[geocentrism] Re: 666

1. If the subject of v6 is men then there is no argument  because the subject 
is descirbed by his action verbs (acitve tense)1."Leading women" and (acitve 
tense)2. "every learning..never comming"  the actions verbs pertain to and 
describe the actionsof the subject not the object, to that which is doing the 
action. In greek and in english... Being led is in the passive tense and thus 
applies to the object but this is not the case with #2
  so at best you can say it could apply to both but you could never argue that 
it excludes men.
   
  2.Regaudless of what is doing the action here  "every learning and never able 
to come to the knowldge of the truth" cannot be demonstrated to exclusivley 
apply and or exclude to only either women or men by the rest of scripture then 
as such would still apply 
   
  A.Obvious Practicaly reasons just as to say that since women is the object of 
being led away by various lust can't apply to men either...?
  B.From this scripture. Even if your assertion about who is doing the learning 
were true, this verse does not say that men do not learn and yet never come the 
the truth. You simply cant use this verse to exclude that action of "ever 
learning and not able to come to the knowlege of the truth" from men.  Jesus is 
the way the truth and the life.. he states Come unto me but all men do not do 
that no matter how much they learn all their lives....the postion that this 
does not apply to men is not defensiable in any case
   
   
  "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Allen,  

  You assume that the pronoun "touton" referring to the men means that the 
participles apply to "touton."  They don't. In Greek, the participles apply to 
the immediately preceding noun. Period.
  

  I never denied that the subject of the sentence is the men. The question is, 
what is the subject of the participles? It can't be touton, otherwise the 
participles would have been pushed forward in the sentence. Greek syntax is 
unusual in that word order is completely determinative of meaning and emphasis.
  

  Even for those who go ahead and generalize the idea of verse 7 to both sexes, 
they ALWAYS add (because they're careful and have no intention of distorting 
Paul's meaning) that Paul's original description didn't apply to the evil men, 
but the women, and that such extension of the terminology to the men may be 
unjustified license. In this class of careful scholars is the Puritan writer 
John Owen, whose life work was writing a monumental seven-volume commentary on 
the Book of Hebrews. He refused to simply apply the verse to men, without first 
pointing out that Paul clearly didn't apply it to men in the original text.
  

  You exhibit no such scruples as Owen evidenced.  I still think you need to 
develop such.
  

  Martin
  

  
    On May 23, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Allen Daves wrote:

    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
  

  







    Martin G. Selbrede
  Chief Scientist
  Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
  8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
  The Woodlands, TX 77381
  281-825-4500 main line  (281) 825-4507 direct line  (281) 825-4599 fax   
(512) 422-4919 cell
  mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: