testament should be in the hands of every Bible student. . . . The book can be recommended without mental reservation."

Dr. Ray Stedman, pastor, Peninsula Bible Church, "The treasures of the Greek NT are made fully available to an English reader through this book."

Ted Engstrom, President emeritus, World Vision, "The Discovery Bible New Testament opens up new avenues of study and understanding for the serious student of the Scriptures."

Leon Morris, former principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia, "I am full of admiration for the work that has gone into The Discovery Bible New Testament. Thank you very much for sending me a copy. The sheer physical labor of marking all the tenses must have been immense and the working out of where the emphasis in Greek goes in every sentence must have been just as demanding. I do congratulate you on what you have accomplished. And I am sure that what you have done will be of great help to many sincere students of Scripture who lack a knowledge of Greek. It was a breath-taking concept to mark out a New Testament in the way you have done and you must be very happy with the extent to which you have succeeded."


Continued.....

[rdp]

So, what do we learn from all of this Prax? Precisely what I've told you from the beginning - Paul is appending another thought "on top of" his previous prohibition in v. 34. This stands in direct contrast with your original assertion:

Praxeas; Post #1680:

It's Connective

89.87 καίb; δέb: markers of a sequence of closely related events—‘and, and then.’
καίb: εἰσῆλθον ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐδίδασκον ‘at dawn they entered the Temple and taught’ Ac 5:21.
δέb: Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac was the father of Jacob’ Mt 1:2.


Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (788). New York: United Bible Societies.



Now, after you've been caught red-handed making an unwarranted & erroneous assumption (something you've done before BTW) - you've modified your position above to, "Well, it CAN INCLUDE the 'connective' force" (something that does absolutely no violence to the point made).


Then, you attempt to correct me below for not being honest with the data - Will you take your own medicine now ?




Are you serious with "What's your point?" when it's staring you right the face? I've already told you the point and I will have to do it again I see.


Ummm, the only thing "staring me right in the face" is that you've been caught once again making unwarranted assumptions in the Greek - something you've done before.



The POINT is when you argued "de" means the two verses are NOT a continuation of the topic I can present evidence that is not always the case with "de" and that the Lexicons and the translations I provided showed that many Greek Authorities disagree with you by translating "de" as "AND" or not even translating it at all.


First, the continuative tag does no violence whatsoever to my point that Paul is appending another point "on top of" his prohibition in v. 34. Next, I've well demonstrated above that the primary force of this particular conjunction is to "signal change (cf. Buth 1981a:17). Its various functions should correlate with this basic idea."


And, "Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story" (or) "Now for the rest." Shall I re-post Dr. Zodhiates for you (I have more I can post BTW - But will save it for your response !)?



The sources I posted did NOT say you are right. The sources I gave merely say either view is a possibility. I don't know how you can miss that over and over. Seriously.


LOL - And I don't know how you can miss that the sources "staring you right in the face" state about this particular conjunction: "More frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else."


And, again, this was not your original assertion: Praxeas; Post #1680: "It's Connective." Nothing there about the "more frequent" & "signals change" or "Now for the rest." Keep back-tracking though & you'll eventually end up in the biblical position !





Yes and what was your source? What Lexicon was it?


See above - & many more to come !



BTW I have no problems admitting you can find a translation to translate it your way. All that proves is your idea is a consideration but not an absolute.. We can revisit zodhaites as long as you are honest enough to read the WHOLE thing and not ... out what parts you don't agree with and blissfully pretend they never existed.


LOL - You mean like you did originally? See thyself ! You've been thoroughly busted & will no doubt scramble to save-face - Will be here waiting !



Here is what Zodhaites REALLY said

dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Generally it has the meaning of but, and, or also, namely.

Notice that again "Or simply CONTINUATIVE or EXPLANATORY"

See he gives examples

(II) Continuative, meaning but, now, and, also, and the like.

(A) Generally and after introducing a new paragraph or sentence (Mat_1:18; Mat_2:9; Mat_3:1; Mar_16:9; Luk_12:11, Luk_12:16; Luk_13:6, Luk_13:10; Luk_15:11, Luk_15:17; Act_6:1-2, Act_6:8-9; Act_9:7-8; 1Co_14:1; 1Co_15:17; 1Co_16:1). In this way it is sometimes emphatic, especially in interrogative clauses (2Co_6:14-16; Gal_4:20, "I could wish indeed" [a.t.]).

(B) Where it takes up and carries on a thought which had been interrupted, meaning then, therefore (Mat_6:7; Joh_15:26; Rom_5:8; 2Co_10:2; Jam_2:15). Also consequentially after ei (G1487), if, for epeí (G1893), seeing that, since (Act_11:17).

(C) As marking something added by way of explanation or example meaning but, and, namely, e.g., to wit (Mar_4:37, "and the waves," meaning so that the waves; Mar_16:8, "trembling also seized them" [a.t.]; Joh_6:10, "Now there was [or there being] much grass"; Act_23:13; Rom_3:22; 1Co_10:11; 1Co_15:56).



Ummm, your point? This does absolutely no violence to what I've been tolling you over & over & over ?? He still begins by stating "a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else.


He then begins his views on individual passages (none of your "examples" reference the passage under consideration BTW) - so what? The "more frequent" usage of the conjunction "serves to introduce something else" - my whole point all along !


Cont......

[rdp]

At this point it's clear you are going to ... out everything that you disagree with. I'm merely doing this so the others can see how these words are or can be used.


Great - I hope they do see how this conjunction is "more frequently" used - it has been my point all along ! And, I've been posting with you for enough years to know that you will not change nor acknowledge your error - so, no, I am not doing this for you either !



Yes all that shows is what I have already asserted, de does not have ONE meaning. You can cry to the cows come home that "de" means X but the fact is I have proven it means MORE than what you originally argued it does. Here LS show that it can be an explanatory clause which also agrees with the other Authorities I posted.


Right back at ya'! You can equally deny "until the cows come home" that the "more frequent" usage of this conjunction in v. 35 denotes "moving on to something else" - but it won't change the grammatical facts!


I repeat, given the context it seems that Paul is explaining his initial point about keeping silent in the church. Second I know that several Scholars agree by the way they translated "de" or left it untranslated (according to the Lexicon use of "de").


And I repeat also - both the context & exegesis of the text demonstrates that Paul is appending "another thought on top of" his prohibition in v. 35. What now?

KJV "And'
ESV untranslated
NET Untranslated
BBE "And"
CEV Untranslated
GNB Untranslated
ISV Untranslated
RSV Untranslated
WEB Untranslated



And even "But" does not disagree with explanatory. Like if I asked you "Did you go fishing?" And you can answer "Yes I did BUT I did not catch anything."


Then there's no need for me to post the various linguists who disagree with you eh' ?


Next, for about the 10th time - the "explanatory" force does absolutely no violence to what I'm asserting ? Paul is further "explaining" his prohibition of v. 34 by appending another thought onto said restriction - so what? This completely aligns with what I've been telling you all along !



Yes I noticed you see ONLY that word and ignore the others.


Ummm, no, I do not. But, you just described precisely what you did originally - See how easy that was?




He explains it. Exactly YOUR point yes but not THE Point.


Umm, according to the linguists (even your own ) - it "most frequently introduces another thought"! Try again Prax!




Nope


Yep!




No the grammar and text and MY Sources support that it is NOT absolutely the way YOU say it has to be but can instead support my view that it should be translated AND or not be translated at all as an explanatory clause. That is exactly what the sources I posted said.


Umm, no, the "sources" you posted said the conjunction "most frequently denot(es) transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else." But, again, even the explanatory force fully reconciles itself with what I've been telling you all along !




Yeah, do you blame me when your offer is "Helps"?

Seriously? Can you imagine two great Debaters up on stage. One is using Logos or Bible works and the other is using the Freebie "Bible Helps"? Yeah that will go over real well.


LOL - seems to me the one who gets the "freebie" would have more sense than the one who spends all the money for what he can get completely "free" !


Even worse, I already told you that you have to pay for the program after the 21 day trial is up - what part of this do you need me to further explain ?

[Abiding Now]

Awww...just let'um preach. Who cares? Not me, I'll just be busy that night.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Godly women spoke for God in the Bible and we will continue to do so...

Of course you will - you're simply doing what you want to do in spite of clear biblical commands to the contrary !


And, I will continue to teach on your anti-biblical error (as I've been recently doing BTW).


Still waiting on that ever-elusive passage that demonstrates a woman expositing from the Scriptures to men:__________?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Awww...just let'um preach. Who cares? Not me, I'll just be busy that night.

LOL - Think I'll join ya' !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

When Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, it is interesting and perhaps quite telling that the only individuals he mentioned by name were two women, Euodias and Syntyche, and one man named Clement (Phil. 4:2-3). And note carefully what the apostle says with regard to these three characters:..“And I entreat you also, true yokefellow, help those WOMEN who LABORED WITH ME in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other of my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life” (Phil 4:3)...

Remember Clement was a man...whatever these 2 women were doing Clement the man was aslo doing ...I don't think they were serving cups of tea....

Help those women that labored with me....

LOL - Keep copying-pasting material we've dealt with over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - sure makes you feel better eh'??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by RJR

Yes, he did give instructions on hair, and the instructions for men and women, both with hair, was different. The instructions were women it is a shame for you to be shorn or shaven, so let her be covered, for she is the glory of the man. Men it is a shame for you to have long hair, for he is the glory and the image of God.

Cannot you see, the instructions concerning the same subject was different for a woman as opposed to a man. Your fallacy in the example provided would be akin to say HAIR IS HAIR, so it is the same for a woman as it is a man. God gave distinct instructions for the genders involving the same subject.

It is the same with the subject under consideration, a woman can prophesy and pray. She is not to teach and exercise authority over the man. It is not permitted for them to speak, same word translated preach or one of its cognates 6 times, they are to ask their husband at home. By the way you have never dealt with 1 Tim 2, according to you that is husband and wife, if so... she is to learn at silence in the home...there goes asking her husband at home...and still have the injunction in 1 Cor 14 not permitting her to speak in the church. You are restricting the woman more than the scripture and at the same time implying the bible does not mean what it clearly does not permit.

Obviously your misinterpretation is attempting to make prophesy preaching. It is not today and it will not be tomorrow.

Exactly! Can you believe what we're seeing here?


Numerous other pastors & elders have expressed the same amount of dismay to me over this.


Unbelievable how far some will go to accommodate their preferred lifestyle - & then actually try to claim the Bible supports it ???

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

so if who gives the word of the Lord is a woman we have a woman giving edification...exhortation and confort...and she gives it to a mixed group...the church....

Couldn't tell you - We wouldn't be there to know !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by RJR

Where is the BIBLICAL authority for an Elder to give the woman the liberty to do what the Bible expressly forbids?

Exactly! The Pastor who allows this is just as wrong as she is!


Wonder what they'd do if the Pastor told these women to shave their hair - guess they'd do it since "she is under the authority of her pastor" !