End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Eh...no.

Look at the context

1Co 14:34 Let your women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law also says.
1Co 14:35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church.

If you were right that it means preach then contextually Paul was telling the women to preach to their husbands at home not at church.

The context shows he was regarding LEARNING and ASKING their husbands questions they should ask instead at home.

aléō; contracted lalṓ, fut. lalḗsō. To talk at random, as contrasted with légō (G3004) which involves the intellectual part of man, his reason. It is used especially of children with the meaning of to talk much.

Missing something there Prax.


The Greek conjunction translated "and" (δέ) above in v. 35 is functioning as an adversative particle meaning "moreover, indeed now, on top of this, or next" (http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm).


What this means is that Paul makes a clear restriction in v. 34 - then in v. 35 he appends another thought "on top of this" (i.e., the prohibition of v. 34).


The Greek verb most certainly can mean "to preach" - or else the KJV translators wouldn't have opted for the translation in 6 different places (& no, I am NOT a KJV-Only). A Greek professor who used to tutor me once told me that this verb can indeed mean "preach."

[RJR]

John the Baptist using scripture...

Luk 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Luk 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Luk 3:5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
Luk 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Luk 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luk 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Luk 3:10..  ..And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
Luk 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Luk 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Luk 3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Luk 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Luk 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Luk 3:18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Missing something there Prax.


The Greek conjunction translated "and" (δέ) above in v. 35 is functioning as an adversative particle meaning "moreover, indeed now, on top of this, or next" (http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm).


What this means is that Paul makes a clear restriction in v. 34 - then in v. 35 he appends another thought "on top of this" (i.e., the prohibition of v. 34).


The Greek verb most certainly can mean "to preach" - or else the KJV translators wouldn't have opted for the translation in 6 different places (& no, I am NOT a KJV-Only). A Greek professor who used to tutor me once told me that this verb can indeed mean "preach."

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.

[rdp]

Praxeas: 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.


LOL - Really Prax - Let's test this below shall we (see quote)?


"Moreover" is perhaps the best over-all translation of this conjunction. 1161/de (moreover, next) introduces a clause and says in effect, "There is more to the story - Now for the rest." De' does not convey simple addition (like kai), but rather subjoins something distinct and different, though not necessarily sharply opposed to to it. (WS, 717 - http://www.helpsbible.org/)


From this (& I have much more if you like?) we see exactly what I was telling you earlier - by Paul's usage of this particular conjunction (contra the usual connective kai) he was appending another thought "on top of" v. 34.


My whole point!

[rdp]

Praxeas: The very word "PREACH" does not inheritly have anything to do with scriptures unless one is explicitly PREACHING the Scriptures.


Since this is only the real point of disagreement - it's the only post I've copied.


I would disagree that the word "PREACH" does not inherently have anything to do with Scriptures - I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without referencing the text of Scripture?


This makes no sense Prax.




Sometimes they "Preached" Jesus...do you think those Preachers in Acts all opened up their NT and preached about Jesus from the gospel of Mark?


Ahhh, but you see, the moment one mentions "Jesus" - they just referenced Scripture - contrary to your claim regarding the term "preach."

I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without ever referencing the text of Scripture?

[rdp]

Praxeas: Odd...he said it first and when I repeat it, it's suddenly no longer "OK" to do.


I was merely pointing out that the AFF Admin. can indeed be just as snarky as anyone - & yet it's always the "ultra-cons" who get blasted for being abrasive when the "ultra-libs" are equally as rough.


I know how you can be Prax - remember we were on CARM for many years together .

[rdp]

No, I'm looking at the grammar. It's redundant to say "Teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach", which is what you are arguing by insisting they are synonyms.


I am not insisting anything - I am allowing the context & interchangeable usages to inform my posturing in this area. And, numerous examples have already been provided which demonstrate that these terms are used interchangeably - unless you're going to argue that when one is "teaching" they have ceased "preaching" ??


"God" and "Father" are not Synonyms in THAT respect. It's instead describing someone who is BOTH Our God AND Our Father.

I am well aware, but your argument was that these terms cannot be used synonymously because they are distinct & juxtaposed alongside one another. You did not make an argument based upon a particular "respect" - but rather you made an argument based upon distinct terminology - which is false.


Im not suggesting anything. Im speaking very clearly without ambiguity. Teaching and Preaching are two DIFFERENT things.


Then "God" & "Father" are "two different things" (BTW, I have many more examples of synonymous-interchangeable terms) - It's called a consistent hermeneutic !

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

No, I'm looking at the grammar. It's redundant to say "Teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach", which is what you are arguing by insisting they are synonyms.


I am not insisting anything - I am allowing the context & interchangeable usages to inform my posturing in this area. And, numerous examples have already been provided which demonstrate that these terms are used interchangeably - unless you're going to argue that when one is "teaching" they have ceased "preaching" ??

Yes you ARE insisting they are synonyms lol..That is your position that they are synonyms. It's still redundant


"God" and "Father" are not Synonyms in THAT respect. It's instead describing someone who is BOTH Our God AND Our Father.

I am well aware, but your argument was that these terms cannot be used synonymously because they are distinct & juxtaposed alongside one another. You did not make an argument based upon a particular "respect" - but rather you made an argument based upon distinct terminology - which is false.

Yes, that is correct. They are NOT synonyms because they are both used in the same sentence and connected by "And"..like "James AND John". It would be redundant to argue he was saying "teach and Teach" or "Preach and Preach" if they really are synonyms. I also pointed out what the words mean from the Greek


Im not suggesting anything. Im speaking very clearly without ambiguity. Teaching and Preaching are two DIFFERENT things.


Then "God" & "Father" are "two different things" (BTW, I have many more examples of synonymous-interchangeable terms) - It's called a consistent hermeneutic !

That's right! They ARE two different things. Someone is both God AND Father. Not "God and God" nor "Father and Father". The Two nouns mean two different things. If they are synonyms then every father in the bible is God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: Odd...he said it first and when I repeat it, it's suddenly no longer "OK" to do.


I was merely pointing out that the AFF Admin. can indeed be just as snarky as anyone - & yet it's always the "ultra-cons" who get blasted for being abrasive when the "ultra-libs" are equally as rough.

Why did that need to be pointed out? I have never denied Snarkyness...

Im not an Ultra Liberal but let me also remind you that it wasn't me who did it first. I did it in respond to what one of you guys already did.


I know how you can be Prax - remember we were on CARM for many years together .

I don't need reminding how I can be but How I am is usually in response to how someone else is already in the conversation, I never denied it

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Praxeas: The very word "PREACH" does not inheritly have anything to do with scriptures unless one is explicitly PREACHING the Scriptures.


Since this is only the real point of disagreement - it's the only post I've copied.


I would disagree that the word "PREACH" does not inherently have anything to do with Scriptures - I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without referencing the text of Scripture?


This makes no sense Prax.

The word for Preach is a word used BEFORE the NT writers used it. As I said the only scriptures they HAD was the OT and you don't find Acts 2:38 in the OT. So no Preaching did not inheritly mean to Exegete the OT scriptures and it certainly did not mean exegeting NT scriptures that did not even exist yet

If they preached Jesus and the Resurrection, they were not quoting NT scriptures and exegetically expounding on them. They were proclaiming what they were taught by Jesus. They weren't saying "And now church, turn to Mat 16 verse...because it didn't exist yet. There was no book of Matthew




Sometimes they "Preached" Jesus...do you think those Preachers in Acts all opened up their NT and preached about Jesus from the gospel of Mark?


Ahhh, but you see, the moment one mentions "Jesus" - they just referenced Scripture - contrary to your claim regarding the term "preach."

Oh yes, Paul was quoting the gospel of Matthew there in Acts 19...ah yes I see. So every time someone says "Jesus" they are preaching...ok

I am again asking you how someone can "preach" to the lost about Jesus without ever referencing the text of Scripture?

Im not gonna keep answering that just because you either did not read my answer the first time or just did not like it. But like I said I have sat in meetings where the Preacher never got to a specific text and exegetically expounded it