Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69085 | ||
Nobody can refute you when you choose to engage in inuendo, assumption, and simply ignore ALL that I have said on this issue. What the commentators did NOT metion in the article is that "mia" is also the word for "first". 1520 heis (hice); (including the neuter (etc.) hen); a primary numeral; one: As you can see, Paul did not choose the Greek word "heis", which means STRICTLY "one" in a singular sense, which would THEN have made this an irrefutable disallownace for church leadership to have more than one wife! However, he did NOT use that Greek word in these two passages. KJV-- a (-n, -ny, certain), (plus) abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also 1527, 3367, 3391, 3762. His use of the Greek word "mia" in these two instances instances creates difficulty for the translators when trying to refrain from social bias. 3391 mia (mee'-ah); irregular feminine of 1520; one or FIRST: (Yes, the emphasis is mine.) KJV-- a (certain), (plus) agree, FIRST, one, X other. There is therefore GOOD reason to question the ABSOLUTE translation of "mia" (in these instances in question) as being ONLY "one" rather than POSSIBLY being "first". I have no problem with EITHER translation. The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." This was only to point out that polygamy was not the issue in relation to church leadership. Now, you can conjure up all the idiotic snideness you want, but then you are only demonstrating your own lack of consideration for what others have said and for common courtesy. I already said that the threads are quite numerous here, so it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with it all, but that does not give you the right to conduct yourself in such a childish manner. If you want to talk to me like a man, then do so. If you feel the need to continue talking to me like some snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others, then I have nothing more to say to you. Don |
||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 69115 | ||
Don First off, let me say I did not say or imply you were a “snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others”. I spoke of what you did (deceptively mis-quoted JFB), not your character. I presented the reason for my accusation, not generalities or name calling. If you can refute that what you did was not dishonest with the intent to deceive and mislead, and that what you left out was not intentional because it was detrimental to the agenda you are attempting to push, we would all like to hear about it. If you chose to ignore what you did and consider deception OK, fine, but don’t expect anyone around here to really take what you have to say seriously, regardless of how many big name professors you have shut down with your vast array of knowledge. Forgive me if I have a major problem with this, but I’m not used to fellow Christians trying to deceive me and then have them brush it off as if nothing happened. Please deal with this in a responsible manner. You’re kidding no one but yourself. You said ‘The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." And why did the commentary say that the “one wife” thing Paul was talking about was not talking about polygamy?? Because of the part you left out!! It is the statement just before the one you like to quote here. Let’s read it again: “and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church”. The commentary said that Polygamy was not what Paul was talking about here because POLYGAMY WAS PROHIBITED FOR ALL, NOT JUST BISHOPS! If you won’t listen to anyone else, just listen to yourself, and take a serious look at how weak and dishonest your attempts are at trying to prove you point. What is your motivation for this? retxar |
||||||