1 Timothy 2:15

[matthew4:4]

ok, I understand your first point. If it is generic and means everyone then you're right. Nothing to say there but as far as your second point, it doesnt matter that Paul is not speaking about the same subject. He is going through a list of different things for men and women

Where it matters thus far in our conversation is here, at Paul's grammar usage. He said, 'a woman' not 'women.'

and there is nowhere there where he puts a change into the writing in order to siginify that he is going to switch to writing about a different group of subjects. You are trying so hard to make those two words into something that its not. You understand that its much harder to believe in it through that type of perspective than the way I'm looking at it. You have to stretch it to be able to make it seem that way. I don't have to stretch or play with any of it. It speaks for itself. God bless. Your brother in Christ, matthew

I don't understand your Point. Could you please explain it again. In vv.11-15 Paul is stopping 'a woman' from false teaching. In chp 3, Paul is talking about bishops and deacons. So there is a Subject change.

Look, He is not stopping 'a woman' from false teaching. That would be silly because Paul would stop all from teaching false doctrine, plus where do you even get that idea from. I do not see where this concept is coming from. You guys have to try much harder to believe in that than believe in what I'm saying. I mean its just silly. How do you take "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence and make it into that. Where you get what your saying from? It doesnt make any sense. Its called searching for a private interrpretation. Show me another verse that supports what you are applying to this one. You guys are not presenting a very good case and thats why its very hard for me to see your point. What I was saying is that early on in vs 10 he is talking about all women right? We can agree there I'm sure. Ok, then right after that in vs 11-15 he gets into the women teaching thing. Paul does not say he is changing who he is talking about so logically we would assume he is still talking about the same group(in this case all women). You get me. He is talking about women the whole time. How do we know? Because he gives no hint that he is changing whom he is speaking of. The fact that he says And I do not permit 'a woman', does not mean it is one woman. It is just a form of writing. I showed an example of how it could be used in the same way. Please think about these things carefully because this 'one woman' argument does not stand. Through love and faith, your brother in Christ, matthew

[OopsMartin]

[matthew4:4]

[OopsMartin]

"Look, He is not stopping 'a woman' from false teaching."

But he is Matthew. The very reason of this change from plural to single is why some Bibles translators have considered it to be about a husband wife situation; one man and one woman.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

11 A woman learn [she] in silence, with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have lordship on the husband [neither for to have lordship on the man], but to be in silence.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

11Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection,

12and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

The change from plural to singular is significant. It means something, because it is deliberate and it is not the way that Paul normally writes. He changed it for a reason.

First of all those translations are hardly used. I've heard of the wycliffe but not the young. I wouldn't use them because it appears that they have taken these verses and translated them into what they want them to say. Why don't the main versions used put it that way? Do you believe these have translated the greek better? Is it what you choose to read from?

But wait a second. First its about a woman teaching decieving doctrines. Now your saying its referring to a husband and a wife relationship but.... I don't get what your opinion on what it means is. Like you said some bible translators have considered it to be a husband wife situation but there are also many who don't.

Let me ask you another question. Do you believe that the man is to be the head of the household?

Also, I don't believe because of the switch from 'women' to 'woman' we can say that it is going to a matrimonial situation. Its a bit of a stretch. I'm sorry but the evidence points towards all women. Theres no proof leading us to believe otherwise. It would surprise me if Paul assumed someone would know he had changed subjects just because he wrote 'woman' instead of women'. I'm sorry but there were a lot of people in the church or even teaching that were not very well-educated so it would be fairly hard for them to catch on to that. Don't you think a number of people might have been a little stumped after reading it and then said hey paul what exactly do you mean by this? I'm sure there would have been a number of people which would have forced paul to make it more clear. Therefore if it is as you say we would not be having this converstation here today. Just my thoughts, let solve this thing all together with the holy spirit guiding us. Your brother in Christ, matthew

Is this the same Matthew I've been talking to or is this someone else using his ID?

I didn

[matthew4:4]

"Look, He is not stopping 'a woman' from false teaching."

But he is Matthew. The very reason of this change from plural to single is why some Bibles translators have considered it to be about a husband wife situation; one man and one woman.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

11 A woman learn [she] in silence, with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have lordship on the husband [neither for to have lordship on the man], but to be in silence.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

11Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection,

12and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

The change from plural to singular is significant. It means something, because it is deliberate and it is not the way that Paul normally writes. He changed it for a reason.

First of all those translations are hardly used. I've heard of the wycliffe but not the young. I wouldn't use them because it appears that they have taken these verses and translated them into what they want them to say. Why don't the main versions used put it that way? Do you believe these have translated the greek better? Is it what you choose to read from?

But wait a second. First its about a woman teaching decieving doctrines. Now your saying its referring to a husband and a wife relationship but.... I don't get what your opinion on what it means is. Like you said some bible translators have considered it to be a husband wife situation but there are also many who don't.

Let me ask you another question. Do you believe that the man is to be the head of the household?

Also, I don't believe because of the switch from 'women' to 'woman' we can say that it is going to a matrimonial situation. Its a bit of a stretch. I'm sorry but the evidence points towards all women. Theres no proof leading us to believe otherwise. It would surprise me if Paul assumed someone would know he had changed subjects just because he wrote 'woman' instead of women'. I'm sorry but there were a lot of people in the church or even teaching that were not very well-educated so it would be fairly hard for them to catch on to that. Don't you think a number of people might have been a little stumped after reading it and then said hey paul what exactly do you mean by this? I'm sure there would have been a number of people which would have forced paul to make it more clear. Therefore if it is as you say we would not be having this converstation here today. Just my thoughts, let solve this thing all together with the holy spirit guiding us. Your brother in Christ, matthew

Is this the same Matthew I've been talking to or is this someone else using his ID?

I didn

[inhistime]

"Look, He is not stopping 'a woman' from false teaching."

But he is Matthew. The very reason of this change from plural to single is why some Bibles translators have considered it to be about a husband wife situation; one man and one woman.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

11 A woman learn [she] in silence, with all subjection.12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to have lordship on the husband [neither for to have lordship on the man], but to be in silence.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

11Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection,

12and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

The change from plural to singular is significant. It means something, because it is deliberate and it is not the way that Paul normally writes. He changed it for a reason.

First of all those translations are hardly used. I've heard of the wycliffe but not the young. I wouldn't use them because it appears that they have taken these verses and translated them into what they want them to say. Why don't the main versions used put it that way? Do you believe these have translated the greek better? Is it what you choose to read from?

But wait a second. First its about a woman teaching decieving doctrines. Now your saying its referring to a husband and a wife relationship but.... I don't get what your opinion on what it means is. Like you said some bible translators have considered it to be a husband wife situation but there are also many who don't.

Let me ask you another question. Do you believe that the man is to be the head of the household?

Also, I don't believe because of the switch from 'women' to 'woman' we can say that it is going to a matrimonial situation. Its a bit of a stretch. I'm sorry but the evidence points towards all women. Theres no proof leading us to believe otherwise. It would surprise me if Paul assumed someone would know he had changed subjects just because he wrote 'woman' instead of women'. I'm sorry but there were a lot of people in the church or even teaching that were not very well-educated so it would be fairly hard for them to catch on to that. Don't you think a number of people might have been a little stumped after reading it and then said hey paul what exactly do you mean by this? I'm sure there would have been a number of people which would have forced paul to make it more clear. Therefore if it is as you say we would not be having this converstation here today. Just my thoughts, let solve this thing all together with the holy spirit guiding us. Your brother in Christ, matthew

Is this the same Matthew I've been talking to or is this someone else using his ID?

I didn

Edited July 15, 2007 by inhistime

[Neopatriarch]

OopsMartin is correct in that Paul switches from the plural (women) to the singular "a woman" and singular "a man". This has been a difficult passage in church history especially because of verse 15, but verse 15 actually clarifies what Paul is talking about.

Most major English versions of the bible translate aner and gune in 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'man' and 'woman', for example:

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV)

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (NKJV)

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. (ASV)

So departing from this and translating aner and gune as 'husband' and 'wife' does need some justification. But I doubt the reasons for doing so are sufficient to justify this change.

Egalitarian author Linda L. Belleville has this to say about it in her article "Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11

[OopsMartin]

I'm not sure if you are misunderstanding someone here Neo. Most are seeing it as a woman, rather than the plural of either women or wives.

Although one person has brought up a possible valid point that the they in 2:15 is likely the woman and her husband.

[inhistime]

OopsMartin is correct in that Paul switches from the plural (women) to the singular "a woman" and singular "a man". This has been a difficult passage in church history especially because of verse 15, but verse 15 actually clarifies what Paul is talking about.

Most major English versions of the bible translate aner and gune in 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'man' and 'woman', for example:

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV)

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (NKJV)

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. (ASV)

So departing from this and translating aner and gune as 'husband' and 'wife' does need some justification. But I doubt the reasons for doing so are sufficient to justify this change.

Egalitarian author Linda L. Belleville has this to say about it in her article "Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11

[firehill]

OopsMartin is correct in that Paul switches from the plural (women) to the singular "a woman" and singular "a man". This has been a difficult passage in church history especially because of verse 15, but verse 15 actually clarifies what Paul is talking about.

Most major English versions of the bible translate aner and gune in 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'man' and 'woman', for example:

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV)

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (NASB)

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (KJV)

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (NKJV)

12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. (ASV)

So departing from this and translating aner and gune as 'husband' and 'wife' does need some justification. But I doubt the reasons for doing so are sufficient to justify this change.

Egalitarian author Linda L. Belleville has this to say about it in her article "Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11