|
phyl2 -> RE: TNIV - What's Up? (7/6/2008 3:55:37 PM)
|
quote:
Again, let the flames and accusations about my beliefs begin.
I have no desire to accuse you or flame you concerning your beliefs.
I do have issues, however, with what Mr. Poythress wrote in his article that you linked to.
Mr. Poythress wrote in a footnote in which he cited a Hebrew lexicon:
quote:
The word "usually" suggests that sometimes it has the meaning "child" in the singular, but no examples are offered. The change in comparison to earlier lexicons may be due to an egalitarian wish that it meant "child." But no evidence is offered.
"usually" does suggest that another meaning is sometimes appropriate, but Mr. Poythress assumes that the lexicologists added the "usually" because of "an egalitarian wish". It is equally possible, though, that the "usually" really should be there, and that he does not beleive it because of his "complementarian wish".
And, I can provide an clue that this might really be the case. In another footnote he writes:
quote:
"usu.[ally] father, sometimes, esp.[ecially] in pl.[ural], parent." It offers as examples in the singular Isa 38:19; Ezek 18:4; Prov 17:21; and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 3:8. In all four cases the meaning could easily be father. There is no unambiguous evidence that in the singular the meaning is ever parent. And of course there is plenty of unambiguous evidence that it means father.
Indeed, the verses cited in favor of the alleged meaning parent offer a most flimsy basis. Consider Proverbs 17:21. The first half of the verse uses a verb for "begetting" or "fathering," unambiguously indicating the role of the male parent. "He who sires a fool gets himself sorrow" (ESV). The second half uses the singular word for father. It must therefore mean father, not parent.
In Proverts 17:21, where Mr. Poythress writes that the first half of the vers uses a verb for "begetting" or "fathering", I looked up the verse in question, saw that the Hebrew word was "yalad" and then I looked to see what the meanings for yalad were.
The very first meaning listed was "to bear", then "to bring forth" and then "to beget". While older translations of the Bible use "beget" to refer to the father's involvement in producing a child, they use "bear" or "bring forth" to refer to the mother's involvement in producing a child.
Then, I looked to see how yalad was used in scripture, and the very first instance in which this word is used was God talking to Eve, telling her "in pain you shall bring forth (yalad) children.
So, therefore, yalad does not "unambiguously indicate the role of the male parent". And, therefore, there is no unambiguous evidence that the word translated "father" can only mean "father" when in the singular. In fact, this verse does provide evidence that the word "father" can mean "parent".
So, I have to disagree with Mr. Poythress that the evidence produced by Proverbs 17:21 is flimsy. It is not.
He provides another example he calls flimsy:
quote:
Next, Sirach 3:8 says, "Honor your father." Could that possibly mean "honor your parent"? It seems very unlikely, not only because there is no unambiguous case of the meaning parent, but because no one is likely to say it that way. One might say, "Honor your father and your mother," as in Exodus 20:12. One might say, "Honor your father," focusing on one half of the fifth commandment. One might say, "Honor your parents," with a plural form, to include father and mother. One would not say, "Honor your parent," singular, because of its oddity. People do not typically have one parent, but two. The text definitely needs a plural if it wants to be explicitly inclusive.
If you go to Sirach 3, verses 2 through 6 alternate references to your father and to your mother. The alternating references continue after verse 8. In 16 verses, there is only one mention of "parents" in the plural. Verse 9 completes the thought or concept of verse 8 and mentions both the father and the mother singly. This shows that the person referred to in verse 8 can logically and rightly be referring to both the father and the mother, but each of them singly.
quote:
Finally, Isaiah 38:19 says, "The living, the living, he thanks you, as I do this day; the father makes known to the children your faithfulness." Who is to say that this means parent? It could just as easily mean father. This verse does not offer any real evidence for the alleged new meaning. To be sure, the expression "the living" in the first half of the verse is very broad. But focusing on the relation of parent to child is already narrowing it. Just from the context, it is impossible to say with certainty how narrow the focus is. In fact, there is good reason to prefer the translation father, because it is more concrete.
There is just as good reason to translate the word as parent, because it was not Hezekiah's father who made known to him the righteousness of God. Hezekiah's father was one of the most evil kings to rule in Judah.
This is what troubles me about the group who published that website. They can only see scripture through their own framework and seem to ignore any other framework. And, this carried through into that meeting that I mentioned before. As I recall, Mr Poythress was there, but I do not recall any representative from the "egalitarian" side.
|
|
|
|