Unmarried Youth Pastor, OK??

When did Paul learn English? When did English start to be used? What year?

I agree with Pastor Larry. I know it's hard for you because you're not willing to listen, but with statements such as this in this type of debate, you show your unwillingness to go to the original languages and find out what it really means vers just trusting in an English translation.

Jamie

 

The front cover of my Bible says "The Holy Bible". I either have to believe that it is Holy or I have to believe the front cover is a lie and I need not bother turning the page. As it turns out, I have come to believe I have a Holy Bible in my tongue. It would seem you and the good pastor do not and The Holy Bible is only found in different language(s). I do not desire to turn this into a Bible Version debate but only desire to recognize that this is where we separate, my Bible says one thing, yours and the good pastor's Bible says something else. There's really no place else to go on this issue when we can't agree on what the Bible actually says.

 

Of course you're right. If you can't even bother to go to the original texts, then why bother to try to debate an issue.

BTW, I am sure your Bible has King James on it also. Where do you think the good people that translated your Bible got their information? Nevermind.

Jamie

 

The Greek in the TR states....

μιας γυναικος ανδρα

Add the strongs numbers to it..
μιας3391 γυναικος1135 ανδρα435

Now look up the definitions...
3391= one
1135= woman
435= man

This is not a versions issue.. the very Greek the KJV was translated from says, "One woman man"

Unless you don't believe the Greek is the Bible.
And uphold ruckmanism...

Go ahead, look it up...prove me wrong.

 

I can look it up, it doesn't change anything. You are establishing that your authority is the Strong's concordance. For me I don't think Strong's is Holy and I don't think that the words of Dr. James Strong are inspired. However, I have a Bible and I believe it's inspired.

Out of respect for the thread this is my last comment relative to the Bible version stuff. Glad to talk about this more in the Bible Versions/Translations if ya'll want to.

 

So? We go by what God inspired.

 

Thayer says the same thing...
The words mean something.. where do you find their meaning?

Whether you say, "one woman man" the literal translation...
or "husband of one wife" a dynamic equivilant...
they both mean the same thing....

One man for one woman.

 

Did God inspire the front cover? I don't think the front cover is a lie. I think the Bible is Holy. But the fact is that God said "one woman man." I think we need to agree with God.

You are wrong.

This is because you have a faulty view of the Bible. That makes discussion about the Bible very difficult.

You are establishing that your authority is the definitions of 17th century Anglicans. HOw is that any different?

This is not an issue about Bible versions. It is an issue about what God said. We have given reasons why "husband of one wife" is not what God intended strictly. We can argue that married pastors are a wiser choice, but we cannot argue that God forbids single pastors without doing great injustice to the text. Out of respect for the word of God we must make that distinction it seems to me.

 

In the Bible.

They don't mean the same thing. One side of this discussion has stated that the verse refers to sexual purity as the bishop must be a "one woman man". I argue that a bishop should be married because the Bible says "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife". One can be a "one woman man" without being the husband of a wife. One is married the other is not.

 

The Holy Bible is inspired by God.

 

You can't say it is Holy and wrong, unless you are saying Holiness is imperfect.

Right. You and I can't even discuss the Bible as I tell you what it says in English and you say, no the Bible is wrong, let me translate it for you.

400 years of history.

Out of respect for the word of God, I think we should trust Him when he says. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

 

Rufus, Jesus did not speak in old English. He spoke in Greek. True or False? The Bible was not written in 1611. It was written in the 1st century. Did Paul, James, or Luke use old English? No they wrote in Greek? So the Bible is translated from Greek to English. You need to know that.

 

UnMarried Youth Pastor

So then it is impossible for a family to consist of a single person? If a single person cannot manage his own household and family then he is in trouble and has no business being the leader of a church ministry. To say that a single man is not a household or a family of one is not allowing your intelligence to shine through, you are allowing your opion to cloud your better judgment.

If a single person or a married person cannot manage the physical requirements of daily life then they will not be able to manage the church well. Paul was not refering to the spiritual only, the church is a physical entity that has physical needs and requirements that have to be managed. Yes, that also includes the spiritual, but the physical takes equal if not greater importance since that is the public testimony of Christ to the lost world. So to imply that God was only speaking to the spiritual state of the church and spiritual requirements is to imply that the physical does not matter to God. Not everything in scripture deals with the spiritual, God also deals with the physical which is what is going on here, a minister must manage the physical aspects of his family well so that he can manage the physical aspects of the church well. Since a single man can be a family of one then a minister is NOT required in scripture to be married.

However, in today's world, it only makes sense for a minister to be married due to various problems in our society with single people doing evil things. But that in no way disqualifies a single man from serving on staff or even as pastor. I have a good friend that is pastoring a large IFB church in S. Fort Worth, TX. that is single and took over for the founding pastor upon his death. He never asked to be considered, they came to him and later called him. They are averaging around 600 or so on Sunday AM and staying in a state of growth.

 

No...it cannot mean an individual. That is not the definition of what a family is, nor is family EVER used in the Bible to insinuate a single individual. You are allowing your opinion to cloud the very commons sense meaning of what a family is. As I have shown earlier in this thread, neither the greek or hebrew allow for "a family of one" interpretation as you are trying to force into this discussion. Let's use your logic: If a family is "one"...then we can be pastors of ourselves...and I can be my own church.

I hope you are kidding! The sole purpose of an elder is to look out for the spiritual well being of the congregation! The deacons role is to serve. No place is the physical day to day operation EVER addressed in Scripture! The early church met in homes, btw. Being able to manage your own family, as I have shown repeatedly from verse 5, is in reference to managing God's family of believers...NOT the physical requirements of daily life. This should be quite obvious, but me thinks you are trying to support a single pastor in any circumstance, so you have to find ways to squirm around the very plain requirements in Scripture.

 

UnMarried Youth Pastor

WOW, talk about missing the point! The fact is, is that there is no requirment in scripture for a man to be married in order to lead the church. For a single individual, he must still rule his own personal household well outside of the church. This is regardless of a family of one or 101, the family must be ruled well. Many times in scripture we see that single men held ministry positions and held them well and they were never spoken against.

You must be kidding if you think that the church only has spiritual needs! The apostles only called for deacons to assist them in the physical needs of the church, the apostles still had responsibility for those physical needs and the deacons were to only answer to the apostles, not dictate in a physical way.

Yes, they did meet in homes during the week, but they also come together on the first day of the week, don't confuse the What and the How, that is bad interpretation.

 

Rufus, would you care to answer these two questions?

Jamie

 

I do not believe this to be the forum for those questions as I do not desire to be accused of turning this into a Bible version debate.

 

Yes it is. And translations are inspired to the degree that they reflect what God inspired in the original manuscripts.

I didn’t say the Bible was wrong. I said you were wrong.

No, again. I have not said the Bible is wrong. I have said you are wrong and I have told you why.

Which is irrelevant.

So do I. But why don’t you? You have misinterpreted what it means while claiming to honor God’s word. You have ruled out the head of the church and the world’s greatest missionary from being elders in the church, something unthinkable. You have ruled out men whose wives have died from being elders. That simply is untenable.

 

I have a book and on the front of the book it says Holy Bible. It has words in it and for 1 Timothy 3:2 the words read...

"2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"​

Are these words right or are they wrong? If the words are wrong than you are saying my Bible is wrong, if they are right then you have to give up your Greek. You can't say my Bible is right and go with your "one woman man" thing and you can't say it is wrong and call it Holy. I either hold a Holy Bible in my hands or I need to discard it as being unholy and go learn Hebrew and Greek.

You have said what the Bible says is wrong and gave me your translation of what the Bible says. If I am to go with your translation please send me the whole book, I will study it and discern whether or not I believe it to be Holy.

I believe fruits are relevant.

The head of the church would never be an elder of the church and regardless He is the husband of one wife.

 

Sure it's right, if you understand what it means to be the husband of one wife. That appears to be the only problem here.

I have not said what the Bible says is wrong. I have said what you say is wrong becaus you have wrongly understood the text and I have shown you why.

So do I, but that has nothing to do with this. The topic was authority, and you said that Strong's was my authority (which is false since I don't use Strong's) and I pointed out that your authority is the lexical choice not of Strong but of people 400 years ago. That is not about fruit.

Christ was not married. Your argument that he is the husband of one wife is the same argument that Catholics have used to prevent their priests from being married ... saying they are to be married to the church. Furthermore, the elder is an undershepherd where Christ is the chief shepherd.

You just believe the wrong thing on this Rufus.