|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 18, 2018 6:28:43 GMT -5
I addressed what she believed the Bible was saying in those Scriptures on page ten of this thread. That scripture is clearly speaking of a Father and daughter, and you seemed to dismiss that. Forget about that conversation. Just taking those scriptures as written, as I placed them side by side with her translation and the KJV translation, just give us the proper interpretation. You can even add your own translation to the mix if you want and place it along side these two.
Re-copied from my response to Candance: I don't believe that Paul was giving fathers advice on the subject of marrying their daughters in 1 Corinthians 7---and I'm actually a bit surprised that BUTERO didn't object, given his strong KJV-only belief, since the KJV translates the verses in question differently than your translation (NASB). I believe that Paul was addressing unmarried men who were betrothed to a woman, not fathers with unmarried daughters. The word "daughter" in the NASB is italicized, which means that it was not in the Greek manuscript from which the text was translated. It was added by the translators for clarity according to what they believed it was referring to. The KJV translators did the same thing. This is how 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 reads in the KJV:
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin (this is definitely not speaking about fathers and daughters; it refers back to what Paul was addressing earlier in the same chapter about men and women marrying to avoid lust and fornication), if she pass the flower of her ("her" italicized) age, and need so require (same thing again---it is better to marry than to burn), let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (This is not saying that a father should let his daughter marry, but that it is permissible for a man and woman in this situation to do so. "Let" in this case is not referring to a father's permission, it just means let it be so, or it's acceptable.)
Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will (again, the same thing Paul had been speaking about earlier in the chapter, about lust), and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin (his betrothed), doeth well.
So then he that giveth her (the word "her" is italicized) in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
(Verse 38 seems to suggest a father giving his daughter in marriage, but it's probably just the way it is worded. It wouldn't make sense for Paul to have been speaking all along to unmarried men and then suddenly switch to giving a command to fathers about their unmarried daughters. That just doesn't fit in with who the previous verses are addressing: unmarried men, not fathers. Paul is saying that the man who marries does well, but the one who can control himself and doesn't marry does better. This again goes back to God's ideal for Christians being celibacy, for those who can receive that life by faith, for the reasons Paul explains in verses 32-35. Marriage is good, as it was under the old covenant; but under the new covenant abstaining from marriage if one is able to do so, is even better, for the reasons explained by Paul. It's not best for everyone, but it's the ideal. Under the old covenant, marriage was the ideal. It's still good, but if a person desires to be celibate for the reasons Paul gave and God gives him or her the faith and the grace to be, that is even better for a Christian. Most, however, desire and choose to marry, which is no sin.) How did I "dismiss" what she said about fathers and daughters. I said I didn't believe that that verse was speaking about that and that it was probably just the wording of it in some translations, and I gave my reasons for saying so: It doesn't fit in with the rest of what Paul had been addressing up to that point. Please re-read what I wrote above, so that I don't have to repeat myself unnecessarily.
Your comment was: "That scripture is clearly speaking about a father and daughter." Based on what proof? The word "daughter" is nowhere in that verse in the KJV, and I explained why it was in there in the NASB in my response to Candance.
This is the way those verses are translated in the ESV:
If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed* (*footnote: Greek, virgin) if his* (footnote: or her) passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry---it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)
I believe that in the case of somewhat obscure verses, we need to refer to their context for clarification, rather than assuming what they mean. My conclusions about verse 38 are not based on the translation of a word, or its wording, but on the context of what Paul has been addressing throughout that chapter, and who he has been addressing up to the point of that verse, which has not been fathers. To take one verse of dubious translation out of its context and form a doctrine about fathers' authority over their unmarried adult daughters around it is, in my opinion, absurd. We'd better be sure that something actually is what we believe it to be before we go making doctrine out of it (and this applies to me also).
My practice when it comes to determining doctrine is to start in the New Testament, where all fundamental Christian doctrine is contained, and which is the final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. When I refer to the Old Testament, it is always with that in mind. I believe that every essential teaching for Christians is contained in the New Testament, although the Old Testament complements the New and is useful for instruction also. When the teachings of the two conflict, the New is the authority. And if there is nothing clearly taught about a matter in the New Testament, it's not critical doctrine for Christians. God put everything that He wanted us to be careful to obey in the New Testament; and if something from the Old pertains to the New, there's a reference to it in the New.
The apostles used the Law and the Prophets in their instruction because that was the only Scripture they had; the Scripture of the New Testament was still being given by the Holy Spirit, through them. Now we have that new teaching in its entirety, and that should be the first place we look for instruction, not the law of Moses, which the law of Christ is the perfection of.
On the subject of authority, the New Testament is very clear about husbands and wives. It is very clear about slaves and masters. It is very clear about children and their parents. It says nothing about fathers and their adult unmarried daughters. If God wanted every unmarried Christian woman to have a father's authority over her, where is that teaching in the New Testament? We don't have a single command about it. Compare that to husbands and wives, which we have many about. The only clear male authority that God identifies for a Christian woman in the New Testament is her husband; not her father, brother, or uncle. And He gives specific commands about how that marriage relationship should be. There is nothing about unmarried women submitting to their fathers in everything, even in those Scriptures that address the unmarried. There's nothing about fathers and unmarried daughters at all. So the only place we could get any kind of teaching about that relationship---between fathers and their unmarried daughters---is the Old Testament.
Christian women, under the new covenant, like Christian men, live by faith---God's will for each one of us personally and the convictions of His Spirit. That is a freedom I believe that God wants Christian women to have that was not necessary under the old covenant because the saints under the old did not live by faith but by a written code that was a substitute for what the Holy Spirit does under the new covenant. This is a very important difference to recognize. I believe that this is why there is no command for unmarried Christian women to obey their fathers as there is for married Christian women to obey their husbands. He wants them to live by faith, according to His will, not the will of their father. If it were otherwise, I believe He would have made that clear somewhere in the New Testament, as He did with wives and their husbands.
And since the New Testament ideal is actually celibacy for both men and women who can receive that life by faith and without sin, being totally devoted to and directed by Jesus Christ in thought and deed and body, one would have to conclude that it's actually not God's ideal for Christian women to have a male spiritual authority over them---since the only male spiritual authority He has appointed for them is a husband---but rather Himself. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to anyone's authority, or honor their fathers, but that the only man who a Christian woman is to be subject to like a husband is a husband.
It's different with wives: The Lord's will for wives is to obey their husbands. There's no conflict between living by faith and being in submission to a husband: It is God's will for wives to submit to their husbands. If they are doing that, they are obeying Him also, and the way that a wife treats her husband is the way that she treats Jesus Christ.
The New Testament is very clear about spiritual headship for women: If they are married, it is their husband. A husband is the only spiritual head identified for a Christian woman---not a father, not a male relative, not a pastor.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 6:36:43 GMT -5
Thanks. So your contention is that all the translators were wrong to add those words that make it appear to be speaking of a Father and his daughter? When I have more time, I will look closer into that. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to think that is the case, but I won't dismiss it without taking time to investigate it. This would place you at odds with all the translators. They all thought it was dealing with a Father and daughter, and you disagree.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 18, 2018 7:18:01 GMT -5
Thanks. So your contention is that all the translators were wrong to add those words that make it appear to be speaking of a Father and his daughter? When I have more time, I will look closer into that. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to think that is the case, but I won't dismiss it without taking time to investigate it. This would place you at odds with all the translators. They all thought it was dealing with a Father and daughter, and you disagree.
They didn't all think that. I gave you the ESV's translation. I also explained why I was not relying on one verse or word of ambiguous meaning to form an opinion on the verse in question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 7:28:55 GMT -5
Thanks. So your contention is that all the translators were wrong to add those words that make it appear to be speaking of a Father and his daughter? When I have more time, I will look closer into that. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to think that is the case, but I won't dismiss it without taking time to investigate it. This would place you at odds with all the translators. They all thought it was dealing with a Father and daughter, and you disagree.
Butero, I don't know if you saw my answer to your question, copied from the top of page 12: << The verses in 1 Cor 7 I believe are talking about young men who are betrothed and have come to faith in Christ, and what they should do with regards to their betrothal. (Couples were typically betrothed early in those days.) It's not a sin to marry, neither is it a sin not to marry (unless the young lady in question "so requires" for any number of reasons in which keeping her in limbo would have been unkind or inappropriate.) It's a continuation on the theme on whether to marry or not...I'm pretty satisfied that it's not talking about fathers preventing daughters from marrying. >>
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 7:30:48 GMT -5
Thanks. So your contention is that all the translators were wrong to add those words that make it appear to be speaking of a Father and his daughter? When I have more time, I will look closer into that. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to think that is the case, but I won't dismiss it without taking time to investigate it. This would place you at odds with all the translators. They all thought it was dealing with a Father and daughter, and you disagree.
They didn't all think that. I gave you the ESV's translation. I also explained why I was not relying on one verse or word of ambiguous meaning to form an opinion on the verse in question. Are you aware of any English translations that don't add language that makes the passage appear to be speaking of a Father and daughter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 7:31:28 GMT -5
I am really confused. The KJV is also clearly talking about giving away a girl on her wedding day. I don’t know how a man can give away his own virgin wife. I’m going to have to step away from this thread. okay, I think i see why you understood it the way you did.......and see if this helps. Take a look at the Greek word for "giving in marriage" there....it can mean to marry, but was translated as giving in marriage because in scripture a woman doesn't "marry", rather she is "given in marriage"....whereas a man "marries". I think this is to imply that the young woman is covered and under protection and authority as she is being given to another covering in marriage. I don't think it means that what you are saying in general about this subject is wrong...it might need a little tweeking is all, I'm not sure. See if the above helps too, Butero, I'm not sure if it got missed or not.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 7:38:21 GMT -5
Thanks. So your contention is that all the translators were wrong to add those words that make it appear to be speaking of a Father and his daughter? When I have more time, I will look closer into that. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to think that is the case, but I won't dismiss it without taking time to investigate it. This would place you at odds with all the translators. They all thought it was dealing with a Father and daughter, and you disagree.
Butero, I don't know if you saw my answer to your question, copied from the top of page 12: << The verses in 1 Cor 7 I believe are talking about young men who are betrothed and have come to faith in Christ, and what they should do with regards to their betrothal. (Couples were typically betrothed early in those days.) It's not a sin to marry, neither is it a sin not to marry (unless the young lady in question "so requires" for any number of reasons in which keeping her in limbo would have been unkind or inappropriate.) It's a continuation on the theme on whether to marry or not...I'm pretty satisfied that it's not talking about fathers preventing daughters from marrying. >> When a man gets married, he takes a wife. He doesn't give her. I have taken it like you are in the past, but the wording doesn't seem to agree. Also, where does the custom of the Father giving his daughter away come from?
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 7:45:06 GMT -5
okay, I think i see why you understood it the way you did.......and see if this helps. Take a look at the Greek word for "giving in marriage" there....it can mean to marry, but was translated as giving in marriage because in scripture a woman doesn't "marry", rather she is "given in marriage"....whereas a man "marries". I think this is to imply that the young woman is covered and under protection and authority as she is being given to another covering in marriage. I don't think it means that what you are saying in general about this subject is wrong...it might need a little tweeking is all, I'm not sure. See if the above helps too, Butero, I'm not sure if it got missed or not. I will have to look closer at that when I get home, but I am pretty sure one Greek word wasn't translated to those 3 English words. I have my better Strong's Greek Dictionary at home.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 18, 2018 7:54:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 18, 2018 8:04:16 GMT -5
They didn't all think that. I gave you the ESV's translation. I also explained why I was not relying on one verse or word of ambiguous meaning to form an opinion on the verse in question. Are you aware of any English translations that don't add language that makes the passage appear to be speaking of a Father and daughter?
You can plug the verses into BibleHub.com and compare multiple translations of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. You can also look up those verses (36-38) in the Greek on BibleHub. The Greek says 'virgin of him'. I think the key to understanding the meaning of that passage is comparing what it says with what Paul has been speaking about, and who he has been addressing, up to that verse in chapter 7. It is an obscure passage by itself, so it can't be relied on to form doctrine around by itself. But I think the Greek supports the betrothed interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 8:07:47 GMT -5
Greek word “ekgamizo” (G1547) in 1 Cor. 7:38 for giving in marriage applies to the bride, rather than the bridegroom. For the bridegroom the word for marry in the Greek is “gamizo” (G1060):
Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry (G1060), nor are given in marriage, (G1547) but are as the angels of God in heaven .
Mat 24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying (G1060) and giving in marriage, (G1547) until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Luk 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married (G1060) wives, they were given in marriage, (G1547) until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
1Co 7:38
So then he that giveth her in marriage (G1547) doeth well; but he that giveth her (G1547) ➔ not in marriage G1547 doeth better.
In other words, to covey the idea of a woman marrying, would not use the word "gamizo", they always used the word "ekgamizo" since she is being given in marriage. Likewise for the man who is getting married they always used the word "gamizo" because the male is not given in marriage, but marries the one who is being given.
How I'm understanding it is that the word "ekgamizo" applies to the feminine, while the word "gamizo" applies to the masculine.....kind of like how the word actor applies to a male, while a different word, actress, is used to apply to a female. That is how I seemed to see this by grace....and the above seems to confirm it, and I believe resolves the apparent contradiction of how v. 38 is worded.
There is no separate Greek word for "he" in v. 38, it is just the word "ekgamizo" meaning to marry or be given in marriage. In our colloquial English I would take it that the passage is saying it is well and good if the virgin marries and even better if she does not marry. Or more literally, it is well and good if she is given in marriage and even better if she isn't given in marriage.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 8:24:06 GMT -5
I looked at this in the Greek online, and the word that was translated was gamos. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, this word means to espouse a daughter to a husband. If you go to the web-site where it appears to be going straight from Greek to English, it can appear it is simply using the word marriage, but click on the actual number associated with the Greek word and it gives the actual definition.
I also went the extra mile and looked up Young's Literal Translation. Here is what it says...
"So that both he who is giving in marriage doth well, and he who is not giving in marriage doth better."
I can't find any translation that doesn't show this as someone giving another in marriage, not a man taking a wife. The argument made by Lights is she is referencing words added for clarity so it will make sense in English. Let's examine this without he added words.
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth not in marriage doeth better. KJV Without Added Words
Nothing here seems like it is speaking of a man who is engaged making a decision over whether to take his fiancé as his wife. You take a wife, you don't give her. I can't find any translation that agrees with that view.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 18, 2018 8:28:34 GMT -5
Are you aware of any English translations that don't add language that makes the passage appear to be speaking of a Father and daughter?
You can plug the verses into BibleHub.com and compare multiple translations of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. You can also look up those verses (36-38) in the Greek on BibleHub. The Greek says 'virgin of him'. I think the key to understanding the meaning of that passage is comparing what it says with what Paul has been speaking about, and who he has been addressing, up to that verse in chapter 7. It is an obscure passage by itself, so it can't be relied on to form doctrine around by itself. But I think the Greek supports the betrothed interpretation. That has been my argument to show that it is God's will that women marry and be a help-meet to a husband. I am taking the Bible as a whole. The passage that indicates it is better to be like Paul means single if your whole life is devoted to the work of the gospel, where marriage would hinder you. You were taking one passage by itself and not rightly dividing the Word of God.
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 18, 2018 8:32:08 GMT -5
I don't believe that Paul was giving fathers advice on the subject of marrying their daughters in 1 Corinthians 7---and I'm actually a bit surprised that BUTERO didn't object, given his strong KJV-only belief, since the KJV translates the verses in question differently than your translation (NASB). I believe that Paul was addressing unmarried men who were betrothed to a woman, not fathers with unmarried daughters. The word "daughter" in the NASB is italicized, which means that it was not in the Greek manuscript from which the text was translated. It was added by the translators for clarity according to what they believed it was referring to. The KJV translators did the same thing. This is how 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 reads in the KJV:
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin (this is definitely not speaking about fathers and daughters; it refers back to what Paul was addressing earlier in the same chapter about men and women marrying to avoid lust and fornication), if she pass the flower of her ("her" italicized) age, and need so require (same thing again---it is better to marry than to burn), let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (This is not saying that a father should let his daughter marry, but that it is permissible for a man and woman in this situation to do so. "Let" in this case is not referring to a father's permission, it just means let it be so, or it's acceptable.)
Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will (again, the same thing Paul had been speaking about earlier in the chapter, about lust), and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin (his betrothed), doeth well
This is actually correct .
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 18, 2018 8:42:01 GMT -5
I mean how on earth can this be about Fathers and daughters . What part of a father lusting after his daughter , acting uncomely towards her . would paul then turn around and advise them to marry . Folks a lot of folks had servants back then and I think we tend to forget that . They had male and female servants who would wait on them . Not like the slavery type of Americas error, but servants none the less. Though this is nothing to strive over . and I think folks may or may not realize what passed her flower means . Go look that one up in the English language. Has she flowered yet , that means bled . this is a fact . I learned a lot by simply researching the English of old, middle , early modern . The beauty of it , was the ONLY , only reason I even desired to learn the English was to also help show folks , THAT we have been lied too , when others were saying , OH over time the English translations or any , had been altered and thus no bible is accurate . I knew that was a lie , so I went to town to prove that while the language shifted , THE ACCURACY did not . at least not up until the KJV. now sadly , these modern translations do contain errors . They are not word for word translation , they simply translations OF what the author DEEEMED was meant by the writing . This is why you see even in these concordances , changes . Its based on what man THINKS it means , rather than the word for word translation .
|
|