[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Are you testing me..or just joking here...?.
1.-- nobody, starting with Paul who wrote it so carefully, believes the verse
says what you say it means Really.. When did Paul tell you that? The whole
point was to define/understand what what Paul meant. However, you attempt
assert for Paul what he meant to make that claim.
2.v6 is where the word gynakairia is found yes that is women but that term is
not the subject of v6 gynakairia are the objects. The subject is toutwn (these)
and these refers to the immediate context preceding and following v 6 and all
are men..se v 1-5 and v7- finish..You miss the fact that regardless of any
specific reference to feminine gender to the object gynakairia or (
Gunaikariasesoreumena )in that passage the subject is not excluded from the
meaning or application to men . This is especially true when the subject is
described by all the men preceding and following the v6..
3.. You're all alone on this one
Some translations in fact do translate the SUBJECT in V6 "Touton" as men
rather then just "these" which granted is not a literal translation but still
makes the point No I am not alone context carries the most weight even for
those.... I got it.........this is like where the Minshivics called themselves
the Bolshivices right..?
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, this exchange is
emblematic of the extreme difficulties we find with your assertions.
MARTIN TO ALLEN, May 22, 2007 3:22:24 PM CDT:
Lastly, the phrase "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the
truth" is a verse Paul applies to women, not men. Should I feel insulted?
Just wondering. :)
On May 22, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Allen Daves replies:
To women not men really...?.. He state these are the ones who creep into
silly women (men)and then goes one step further in the next verse and relates
thoes same ones to James and Jamberes (men) who withstood Moses...I think here
too you have missed the meaning altogether by avoiding the context. Otherwise,
no insult intended.
You're completely wrong. Following the word gynakairia (diminutive form of
"women") come three participles (the third is compound, so it is sometimes
treated as two separate final participles, making a total of four in number).
..
All the participles, whether numbered three or four, apply to the word
gynakairos, and cannot apply to the men under any circumstance. The
distinctive thing about these wicked MEN is that instead of accumulating
sponsors from among other men (e.g., as Elymas did with Sergius Paulus in Acts
13:7-8), they prey on women instead. But all the phrases following describe
the kind of women who are prone to being taken advantage of by men pretending
to offer religious wisdom and counsel to them. It is for this reason that NO
commentary in the first 19 centuries of Christianity has understood Paul in ANY
OTHER WAY than that the participles they undisputedly belong to. About the
only people who would twist the meaning are those who think that the English
translation is flexible enough to distribute the participles wherever the heck
they want to, Paul's precision in expression notwithstanding.
You're all alone on this one -- nobody, starting with Paul who wrote it so
carefully, believes the verse says what you say it means.
This is my trouble with most of what you write: it plays fast and loose with
the data, coming to completely unjustified, faulty, erroneous conclusions,
followed by accusations that your interlocutors (like me) have "missed the
meaning altogether." But the blindness is yours, not ours, but you have yet to
acknowledge a single error on your part during this entire exchange.
I don't question your intentions, which are obviously honorable, or your
zeal, which is exemplary -- but I question your skill, which, candidly, is
deplorable. All the more so when you attack the text actually written in the
Scriptures. Surely you don't want to persist in manufacturing more "sound and
fury, signifying nothing" -- your heart for God needs to influence your mind
for God to take more care in handling the Scriptures. Here, you've wrestled it
wrongly again, and this is looking to be a habit on your part. One worth
breaking, I think.
With regrets,
Martin
Other related posts:
