I am surprised...

[tabibito]

Does that actually translate into "Geez"?

"ttaku" is an expression of exasperation, yes. The full word is 全く (mattaku - complete or perfect, but also used as an expression of exasperation).

[rogue06]

"ttaku" is an expression of exasperation, yes. The full word is 全く (mattaku - complete or perfect, but also used as an expression of exasperation).

At least according to Goggle it translates as "Geez."

It is interesting what sort of differences you can get by using Google translate on a single sentence compared to having it translate a page (I have a few languages on auto-translate). Usually the former is more accurate but...

[tabibito]

At least according to Goggle it translates as "Geez."

It is interesting what sort of differences you can get by using Google translate on a single sentence compared to having it translate a page (I have a few languages on auto-translate). Usually the former is more accurate but...

Google translate has improved greatly, but it still has a ways to go. "Geez" or "Oh for ..." are good translations.

[Gondwanaland]

r

Just because the word "abomination" is used in both cases doesn't mean that "abomination" means that the law is only in regards to "ritual purity" - it just means that both things are "abominations"

Er, no, not the word 'abomination'. The Hebrew word תֹּועֵבָה, romanized as Toevah. The term refers to ritual uncleanness. Not a moral condition/violation. Any Jewish scholar who knows Hebrew can tell you this. The term is used throughout for both this, and other ritual uncleanness acts (eating pork, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, etc.).

[Gondwanaland]

no. Just because the word abomination is used in both cases doesn't mean that both are "ritual purity" - that's one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Abomination means something that causes disgust. God can be disgusted by something immoral or impure. And a sexual act is a moral act. It falls under sexual morality/immorality.

Already responded to this in the other post.

[Gondwanaland]

Sorry, but history is on my side. You can make general claims like this until the cows come home, but they will never hold any real water.

It isn't, actually. Every other Christian sect would say the same wrt you.

[Mountain Man]

It is interesting what sort of differences you can get by using Google translate on a single sentence compared to having it translate a page (I have a few languages on auto-translate). Usually the former is more accurate but.

My computer science professor from 30-years ago told a story about an early translator program that took the phrase "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated it into Russian, and then back to English. The result supposedly read, "The Vodka is good, but the meat is spoiled."

[Sparko]

r

Er, no, not the word 'abomination'. The Hebrew word תֹּועֵבָה, romanized as Toevah. The term refers to ritual uncleanness. Not a moral condition/violation. Any Jewish scholar who knows Hebrew can tell you this. The term is used throughout for both this, and other ritual uncleanness acts (eating pork, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, etc.).

As any other word in any other language, it can have different meanings.

Strong's #08441 - תּוֹעֵבָה

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)

1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/...rew/08441.html

So it can be used in conjunction with something unclean or something wicked. It literally means "abomination" and just like in English, it can be used to describe anything offensive or disgusting.

Tabibito already told you this.

[Gondwanaland]

As any other word in any other language, it can have different meanings.

Strong's #08441 - תּוֹעֵבָה

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)

1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/...rew/08441.html

So it can be used in conjunction with something unclean or something wicked. It literally means "abomination" and just like in English, it can be used to describe anything offensive or disgusting.

Tabibito already told you this.

ethical =/= moral.

[RumTumTugger]

Not some of your better work.

I say screwball worthy don't you

[rogue06]

I say screwball worthy don't you

You got to hand it to her. She's a pro level caviler.





I've been hearing a few good things about the new Dune.

[NorrinRadd]

True enough - ει τις επισκοπης ορεγεται - doesn't necessarily indicate a man. So - do Payne and Bartlett provide any examples to back their claims of an idiomatic expression? If not, what you have is a bare assertion. If it is an idiomatic expression, it will find use in other writings, which they should refer to in support of their claims.

Fair enough.

Here Payne summarizes several pages' worth of material from his book:

Overseer requirements in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1

Does Paul require that all overseers be men? Actually, Paul encourages every believer to aspire to be an overseer: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Anyone who aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). In Greek, “anyone” is a gender-inclusive word, implying an open door to women as well as men. Would Paul encourage women to desire an office that is forbidden to them? Paul makes it clear that “anyone” is his continuing subject by reiterating “anyone” in verse 5 and identifying “anyone” as the subject of the parallel list for overseer qualifications in Titus 1:6. Contrary to most translations, there is not a single masculine pronoun in any of the church leader qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1–13 or Titus 1:5–9.28

What about overseers being a “husband of one wife” in 1 Tim 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, which in Greek is literally, “man of one woman”? This text does not say merely “man” but “man of one woman”; the whole phrase must be understood together as an idiom. Some insist on extracting one word, namely, “man,” and arbitrarily isolating it from its context as a new requirement that every overseer be a “man.” But this is as nonsensical as arguing that since “hit and run” is a felony, “run” must also be a felony. Most scholars, including hierarchist scholars, understand “man of one woman” to exclude polygamists or sexually unfaithful men from being overseers.29

Nevertheless, some insist that the passage also excludes women. Reading a double meaning into this idiomatic phrase, both an exclusion of polygamists and a universal requirement that overseers be men, is unwarranted and would make nonsense of most of Paul’s other multi-word requirements for overseers. Must all overseers have their “own household” with slaves and multiple “children” old enough to “believe” and be in subjection “with all gravity”? Furthermore, since 1 Tim 3:11 identifies qualifications for women deacons, the same expression, “man of one woman,” in the requirements for deacons in 3:12 must not exclude women. Thus, reading into “man of one woman” a requirement that overseers be male is arbitrary and unwarranted.30

It is simply Greek convention to use grammatically masculine forms when referring to groups of people including men and women.31 One excellent pastor-professor who affirms patriarchy argues that it is common throughout the Bible for prohibitions addressing men also to apply to women. He states, “As is widely recognized, . . . [i]n the absence of other constraints, norms which utilize male-oriented terminology ought to be construed, in general, as including both sexes in their purview.”32 Jesus’s interpretation of Deut 24 in Mark 10:12 confirms this. The principle of monogamy conveyed by “man of one woman” applies equally to men and women just as “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exod 20:17) applies equally to a husband or wife coveting a neighbor’s spouse. Thus, the most accurate and literal translation of “man of one woman” is “monogamous” since it best conveys the Greek convention’s inclusive meaning of masculine forms, and since this is the natural meaning of this idiom in verse 12.


-----------------------

Relevant footnotes:

28. The American Bible Societies’ Contemporary English Version (CEV) and the Common English Bible (CEB) correctly translate each list with no masculine pronouns.

29. E.g., Chrysostom, Homily on 1 Tim 3:2; Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, 80, citing Josephus and Rabbinic works. Grudem correctly argues that “man of one woman” is “not intended to rule out a single man (such as Jesus or Paul) from being an elder.” This necessarily entails that “man of one women” cannot describe all elders, which contradicts Grudem’s assertion (263 n. 107) that “husband of one wife” is a necessary qualification for “each” deacon and that it excludes women. Grudem incorrectly adds “each” where there is no such word in the Greek of 1 Tim 3:12. Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211, acknowledges that “man of one woman” need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office . . . it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women.” His following assertion, however, “it does suggest that Paul had men in mind while he wrote,” applies properly only to Paul having in mind the exclusion of polygamists or unfaithful men, not that he had in mind a requirement that all overseers must be men. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters,” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35, acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders.”

30. Nothing else in the list has a double meaning. Cf. Payne, Man and Woman, 445–59.

31. E.g., with the same subject, “anyone” (tis), as here: Mark 8:34; 9:35; Luke 9:23; 14: 25–26; John 7:37–38; 9:31; 11:10; 12:26, 26, 47; 14:23; Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:12–15; 3:17; 5:11; 8:3, 10; 10:28; 14:24–25; 2 Cor 10:7; Gal 6:3–5; 2 Thess 3:14; 1 Tim 5:8; 6:3–5; 2 Tim 2:21; James 1:5–8; Rev 3:20.

32. Gordon P. Hugenberger, “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey of Approaches to 1 Timothy 2:8–15,” JETS 35, no. 3 (1992): 341–60, 360 n. 78.

Excerpted from here.

For those interested, Dr. Payne's Web page is here. He is usually quite gracious in responding to inquiries.

IMO, Bartlett makes a better presentation, but I can't find his online. Like Payne, he mainly relies on logic and context, and general observations (assertions?) about the Greek, with few if any direct citations of "one-woman man" in other literature.

[NorrinRadd]

The bolded shows your gymnastics and ignoring of basic words. Thank you for proving my point.
See, there you are with even more mental gymnastics to pretend he didn't actually mean what he said. I believe a certain serpent did the same......


Ah yes, the old 'oh it doesn't count when it's about eating and wearing fabrics, it just counts for the stuff that happens to be what I don't like, not the stuff that would invonvenience me'.

This is a quite common way that Christians have come up with to avoid having to follow the law of the OT, while still being able to cherry pick the parts they want when they want to condemn someone else - I remember doing this all the time myself with just as much certainty, and just the same comeback - 'well if you don't agree with me that just means you didn't study the Bible good enough'. Thank you for continuing to prove my point.

I have not been following this particular part of the discussion closely, but I won't let that stop me from barging in.

I am actually sympathetic to your complaint. Too many Christians are far too glibly confident in making dogmatic assertions about the Mosaic civil, ritual, and moral laws, as if they are clearly and explicitly delineated. I think those divisions can reasonably be inferred, but that's a long way from saying with certitude which laws, if any, are still extant under the New Covenant.

Eph. 2:15 uses the same word for "commandments" that is elsewhere in the NT and LXX used for the Decalogue and the Great Commandments. In the NASB, ESV, and NKJV it is paired with "dogma" translated as "ordinances," probably to call to mind the various places in the Law where "commandments" and "ordinances" are paired. The context does not suggest that Christ only bore the "ceremonial" parts of the Law.

Col. 2:14 also uses "dogma," but more often translated as "decrees." The context does not suggest that our only transgressions causing indebtedness were "ceremonial" ones, and that only they were nailed to the Cross.

Jesus Himself said that the entire Law -- and Prophets -- could be summed up as "Treat others the way you wish others to treat you."

Paul *repeatedly* said that the entire Law, explicitly including the Ten Commandments, is fulfilled by "Love your neighbor as yourself."

For my part, I am willing to live with the tension, cognitive dissonance, whatever, of knowing that the entire Law of the Obsolete Covenant has been taken away, that the New Covenant comes with the New Commandment to "love one another," and yet that those who engage in homosexuality, adultery, other sexual misbehavior, drunkenness, verbal abuse, greed, and swindling will be excluded from the Kingdom.

[NorrinRadd]

Depends. Do you ever cite any old Testament verse as relevant to today?

Relevant? Sure. But saying the entire OT is "relevant" is not the same as saying we are still under the Obsolete Covenant or its Mosaic Law.

[NorrinRadd]

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.

What are Sabbath-breaking and idolatry -- Moral or ceremonial violations?