End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[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

[rdp]

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.


Oh yes, someone can inform the lost about the gospel without ever referencing the text of Scripture...."ahhh yes, I see" ! See how easy that was?


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.


Likewise, I'm not going to keep explaining to you that preaching does indeed inherently contain the idea of referencing the text of Scripture....or else we have to tell lost people about the biblical gospel without using the Bible !

[rdp]

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


Sorry - the Bible clearly demonstrates that the two verbs are used interchangeably....Typical Praxeas .




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.


LOL - Now we use human beings (nouns) to describe the relationship between practices (verbs) - and you're attempting to appeal to the Greek ?


Also interesting how you appeal "and/normally kai" as a "connective" when kai is NOT used in I Cor. 14.35 - think you might an agenda going on here ?



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.


Oh my lands! How silly - you're sounding more & more like the Trinnies on CARM ! "Every father in the Bible is now God" simply if we demand consistency in terms being used synonymously ??


No need to try & spin your way out of it now Prax - you said that just because there are two different words next to each other indicates they're not used synonymously - I argue just the opposite!


Terms have overlap all the time in Greek as is demonstrated in the terms "God" & "Father" (I can marshal many more BTW) - though they're used side-by-side they identify the same One....That's the whole point.

[rdp]

You might. You were the one insisting it as to be one way only. Clearly it can be connective.


Ahhh, so now you've demoted the conjunction from a definite "connective" to "can be" a connective ! Keep this up & you'll eventually land where the biblical text does !


Zodhiates says: "but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else" - Kinda' minimizing his "more frequent" data aren't you ?


No, he isn't.


Ummm, yes he is !



Yeah I can't copy and paste everything either so here is a screen shot.


Yea' - & apparently you missed the portion about "then" & "on the other hand" in your "screen-shot." You can deny the lexical data that I specifically quoted earlier - but this particular conjunction is most often translated as "moreover" or "Now".


And, of course this conjunction can denote a continuation (though kai is most often used when this is the case) - And?? What's your point? I know that! Paul is continuing his statement in v. 34 by appending another thought "on top of" v. 35...that's my whole point ??


de: but, and, now, (a connective or adversative particle)
Original Word: δέ
Part of Speech: Conjunction
Transliteration: de
Phonetic Spelling: (deh)
Short Definition: but, on the other hand, and
Definition: a weak adversative particle, generally placed second in its clause; but, on the other hand, and.


HELPS Word-studies: 1161 dé (a conjunction) – moreover, indeed now . . . , on top of this . . . , next . . .


See here: http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm.

[rdp]

I can inform the lost about the gospel without quoting a verse and exegetically explaining it. I can tell someone "Jesus died for your sins" and not be quoting a verse. They can then ask me what to do and I can say "Believe in Jesus. Repent of your sins. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" without exegetically expanding on a particular verse. But that is irrelevant because we HAVE the scriptures today. THEY did not. They were not all quoting a book of the gospels or Acts.


Which means you have to reference a biblical text when you "preach" to the lost about Christ or tell them "Repent of your sins. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (a clear reference to the biblical text) - my whole point !


No, it is not "irrelevant" to the topic at hand - it is entirely relevant.