Why did the Geneva Bible start using the word "Pastor"?

[Guest shiloh357]

I didn't say that.  I said that nothing good can come from trying to create a phony problem.  I have explained why your problem is a nonissue.     You want to create problem where no problem is.

 

Debating "pastor"  vs. "shepherd"   is like trying to argue over the difference between cutting down a tree and chopping down a tree.   You simply do not have a linguistic crisis.    Your issue doesn't need to be raised.  It is pointless.

 

I am trying point out that it is a discussion that can't go anywhere and I am not the only person on this thread who has pointed that out to you.   

[carlos123]

@Omegaman

All good questions Omegaman.

I hope to respond more fully when I get in front of my laptop instead of fighting to chicken peck a response out through this tiny editing box on my Android screen.

You rightly point out some assumptions on my part. That is one reason I am interested in a discussion of this issue. So that I can better distinguish between reasonable historical fact and unsupported assumptions on my part.

I will post some quotes from John Calvin later to support my view (which I don't see as assumption) that he had an overly exalted view of church leadership.

Carlos

[carlos123]

I didn't say that. I said that nothing good can come from trying to create a phony problem. I have explained why your problem is a nonissue. You want to create problem where no problem is.

Debating "pastor" vs. "shepherd" is like trying to argue over the difference between cutting down a tree and chopping down a tree. You simply do not have a linguistic crisis. Your issue doesn't need to be raised. It is pointless.

I am trying point out that it is a discussion that can't go anywhere and I am not the only persohis thread who has pointed that out to you.

I appreciate your attempt to show me why this discussion won't go anywhere in your opinion Shiloh.

I completely disagree and will leave it at that with respect to interacting with you on this thread unless you have insight to share on WHY the Geneva Bible started using the word "Pastor" in place of "shepherds".

Right, wrong, useless, or profitable that IS the topic of this thread.

Carlos

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay then let me ask you,   what is the problem you see in using pastor instead of shepherd?   What are the implications that you find troubling or otherwise problematic?

[ayin jade]

Why is this even an issue when the geneva bible isnt used today?

 

Straining at gnats.

[carlos123]

Why is this even an issue when the geneva bible isnt used today?

Straining at gnats.

Ahh...a nice short quote that is easy to work with even under my Android.

I am dumbfounded by your response Ayin Jade.

The very foundations of our modern day church practices come from the Reformation (though in truth even before that but still much of it is from the Reformation).

If our modern practices have strayed from what the Lord meant the church to be then going back to understand the roots of any corruption from the biblical model of church practice is extremely beneficial to revealing what the nature of that corruption is.

And in helping us better understand how best to counter that corruption and even expose it through the Word and through history.

Your response implies that going to the root of what causes a behavior in one's adult life by exposing how any such behavior began in childhood is unimportant.

It implies that it is unimportant or worthless to understand a nation's history in order to better understand why a nation is what it is today.

The church is what it is today BECAUSE of things that happened in the past.

In so far as the church may be off in its practice today it is incredibly beneficial to understand what caused its practice to go astray in the past.

How you can say that having a desire to understand the change from shepherd to pastor in our Bible's and how that might help us to ubderstand how the present day pastoral role came to be is like straining at gnats is beyond me.

It utterly perplexes ne how it is that you obviously do not see the value to this discussion.

Carlos.

[carlos123]

Okay then let me ask you, what is the problem you see in using pastor instead of shepherd? What are the implications that you find troubling or otherwise problematic?

An excellent question Shiloh and one that I will regretfully have to answer tomorrow as I don't think I will have time to get on my laptop tonight.

I appreciate your desire that I explain myself better - which I think I need to do.

Carlos

[Ezra]

The words *pastor* and *shepherd* are interchangeable, so the word itself is not really a big issue. 

Etymology   late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French pastour, from Latin pastor ‘shepherd,’ from past- ‘fed, grazed,’ from the verb pascere .

Pastors are spiritual shepherds who ideally feed the flock with spiritual milk and meat. I say *ideally* because frequently today's pastors are entertainers and showmen, and rarely will they spend time one-on-one with each and every member of the flock attending to their individual needs (see Ezekiel 34:1-10 for their job description).  That is why churches need a plurality of elders.

 

The important thing to note (which generally escapes Christians) is that the SPIRITUAL GIFT is that of pastor or shepherd (Eph 4:11), but the OFFICE is that of elder/bishop. That is why Paul always speaks of elders when addressing the office, and these men should have the spiritual gifts of shepherding, preaching, and teaching, as well as taking oversight of the flock. 

 

At the same time, there is another spiritual gift, which is that of teaching, and yet another which is that of evangelism.  For example, Billy Graham was an evangelist, but not really a teacher, nor did he consider himself a pastor.

[ayin jade]

 

Why is this even an issue when the geneva bible isnt used today?

Straining at gnats.

Ahh...a nice short quote that is easy to work with even under my Android.

I am dumbfounded by your response Ayin Jade.

The very foundations of our modern day church practices come from the Reformation (though in truth even before that but still much of it is from the Reformation).

If our modern practices have strayed from what the Lord meant the church to be then going back to understand the roots of any corruption from the biblical model of church practice is extremely beneficial to revealing what the nature of that corruption is.

And in helping us better understand how best to counter that corruption and even expose it through the Word and through history.

Your response implies that going to the root of what causes a behavior in one's adult life by exposing how any such behavior began in childhood is unimportant.

It implies that it is unimportant or worthless to understand a nation's history in order to better understand why a nation is what it is today.

The church is what it is today BECAUSE of things that happened in the past.

In so far as the church may be off in its practice today it is incredibly beneficial to understand what caused its practice to go astray in the past.

How you can say that having a desire to understand the change from shepherd to pastor in our Bible's and how that might help us to ubderstand how the present day pastoral role came to be is like straining at gnats is beyond me.

It utterly perplexes ne how it is that you obviously do not see the value to this discussion.

Carlos.

 

 

Reformation took place in germany. Last time I checked, the geneva bible was in english. 

 

I still think its straining after gnats.

[another_poster]

 

There is absolutely no problem and nothing good is served by trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.

If you think nothing good can come out of discussing this issue I guess I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are participating in this thread Shiloh.

If you don't like what I wanted to discuss or think it can serve no purpose by all means you are free to not participate in this discussion at all. I mean why in the world would you participate in a discussion you view as utterly useless?

Carlos

 

Why did you ask for discussion when you clearly don't want discussion. An answer was given and you don't like the answer. The answer was repeated and now you decide they shouldn't be involved in the discussion. Shiloh and I disagree on many things but I can easily see the point Shiloh is making. Perhaps you need to take more time to read carefully what is being said.

 

 

In today's church practice only ONE person can have the POSITION of Pastor.

Maybe in your individual church but certainly not in mine or the one I attended before that or the one before that.

 

 

It utterly perplexes ne how it is that you obviously do not see the value to this discussion.

 

yet you don't explain why it has had an impact and made a difference. There are plenty of other issues I can see where things have been twisted and perverted yet you choose to try and make a big issue out of nothing. Perhaps if you actually explained yourself as several people have asked and after several people have said they can't see the point instead of just telling them they are wrong and don't understand then people would see the value. You however have chosen not to take the path of helping fellow believers understand but instead move towards condemnation. Although reading a bit further on I see that you have said you will come back and actually explain yourself finally.