Is the Newsweek article about the Bible accurate?

Question:

I just read the Newsweek article, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." After having read that, how can anyone honestly remain a Christian?

Answer:

If anyone wishes to read this article, the full text can be found here.

If much of what the Newsweek article said were actually true, Christianity would be in serious trouble. The truth is the article is filled with false information, twisted facts, and insinuations that are simply not true.

The first few paragraphs paint a grim picture of biblical illiteracy and misuse in America. Personally, I think this part contains some valid criticisms, and we believers would do well to address these kinds of issues in our church.

Six paragraphs into the article is this claim:

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Very little of what is said here is true.

Claim: "No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation..."

Truth: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. There are tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, myself included, who can read these testaments in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages. 

But are they reading the Bible?

Claim: At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

Truth: While it is true the original first century documents no longer exist, with over 5800 Greek copies of the books found in the New Testament in existence, modern textual scholars have declared with a high degree of confidence that at least 96.4% of the Greek New Testament that exists today is letter for letter identical to the originals. Further, when it comes to confidence in the information related in the New Testament, the most conservative estimate is that 98.33% of the information related in our current Greek Text is identical to the information contained in the original. Further, when it comes to the fundamental doctrines, the "articles of faith," virtually all scholars are in agreement that the Greek New Testament as it exists today is 100% accurate to the doctrines taught in the original documents.

To those not familiar with the field of textual research, 5800 Greek copies of the New Testament might not seem like a lot. But consider this: there are more copies of the books in the New Testament than the next 100 ancient manuscripts combined! The second place for most copies goes to Homer's Illiad, of which there are now almost 1800 copies in existence, but after this, the numbers drop off rapidly. Third place goes to Sophocles, with 193 copies. In fourth place is Aristotle, with 49 copies. In fifth place is Tacitus with 20 copies. By the time we get to the manuscript in ninth place (Euripides), we are down to single digits at 9 copies. All other ancient manuscripts are less than that.

These 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are NOT translations. The originals were written in Greek, and these are COPIES of the Greek. For more on this information, you can read this article, this web site, or this blog.

Further, the oldest manuscripts of the NT are from the second century, and are likely only a few dozen copies out from the originals; maybe even closer than that. While many of them probably are copies of copies of copies out hundreds of times, there are so many copies in existence that by comparing them to each other, as noted above, provides us with a very high degree of confidence that what we are reading today is virtually identical to what the disciples wrote 2000 years ago.

So, yes, contrary to what this article claims, many tens of thousands of people around the world are literally reading what amounts to exact words of the New Testament as it was written 2000 years ago, and many millions more are reading ONE translation of the New Testament, directly from the Greek into their native languages.

Claim: About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Truth: The implication of this statement is that for the first 400 years of Christianity, no one had access to the New Testament. The truth is that for the first several hundred years after the originals were written, the various books of the New Testament were copied and circulated individually. So while many early churches may not have had the entire New Testament in one binding, they did contain most of the content of the New Testament as individual books.

Further, we have proof that within a generation or two, many of the books were circulating in collections. We have copy of the four gospels together in a group (in the same order as they are today) and another copy of Paul's letters (plus Hebrews) that date to about 100-150 years after they were written (between 175 and 225 AD). And the first complete Bibles (including OT and NT) date to about 250 years after the manuscripts were completed (about 325 AD). We have TWO complete Bibles (created in two DIFFERENT scriptoriums) that date from this time period.

Claim: While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to this grueling work, they did not start copying the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job.

Truth: Papyrus 66, which contains the Gospel According to John, dates from sometime between 150-200 AD, and is now accepted to be the work of a professional scribe. That means the church employed professional scribes very early on.

However, many of the copies were done by amateurs. Papyrus 75, which contains both Luke and John, and dates to somewhere between 175-225 AD, is known to be a copy made by an amateur. Detailed analysis of both texts have revealed that P-66, which was produced by a professional, has at least four times as many provable copy errors as P-75, which was produced by an amateur. So the actual evidence shows that, contrary to the implications of this claim, just because a scribe was an amateur does not mean what he produced was sloppy or inaccurate.

Claim: And Koiné was written in what is known as scriptio continua—meaning no spaces between words and no punctuation. So, a sentence like weshouldgoeatmom could be interpreted as “We should go eat, Mom,” or “We should go eat Mom.”

First, all the oldest manuscripts have pauses and punctuation at the end of the thought, so we do have rudimentary punctuation.

Second, because all nouns, adjectives, verbs, and many other Greek words had endings that tell us how that word is being used in the sentence, it is actually not that hard to read once you learn the language. I've been reading scriptio continua manuscipts for so long that I barely notice any more, and I rarely have any difficulty reading the text.

Third, while there are a few places where punctuation really could change the meaning of the sentence, that is actually kind of rare, and for the most part, because Greek is a free form language, punctuation in the middle of a sentence would make no sense (and would be largely unneeded, as the endings tell us the function of the words).

For example, in Greek, the sentence above ("weshouldgoeatmom") would be crystal clear no matter what the word order, because the endings on the words would make it clear what function each word served in the sentence. With a few simple exceptions (such as plurals), English doesn't use endings to clarify the use of a word in a sentence. To get a feel for how it works in Greek, let's create a few "endings" that tell us how a word is being used. For our example, we will say that @ at the end of a word will indicate direct address (we are talking directly to that person), and $  at the end of a word will indicate the subject of the sentence.

Using our invented endings, the above sentence would read "we$shouldgoeatmom@." Now we know, no matter where the word "mom" appears in the sentence, we are talking TO mom, not suggesting that we eat her. This also means we can put these words in any order, and we will still know what the sentence means. Thus, if we read "mom@shouldgoeatwe$" or "shouldgowe$mom@eat", we still know that we are talking to mom, and the subject is "we." So, when you take into consideration that all verbs in Greek also had endings, with no punctuation or spaces, and regardless of word order, we can immediately decipher all of these to mean, "Mom, we should go eat."

This means that contrary to what this article implies, scriptio continua is not that hard to figure out in Greek, and is not that much of a hindrance to understanding the content of the New Testament manuscripts.

Claim: And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on the New Testament.

Truth: In case any of you are not familiar with the expert referenced here, Bart Ehrman is an atheist whose many books and articles on the Bible have one purpose: to discredit the Bible, and with it, Christianity. So when this article quotes Ehrman, it is using what an attorney would call, "a hostile witness," and this alone should make it clear the real intent of this article.

I've read almost every copy of every published copy of the New Testament from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and I can personally testify that there are ZERO significant differences between early manuscripts and later manuscripts. But if there are so many variations in the manuscripts, how can I make that claim?

Because while it might be technically true that there are more variations among the many manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (400,000 variations when taking all manuscripts into consideration, and the NT in Greek contains 138,020 words), what this article doesn't say is that by far the vast majority of these variations literally have no impact on the meaning of the text, or are so subtle the differences cannot be translated into English.

When you get to variations that actually impact the meaning of the text, we are down to a few hundred, and if you go to variations that would literally change a teaching or doctrine, maybe a couple dozen. But when it comes to fundamental, critical doctrines, ZERO variations that would change the teaching (such as salvation, the death and resurrection, faith, grace, etc.). In case anyone is wondering, there are no scholars, including Ehrman, who dispute these facts.

Next, when referencing the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), while it is true that John likely did not write it, the claims in this article are simply not true.

Claim: Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.

This is blatantly wrong.

This passage is called the Pericope de Adultera, and first appears in Codex Bezea, which dates from somewhere in the range of 375-425 AD. Further, of the three complete Bibles that predate Codex Bezea, one is missing the page (Alexandrinus), so it is unknown if it does not contain it; one has diacritical marks at that spot (Vaticanus), indicating a known alternate reading exists; and one (Sinaiticus) does not contain it.

Didymus the Blind made it clear in his writings that most copies of John from about 300 AD on contained that passage (we should note the the oldest complete Bible in existence date from 325-400 AD, which is this same period). Jerome reports that it was found in most Greek and Latin texts by 375 AD. And further, several of the early church fathers from the first or second centuries (such as Papias) indicated a familiarity with the story.

All of that is a long, long time before the Middle Ages.

Claim: Moreover, according to Ehrman, the writing style for that story is different from the rest of John, and the section includes phrases that do not appear anywhere else in the Bible.

This is also misleading.

First, it is not clear that the writing style of this passage is different from the rest of John.

Second, there are 5446 different Greek words in the New Testament. Of these, almost half of them only appear ONE time in the New Testament. In fact, every single section of John contains words and phrases not found in any other section of John. For example, the famous opening section of John, 1:1-14, which is completely undisputed, contains three words not found anywhere else in John, and two words only found in ONE other place in John. And if you expand out to the whole first chapter, there are no less than 16 words that are not found anywhere else in John, and another 11 words that are only found in ONE other place in John.

It is true that at first glance, the Pericope de Adultera seems to have a high number of words not found anywhere else in John. In the 12 disputed verses, there are 13 words not found anywhere else in John. But this is not actually so unusual for John. In the 12 undisputed verses from John 19:30-41, there are 14 words not found anywhere else in John.

But when it comes to rare phrases, it should be noted that the critical command Jesus states at the end: "Go and sin no more" (In Greek: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) only appears ONE other time in the entire New Testament: John 5:14.

So the critical, most often quoted climax of the story uses a phrase only found in John.
After examining all the evidence, most modern scholars believe the story is authentic, but could have originated from one of the other disciples, and after being passed down orally for a while, was added to John so it would not be forgotten.

Claim: For Pentecostal Christians, an important section of the Bible appears in the Gospel of Mark, 16:17-18. These verses say that those who believe in Jesus will speak in tongues and have extraordinary powers, such as the ability to cast out demons, heal the sick and handle snakes. Pentecostal ministers often babble incomprehensible sounds, proclaiming—based in part on these verses in Mark—that the noises they are making show that the Holy Spirit is in them.

Truth: Having grown up in a Pentecostal church, I can tell you with no hesitation that I have never actually heard anyone reference Mark as evidence that believers will speak in tongues, heal the sick or cast out demons. There is no need, as all of these are recorded as historical events that happened to numerous believers in the book of Acts.

For example:

When the day of Pentecost was being celebrated, all of them were together in one place. Suddenly, a sound like the roar of a mighty windstorm came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of fire that separated, and one rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them that ability. (Acts 2:1-4)

When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and evil spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)

And when it comes to handling snakes without harm, there is this:

Paul gathered a bundle of sticks and put it on the fire. A poisonous snake was forced out by the heat and attached itself to Paul's hand. When the people who lived there saw the snake hanging from his hand, they told one another, "This man must be a murderer! He may have escaped from the sea, but Justice won't let him live." But he shook the snake into the fire and wasn't harmed. They were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. (Acts 28:3-6)

So contrary to the claims of this article, none of these beliefs are based on a disputed passage of scripture since they are found in numerous other, undisputed passages.

Claim: But once again, the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel of Mark was written. In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8.

I have previously addressed the facts of this claim in a previous post. You can read that post here. In short, the evidence for the inclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark is far, far stronger than the evidence against it.

Claim: Then comes the problem of accurate translation. Many words in New Testament Greek don’t have clear English equivalents. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences—all of these are challenges when converting versions of the New Testament books into English.

While this is true, what this article doesn't point out is that this is true of translations between ALL languages, including any modern languages. French has words English doesn't have. English has words Spanish doesn't have. German has words Russian doesn't have. Russian has words Spanish doesn't have.

Further, as a person who can read Koine Greek, and have translated John and Philippians from Greek into English, I can assure you that these translation problems have not led to massive numbers of false doctrines. It is true that some peripheral teachings can be clarified and corrected by reading the Greek directly, but it brings no changes to the vast majority of doctrines, and no alterations of any kind to the fundamental articles of faith of Christianity.

Claim: The gold standard of English Bibles is the King James Version, completed in 1611, but that was not a translation of the original Greek. Instead, a Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek.

Truth: While the KJV is a fine translation, and many people prefer it over all other translations, calling it the gold standard is opinion, not fact. But more than that, despite the claims here, the KJV is primarily a translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Latin was only employed in the translation of the Apocrypha. Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. (See the full Wikipedia article here.)

Claim: In other words, with a little translational trickery, a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it directly contradicts the rest of the verse.

The implication of this is, of course, that the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is God, and we Christians only believe it because of bad translations. It's not true, and I address one of the most blatant examples of the Bible teaching the deity of Jesus in a previous post, which you can read here. This is not even close to being the only place the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, but it does show that the closer we look at the Greek, the more obvious it becomes that the Bible openly and boldly teaches that Jesus is God.

Claim: That kind of manipulation occurs many times. In Philippians, the King James Version translates some words to designate Jesus as “being in the form of God.” The Greek word for form could simply mean Jesus was in the image of God. 

First thing you need to know is that the Greek in this passage is poetry, so it uses poetic language. Since Paul did not normally speak in poetic language, most scholars believe Paul was actually quoting a popular Christian hymn that would be well known to his readers.

Realizing this is poetry, here is what the Greek in this passage states:

First, that Jesus was in the very form of God,
second, that He did not misuse His equality with God,
third that He then took on the form of a servant, and
finally, that He was made to resemble a man.

Now, realizing this is poetic language, what else could this passage possibly be saying except that Jesus was originally God, and that he changed His APPEARANCE so that He looked like a man?

A very new translation, called the ISV (go here to find out more about this translation), recognizing that this passage is Greek poetry, has produced an ingenious translation that attempts to preserve the meaning of the words while presenting them in a form English speakers recognize as poetry. The result preserves the intent and meaning of each clause while beautifully communicating that this is a first and foremost, a poem, or more likely, a song.

In God's own form existed he,
and shared with God equality,
deemed nothing needed grasping.
Instead, poured out in emptiness,
a servant's form did he possess,
a mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
and lived in all humility,
death on a cross obeying.
Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
And so, when Jesus' name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall
wherever they're residing.
Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord,
while God the Father praising.
(Philippians 2:6-11)

Claim: Which raises a big issue for Christians: the Trinity—the belief that Jesus and God are the same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity—is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet. So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?

Nowhere.

This, again, is blatantly misleading. It is true that the NAME of the doctrine is not found in the Bible, as that was invented, for the sake of convenience, many centuries later. But that does NOT mean the teaching is not found in the Bible. It is actually pretty easy to prove that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, that these three interact with each other as distinct individuals, and yet somehow, the Bible repeatedly insists there is only one God. What the Bible does NOT do is try to explain how these can all be true. It just claims they are.

And that blatant New Testament teaching is what we call, "The Trinity."

The rest of the article contains just as many erroneous claims, distorted facts, and blatantly false implications as I have already addressed, but I think what I have presented here is more than enough to demonstrate that you should not to believe much of anything you read in this article.

If anyone reading this has a specific question about any of the other issues raised in this article (wise men, creation, flood, David and Goliath, homosexuality, women in authority, etc.), please feel free to contact me, and I will address them in detail.

If you would like to read a more scholarly, accurate and balanced evaluation of the Bible, there are many, many choices out there. One such book that is both scholarly and accessible to the average lay reader is "How We Got the Bible," by Neil R. Lightfoot (available through Amazon here). If you would like a deeper, more detailed (and more faith driven) account, I recommend "From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible," by Norman L. Geisler, which is available in a downloadable, Kindle version here.

Most of all, don't make the mistake of accepting anything said in this article at face value. It is, at best really, really bad scholarship, and at worst, a blatant, vicious hit piece intended to discredit both the Bible and Christianity.

Don't believe a word of it.

Does John 1:1 actually say, "the Word was a god"?

Question:

I got into a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses, and they said that according to Greek grammar, John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Is this true?

Answer:

No.

In order for me to explain why that is wrong, I'm going to need to explain a few rules of Greek grammar, which most people will find horribly boring. I apologize, but unfortunately, this is the best way to refute this claim, so if you really want to know why this JW doctrine is wrong, you will need to bear with me. If not, feel free to stop reading now.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Greek only has a definite article ("the"), and does not have an indefinite article ("a"). This is true. They also claim that since Greek normally attaches the definite article ("the") to the noun, any time it does NOT attach the definite article to the noun, it automatically implies the indefinite article ("a"). This is NOT completely true, but the really irritating part is that the Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW this is not completely true, which I shall prove at the end of this post with their own translation.

You can read the Jehovah's Witnesses full argument on this issue here. If anyone is interested, I have the writings of most of the scholars they reference, and it is NOT true that those scholars support their interpretation of John 1:1. Their explanation is, at best, the kind of thing a first year Greek student might come up with before he gets a wider, and much more in depth understanding of Greek beyond the bare basics.

Now, it is true that the only way to imply the indefinite article is to leave off the definite article, and that construction DOES occur in the New Testament, however there are at least ten ways to make a noun definite in Greek, and attaching a definite article to it is only one of the ten ways. This means that an indefinite article is only implied in about 15% of all cases in the New Testament where the definite article is missing. In other words, there are other rules that help us determine if a noun that is missing a definite article is supposed to be indefinite. So what rule applies to John 1:1?

Ok, now comes the really boring Greek grammar stuff. You have been warned.

The first thing you need to know is that Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the endings on most words, particularly the nouns and verbs, tell us the role they are playing in the sentence (subject, primary verb, object, predicate, etc.). As a result, the word order rules in Greek are much more flexible than in English, and because of that, many Greek words can appear anywhere in the sentence. Greek writers typically used this inherent word order flexibility to emphasize or de-emphasize specifics words and concepts within a given sentence. Most of this is extremely subtle, but it can occasionally have a huge impact on what the writer is trying to say.

The third clause in John 1:1 is normally translated "And the Word was God," which the JW's claim is incorrect because the noun "God" does not have an article, and thus, it should be translated with the indefinite article as "a god."

Here is the clause in question in Greek:

και θεος ην ο λογος

And God was the Word.

Just as in English, a sentence in Greek in which the connecting verb was some form of "to be" (is, was, are) has a subject and predicate (rather than a normal sentence which has a subject and object). In English, the subject is always first, and the predicate is always second, and it is used to equate the predicate to the subject. For example, "John is king," "Jane is black," "Bill is cold," or "Sue is angry" are all this kind of construction. In most cases, it matters which of these is the subject and which is the predicate. In the sentence, "Bill is cold," we are saying that "being cold" is something Bill is experiencing. We are not saying that "being Bill" is something cold is experiencing.

In Greek, we would normally determine which noun is the subject and which is the object from the endings, but in predicate constructions, this is a problem, as both nouns are in the same case, so they have the same ending. Since a Greek writer can put these words in any order, determining which is the subject and which is the predicate could be a problem . . . except that Greek has a rule for this. Here is how the rule works:

If both nouns have the article, or neither noun has the article, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate. Thus, in the following sentences (shown in English for ease of understanding), "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate:

A)   The John was the king.
B)   John was king.

In example (B), since there is no particular reason for leaving off the article, it would be legitimate to translate that sentence, "John was a king," or maybe, if the context was not clear as to who "John" was, it might be translated, "A John was a king."

However, if only one of the nouns had the article, then the rule is that the noun with the article is the subject, while the noun without the article is the predicate. Thus, although they read oddly in English (remember, we are pretending that our English words are actually Greek words), in both of the following sentences, "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate.

C)   The John was king.
D)   King was the John.

Here are the two really important things to remember: First, Greek uses word order for emphasis, and second, if both words have the article, the FIRST word is the subject, and the SECOND word is the predicate.

Remember that the third clause of John 1:1 follows the pattern of example (D) above, where one noun has the article (ο λογος = "the Word"), and one noun does not have the article (θεος = "God").

So we know that "the Word," although it appears at the end of the clause, is actually the subject, and "God," although it appears at the beginning of the clause, is actually the predicate. From this rule, we know this clause SHOULD be translated, "And the Word was God," NOT "And God was the Word."

Ok, so why did John place θεος ("God") at the beginning of the clause? For emphasis. The effect is something like this, "And the Word was GOD!"

But how do we know it is not supposed to be translated "a god"? Simple, remember that if both words have the article, then the first word is the subject and the second word is the predicate? That means, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot place the predicate at the beginning of the sentence AND also give it the article. So, Greek grammar demands that if you want to place the predicate at the beginning, as John did in this clause, you MUST drop the article (so that your readers will know this is the predicate, NOT the subject).

This means that John could NOT do both. He could EITHER give it the article and leave it without any particular emphasis, OR place it at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, where he would be required to drop the article. If he chose to place it at the beginning for emphasis, the rules DEMAND that he must drop the article.

When the rules demand that you drop the article, the absence of the article does not, in fact, cannot indicate the indefinite.

Thus, the effect is the exact opposite of what the JW's claim. By placing the predicate θεος at the beginning of the sentence, John is required to drop the article, but in so doing, he is placing extra emphasis on the noun θεος, which gives it extra force in the sentence, and produces the result, "And the Word was GOD."

Now, here is the really underhanded part of this argument from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They actually DO know that the absence of the article only rarely indicates the indefinite, as proven by their own translation, the New World Translation (Available online here).

John 1:6 reads as follows in the New World Translation:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John. [emphasis mine]

Here is how the Greek reads in that verse:

εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης.

The word θεου ("of God") does not have an article, which according to their claims, means it should be translated, "of a god." But they know their claim is not true, and they demonstrate that in this verse.

How about John 1:12 where the New World Translation reads:

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek reads:

οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι

Again, θεου ("of God," the Greek literally reads, "the children of God") has no article, so by their rules, it should read, "the children of a god."

Here is the next verse, John 1:13. New Word Translation:

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek:

οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησαν.

Again, θεου does not have an article attached to it (εκ is a preposition meaning "from"), so according to their own arguments, this should be translated, "from a god."

These are all from the same writer as John 1:1, in the same chapter.

Just so you can verify this for yourself, because Greek is an inflected language, the article can have 17 different spellings. I will list them all here (in alphabetical order) so you can see that there is no article attached to θεου in any of these sentences: αι, η, ο, οι, τα, ταις, τας, τη, την, της, το, τοις, τον, του, τους, τω, των.

There are numerous other examples directly from their own translation I can give where it is clear they either don't really understand how the article works in Greek, or are being intentionally deceptive about the rules governing its use.

The bottom line is that John 1:1 tells us, to quote preeminent Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, "Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος." [Quoted in Basics of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce, pages 27-28].

Far from meaning what the JW's claim, this verse, when coupled with verse 14 (and the Word become flesh, and dwelt among us), actually proclaims the deity of Jesus with emphatic boldness that leave no room for doubt about the claims John is making about Jesus: He is the God, He is the creator, He was not created (he was already there in the beginning), and He became flesh to pay for our sins so that we could be saved.

What Translation of the Bible is the Best?

Question:

So a friend told me that the only real Bible is the King James Version, but I have a hard time understanding it. I kinda like the NIV, but she said that one is corrupt. I was wondering which version you think is the best?

Answer:

This is really two issues:

1) Is the KJV really the only legitimate Word of God?
2) If not, what is the best English translation?

The primary argument of the King James Version only view is that all other translations are corrupt because they leave out words, phrases or verses that are found in the KJV. How do we know they are wrong in leaving those words, phrases or verses out of the bible? Simple. If they are in the KJV, they are scripture. Period.

The first issue assumes that somehow an English translation made 1500 years after the New Testament was written is the one and only bible against which all bibles, before and after, must be measured. Thus, if we find a second century copy of the Gospel of John in Greek that differs slightly from the KJV (which did happen with Papyrus 75), the ancient Greek manuscript is wrong, not the KJV. How does this even make sense?

So, they are starting with an assumption that cannot be proven. Then, based on this assumption, when a modern translation is missing something that is found in the KJV, they accuse it of being corrupt, and quote this verse from Revelation to condemn it:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19 KJV)

There are two serious ironies here.

The first is, how are we to know if modern translations are leaving verses out of the bible that are supposed to be there, or if the KJV has added verses to the bible that were never supposed to be there in the first place? The only way to know this is to look at the oldest copies of the bible in Greek, and see how they read.

For example, 1 John 5:7 appears in the KJV, but not in any modern translations. Why? Because prior to the twelfth century, that verse did not appear in ANY Greek manuscript of the New Testament. It FIRST appears as a margin note in the twelfth century, and is found in only FIVE manuscripts (out of more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts), all of them after the twelfth century. So, here is the problem. This verse was not found in ANY bible in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, 8th century, 9th century, 10th century or 11th century, yet somehow the KJV only view wants us to believe it is original? If a new version drops that verse, are they not returning to the way the bible was for 1100 years PRIOR to its sudden appearance as a margin note? Doesn't the choice to return to the way the bible was for the first thousand years of its existence make more sense?

Besides, Revelation has another warning, one that proponents of this theory never mention.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (Rev 22:18 KJV)

The second ironic thing about Revelation 22:19 quote from the KJV listed above is that prior to the sixteenth century, the phrase "book of life" did not exist in ANY Greek manuscripts (it appeared first in a poor Latin translation). ALL Greek manuscripts in existence read "tree of life." So which is correct? The KJV or ALL the Greek manuscripts in existence?

The bottom line here is that modern translations are NOT attempting to corrupt the bible. Far from it, they are, through serious scholarly research into Greek manuscripts, attempting to produce a bible that is as close to the originals as possible.

There are a few other issues involved, but I don't have the time or space to go into them. If you are interested, the following web site addresses many of the KJV only issues fairly well:

Notes on the King James Translation and the so-called Textus Receptus

Bottom line: it is simply not true that the King James Version is the only valid, true and reliable translation of the Bible.

So what is the best translation of the bible?

The one you understand the best, and are most likely to actually read.

In other words, I have only run into ONE seriously BAD translation of the Bible (done by a guy who could not actually read Greek, who assumed that each Greek word had ONE, and only ONE meaning, and really did not understand Greek structure, syntax or grammar - and I am NOT providing a link to his web site), and quite a few really good translations.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a "best" translation of the bible. It is simply impossible to create a perfect translation of a Koine Greek document into modern English, if for no other reason than there are so many things in the ancient Greek for which we have no equivalent in modern English. For example, in John 1:1 the Greek word λόγος is translated "word," yet it does NOT mean "word" in that sentence. In fact, we have no English equivalent for what it means in that context, which is something like this:

λόγος is the principle of order and knowledge in the universe. The way everything in the universe held together, followed laws or patterns, the way learning made sense of that order, and the way new knowledge explained things that had previously been a mystery. All of this was λόγος. You could say that λόγος is all knowledge that ever was or ever will be. In its purest form, it is the actions, thoughts and knowledge of God Himself. [from my up coming book, "The Gospel According to John: Wide Open" due out sometime in 2015 or so . . . hopefully]

We have no English word that can relate this meaning, so what do we do? We use the sorely under-powered and seriously lacking alternative, "Word," mostly because no scholar on the planet can can think of anything better.

But there is more. Greek has constructions we don't have in English, some of which are due to it being a flexible language that uses WORD ORDER to convey subtle, but often critical, information in a sentence, and we have no set way to relate these nuances in English. Greek has greater distinctions and subtleties in many words than we have in English. For example, to contrast two ideas, we have "but, however, and although," each of which mean pretty much the same thing, and to connect, we have "and, as well as" and maybe a few others, each of which, again, mean essentially the same thing. Greek, however, has a five step progression from the strongest contrast (opposites) to the strongest connection (indicating unity, or the tightest connection). How do we accurately relate exactly where we are on this progression with a given conjunction?

Additionally, we are constantly learning more and more about Greek as time goes on. For example, it has only been in the last twenty-five years or so that we have learned that the Greek word αὐθεντέω meant "violence," not "authority" in the first century, and very few modern translations reflect this discovery even today (I only know of one: the ISV).

Different translations tend to reflect different subtleties, all found in the Greek. No translation is perfect, and every translation (including my own) has some problems that often cannot be overcome due to the limitations of human language. Every translation has moments of unmatched beauty, stunning clarity, and outright genius.

My recommendation: get several translations, and switch back and forth between them.

If you are interested, I own well over thirty-five different translations (on top of being able to read the Greek), and these are some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):

Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, Easy to Read Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, International Standard Version, King James Version, Message, Modern King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New International Reader's Version, New King James Version, Today's New International Version, Young's Literal Translation.

So buy a couple that you like, and most importantly of all, READ THEM! And you will be fine.

Oh, and if you have any questions about a specific passage or word, write to me, and I'll do my best to explain it to you.

Can Women Be Pastors? Part Two.

Question:

How can a woman be a pastor if women are explicitly forbidden to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Answer:

As with the 1 Timothy passage, the translation on this one is usually flawed just enough to make it seem absolute, when Paul had no intention of making it as extreme as our translations often imply. Again, I will bold the translation problems. For the sake of context, I have includee verse 33 as well.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This passage has very similar translational issues as the 1 Timothy passage, so some of this has already been addressed.

The first thing we should note is that this passage is set in the context of verse 33, which shows that the issue facing the churches was of disorder and chaos during the meetings. Apparently, some of the women were causing some disruption in the service, and the issue had to be addressed.

As with “teaching” in the 1 Timothy passage above, "speaking" here means “continuously speaking.” It is not a prohibition against ever speaking, but against disruptive, continuous speaking. Further, the Greek word translated “speak” (λαλεω – laleo) is more accurately “converse, discuss, extended conversation.” What is disgraceful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, and engaging in ongoing conversations when they should be paying attention to the service. Again, the construction here indicates that women did speak in church, but they were not supposed to abuse that to the point of becoming a disruption. 

I have already addressed the translation issue with "submission," and the context here is the same. Women need to be respectful and reverent in a church service, which is a fairly obvious issue. 

Further, no denomination in any century has ever taught that women must literally remain silent in Church, as that would prohibit them from singing, prophesying or praying, which is something they clearly did. In fact, Paul gives instructions, in this very same letter, that in a Greek culture, the married women needed to cover their heads when they spoke out in a church service (Jewish culture was the exact opposite, with the men covering their heads during religious ceremonies, and the women leaving their heads uncovered, showing that the whole "head covering" issue is cultural). 

Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. (1Co 11:4-5)

Now clearly, if women were not allowed to pray or prophesy in church, there would be no need for a rule about keeping their heads covered while they spoke out in a church service. No such instructions would be necessary if women literally kept silent in church. 

Further, if we take this literally, it also means it only applies to married women, as single women had no husbands to ask questions of at home.

Occasionally paraphrase translations, because they can be freer in their phraseology, manage to capture the force of the Greek passage even better than word for word translations. This is one of those verses where a popular paraphrase, The Message, catches the force of this paragraph in 1 Corinthians 14 as concisely as I have seen anywhere.

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.

All difficult passages in scripture should always be interpreted in light of clearer verses elsewhere in the Bible. It is my contention that we should likewise do the same with the these passages, particularly since so much of the New Testament indicates that women were NOT silent in Church, and that they did hold positions of authority (I will address this in Part Three).

These passages should not be taken as absolute warnings about how women are prone to abuse their authority, but should be understood as what they are: isolated circumstances addressing unique problems within a specific cultural setting. The real principle at work here is that, just as Priscila and Aquila operated as a team in ministry (and jointly taught Apollos about Christianity, Acts chapter 18), so husbands and wives should work together in harmony within the body of Christ.

When judging how God views the issue of women in ministry, or in positions of authority within the church, we should always keep this verse in mind: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

When Paul wrote these words to the Galatians, this was the very first time any person in human history made this statement, in ANY context, claiming all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity, status or sex. Paul, and Christianity, were on the cutting edge of human rights in the first century, and unfortunately, the church lost most of that momentum in later centuries.

The bottom-line is that in Christianity, all sincere believers are given equal access to the gospel, to ministry, and to any position of authority. Many believers in the 1850's used Galatians 3:28, among others, in stating that all believers, of all races, whether black or white, slave or free, are equal in the eyes of God. Just as so many of them had the courage to stand up to slavery when it was the law of the land, many of them eventually embraced the whole verse when they granted women the right to be ordained as pastors. Despite how controversial this issue seems to be, the vast majority of protestant denominations now ordain women, as illustrated in this Wikipedia article (it's a long list, but not complete, as the Free Methodist Church, which is where I serve as pastor, ordains women and is not listed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

In America, the average person no longer has a problem with a woman holding a position of authority in the government, yet many believers would forbid a sincere, Christian woman who had just proven her leadership ability as the President of the United States or the Governor of a state from serving as the pastor of a church. This disconnect should not be. Long before any society granted full and complete equal rights to all people, regardless of race, economic status or sex, Christianity was on the cutting edge of civilization by doing exactly that. Our Lord and Savior makes no distinction between races, economic status or sexes, and neither should we.

Can Women be Pastors? Part One

Question:

I'm so tired of American Christians just ignoring the Bible when it suits their needs. Take your church [Free Methodist] for example. You ordain women; isn't this a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul clearly says that women cannot teach or have authority over men?

Answer:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

This is the over-riding principle that should be used when trying to understand how Christ views believers. This verse makes it clear there are no boundaries or restrictions based on race, culture, economic status or sex when it comes to serving Christ. Most believers have no problem accepting this verse, right up until we get to the part about there being neither male nor female in Christ. They, as you, believe this principle is restricted by two passages in the New Testament which appear to prohibit women from being in positions of authority in the church, and they cannot understand how those verses can be interpreted any other way. These two verses are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

In Part One of my answer, I shall address 1 Timothy; in Part Two I shall address 1 Corinthians; and in Part Three I shall examine the full biblical picture of women in authority.

I propose that, due to mistranslation and misapplication, these two verses have been applied improperly, and that once they are understood properly, we see that not only is there no scriptural barrier to women in authority, but when understood correctly, they actually assume women will be in authority, and provide careful warnings to make sure that wives in authority within the church do not abuse that authority with respect to their husbands.

A womanA should learn in quietness and full submissionE. I do not permit a womanA to teachB or to assume authorityC over a manA; she must be silentD. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the womanA who was deceived and became a sinner. But womenA will be saved through childbearing--if theyA continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

There are five problems with the way this verse is usually translated, which I have bolded and marked. 

A) To whom is this passage addressed?

B) Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

C) Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

D) Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

E) Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

So the first translational problem is, "To whom is this passage addressed?"

In Greek, there is no separate word for husband and wife: ανηρ (aner - “man, husband”) and γυνη (gune - “woman, wife”) are used for both, and the exact meaning must be determined from context. For example, just fourteen verses further down in 1 Timothy 3:14 we find this verse: “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well,” where ανηρ and γυνη are translated “husband” and “wife” respectively.  

So what does the context tell us?

First, Paul compares them to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. Granted, this alone would not be enough to know for sure (as they are BOTH the first man and woman AND the first husband and wife), but there are more clues.

Second, Paul speaks of these "women" that he is addressing as giving birth to children. In other words, these are not women in general, but clearly, married women (Paul would never assume that single Christian women would be giving birth). 

Third, in verse 14, the Greek does not include the word "woman," but uses pronouns, and literally says, “SHE [singular] will be saved through childbearing if THEY [plural] continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 

Since Paul is clearly addressing each woman individually with the singular in the first part, the plural in the second part cannot be a reference to women in general. That would literally mean that each woman will be kept safe if, and only if, ALL women continued in faith, love and holiness. It should be obvious that Paul did not intend that meaning, so the only plural reference that makes sense here is “she and her husband.”

Given this context, it is far more likely that Paul was intending this to be about how wives should treat their husbands when the wives are in positions of authority (which is a much more likely scenario of abuse), not about men and women in general. 

So with this first translational error corrected, the passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 

(1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

So the first thing that should be noted here is that context strongly suggests this passage is not about a general rule concerning all women, but is addressed specifically to husbands and wives, and specifically how wives in authority should treat their husbands.

The next translational problem is Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

When a prohibition is absolute (“do not do this, ever”), Greek uses the Aorist tense.[1] 

For example, in James 2:11 we read:

For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Adultery and murder are never allowed, under any circumstances, and James reflects this absolute prohibition by placing the commands “do not commit adultery” and “do not murder” in the Aorist tense.

If Paul had intended this prohibition against wives teaching to be absolute, he would have used the Aorist, as James did concerning adultery and murder. However, Paul used the Present tense, which places this command in a completely different light. The tense he chose is best translated, “I do not allow wives to teach husbands continuously.” By choosing this construction, Paul is actually stating that some wives did teach their husbands, it is just that they should not be doing it constantly, which is what he advises for all believers in his letter to the Corinthians: 

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:31)

Adding this correction to our passage, it now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The third translational problem Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

The word for “authority” in the New Testament is εξουσια (exousia). There are three Greek words that can be considered synonyms of this word (addressed in footnote [2] below), but the Greek word used in this passage in Timothy is not one of them. εξουσια is used of all levels of authority, including soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18), and when the Bible says that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1). 

However, Paul does not use εξουσια (or any of the synonyms of εξουσια) in this verse. In fact, the Bible does not forbid women from exercising authority (εξουσια) over men! Not even once! Let me state that again: No where in the Bible are women forbidden from exorcising εξουσια over men. No where.

So what does this passage forbid? Believe it or not, it forbids women who have authority from being abusive towards their husbands. In this passage, Paul does not use εξουσια, or one of its synonyms, but a completely different word that only appears ONCE in the entire New Testament: αυθεντεω. When a word only appears once in the New Testament (which happens over 2200 times), scholars must go to other Greek texts, both religious and secular, outside the Bible, to find out for sure what the word means.

An examination of the evidence reveals something shocking: it does not mean “usurp authority” as it is rendered in the KJV, nor is it “authority” as in most modern translations. So what does it mean? An examination of every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare) in every available Greek manuscript from 200 years prior to Paul to 100 years after Paul yields an astonishing discovery: it is used almost exclusively of murder, suicide, or abusive or violent action against one’s self (suicide) or against a family member or relative.[3] This meaning fits perfectly with the context of this verse being about unacceptable behavior within a family unit: how a wife should treat her husband. Which is why the ISV translates this verse: “Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate violence towards a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.”

So why is it usually translated "authority"? Because usage gradually changed its meaning over time, and almost 500 years after Paul wrote his letter it came to mean "autonomous, illegitimate authority." During the time when Paul used this word, however, that is NOT what it meant.

This is important to understand: by using this word, Paul is not really saying anything about authority, he is simply admonishing wives to refrain from any actions that could be abusive toward their own husbands. If Paul had meant women had no authority over men at all, he would have used εξουσια.

Adding this new information, this passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to be abusive in any way toward her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fourth translational problem is Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

The Greek word translated "quietness" in verse eleven and “silence” in verse twelve is ͑ησυχια (hesuchia), and primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. Although it can indicate being vocally quiet, even then it primarily references the state of the spirit, not the mouth.

For example, note how it is used in this passage:

For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12)

Here, ͑ησυχια is translated “quiet fashion.” This was not a command to maintain silence when you work, but to be a productive person who refrained from causing trouble. We should be a source of strength, not discord, to those around us. One of the best ways to tell how Paul intends it to be understood is by checking how he uses ησυχια earlier in the same letter.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (I Timothy 2:1-2)

A mere ten verses before making his statement about wives being silent, Paul uses the same word. No one would make the argument that Paul was telling Timothy that a truly godly life was one where we never spoke, but rather, he was encouraging us to live lives in which we are not a source of strife and conflict with others. As these verses show, Paul's primary point is that women, and the rest of us for that matter, should not allow ourselves to become a source of discord and conflict within the church, but rather, examples of quiet strength and humility. This is also one of the reasons that the more recent edition of the NIV changed their translation of this word in verse 12 from "silent" (in the 1984 edition) to "quiet" (in the 2011 edition).

With this in mind, this passage should now read:

A wife should learn calmly and in full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fifth translational problem is Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

Every language has words whose concepts are unique to that language or culture, and for which no other language has exact equivalents. The word translated “full submission” in 2 Timothy 2:11 is one such word. There is no exact English equivalent for ͑υποτασσω (hupotasso), so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly.

Although there is an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, this word reflects a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration because of that person's wisdom and leadership, not because they are a ruler over you. The over-riding concept is not about obeying someone, deferring to their decisions or will, or even letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of tremendous respect that is shown by supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect, honor and support, not about decision-making or obedience or even deference to the decisions of someone else.

One of the best scriptures for illustrating the real meaning of this word is Ephesians 5:21: "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

Clearly, this cannot be about obeying, being superior, or having authority over someone, as this is something that we are supposed do to each other. What we can do is hold one other in such high regard that we are constantly treating each other with respect and honor while encouraging, supporting and lifting each other up. This is something that clergy and leaders can and should do to those placed under their authority.

A more accurate translation for this word, particularly in this context, would be "respect," not "full submission."

Thus, it is my opinion that a more accurate translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be:

A wife should learn calmly and respectfully. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. So she will be kept safe through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

Far from forbidding women to have authority, this passage is about women who do have authority, but are commanded not to abuse that authority within the confines of their own families, particularly with their husbands. If a woman is in authority within the church, that does not change the simple fact that her husband is still the head of the house.

Footnotes:
___________________________________

[1] Prohibitions occur in the Subjunctive or Infinitive (i.e. Matthew 5:34, 36, 42; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 2:22; James 2:11), and the Future Indicative (i.e. Matthew 4:7; 5:21, 27, 33; 19:18; Romans 7:7; 13:9). The difference between them is subtle. The Aorist Subjunctive or Aorist Infinitive place a little more emphasis on the prohibition itself, and tend to be very specific. A prohibition against adultery using the Aorist Subjunctive could be translated “do not commit adultery - ever!” The Future Indicative places more emphasis on how one should live from this day forward, as a normal part of our daily life, and tends to be more general. The corresponding command in the Future Indicative could be translated (over emphasizing the effect), “you shall not, from this day forward, commit adultery.” So the Future indicative would be more in line with "Go and sin no more," while the Aorist is more in line with, "Do not sin!"

[2] There are a few synonyms with similar meanings: κυριότης is a derivative of the Greek word meaning "Lord," and strictly speaking, means "Lordship, dominion, rule." This is used almost exclusively of the spiritual authority of God, demons or angels, and appears in Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:10; and Jude 1:8. ἐπιταγή is the issuing of commands, and is not authority itself, but is something that someone who has authority is allowed to do. This word appears in Romans 16:26; 1 Corinthians 7:6, 25; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:3; 2:15. ὑπερέχω means "to be superior in rank, class or attitude," or "to govern" and appears in Romans 13:1 (where it is connected to εξουσια to produce "governing authorities"); Philippians 2:3; 3:8; 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13.

[3] See Betty Talbert’s thesis (for her Master’s degree in Apologetics) “The Meaning of Authenteo and its Implication in Translating I Timothy 2:12” She examines every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare), from 200 years before and 100 years after Paul wrote, tracing it's gradual change from "kinsmen murder" or "suicide" 200 years before Paul to something closer to "familial violence or abuse" by Paul's time.

Do you have questions about Christianity?

At the tender age of 19, my faith was almost destroyed by the professor of my Old Testament class. His constant barrage of "facts" about the origins of the stories and books of the Bible was systematically eroding my faith in the Bible as the Word of God. I felt utterly helpless, unable to answer his question, much less defend my faith. In desperation, I poured out my anguish to an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship worker named Joe Whitchurch. He handed me the book, "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict," and it was as though it had been written for my class. It is no understatement to say that book, and the man who just happened to have purchased it that same day on his way to meet with us, and was willing to part with it for the sake of a desperate student, saved my life that day. My debt to Josh McDowell for writing the book, and Joe Whitchurch for parting with it (even before he had a chance to read it for himself) for saving my faith can never be repaid. What I could do, however, was turn around and provide that same gift to other believers. Unfortunately, at 19 I still did not know enough to help others, and try as I might, my lack of answers prevented me from being able to save the faith of some of my fellow students in that same class.

I determined then and there that no one would ever damage the faith of another believer while I was in the room, and so I dedicated the remainder of my life to studying every nuance of Christianity, as well as all the evidence for the validity of this faith. In keeping with that, I gained a passing knowledge of Hebrew, and learned to read and write New Testament (Koine) Greek. I read every article I could find relating to creation and evolution, archaeology, church history, textual criticism, philosophy, doctrine, theology, ministry, culture, and translation. I read most of the published portions of every manuscript of the Bible (both Old and New Testament) in Greek from the first 500 years of Christianity. To better understand the issues involved in translation, I produced my own translations of the Gospel According to John and the Letter to the Philippians, as well as large portions of several other books of the New Testament.

Over the years I have had the privilege of answering hundreds of questions from believers and unbelievers alike seeking to better understand what the Bible says, and along with that, what Christianity teaches on almost every conceivable topic. Now, as the Teaching and Discipleship Pastor at Living Promise Church [Update: As of March, 2015, I am the Senior Pastor at Trinity Episcopal Church in Flushing], one of my jobs is to do exactly what I have been doing for decades: answer the questions of all who seek to understand the Bible and draw closer to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

And that is the purpose of this blog: to share with all of you the many questions I have received over the years, as well as any new ones I get along the way, and my answers to those questions. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim to be able to answer every question. There are things about God that I do not understand any better than any other believer, but I'm completely comfortable with that. As my beloved father-in-law used to say, "If I could understand everything about God, I would be equal with Him." What I can do, however, is lay out the evidence for Christianity, explain the seemingly convoluted history of textual research that has resulted in our modern Bibles (as well as explaining the apparent differences between some translations in certain verses), simplify complex doctrines, and expand upon some of the extraordinarily subtle aspects of the Greek that often cannot be translated into English.

Hopefully, in the process I can help you live a bolder walk with the Lord, gain a more vibrant and strengthened faith, and pursue your purpose and ministry with more confidence and conviction than ever before.

Even if you are not sure about this whole "God" thing, maybe I can still answer some of your questions, settle your fears, or give you things to think about that you had not considered before. And who knows, maybe even help you find the God that really is there.