Mia and NIV 2010 changed on Monogamy Only Position

[DiscussingTheTopic]

2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 timothy 3:2 NIV 2010

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.
1 timothy 3:12 NIV 2010

6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe[a] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
[a]. Titus 1:6 Or children are trustworthy
Titus 1:6 NIV 2010

2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2 NIV 1984

12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
1 Timothy 3:12 NIV 1984

6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
Titus 1:6 NIV 1984

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:2 King James (KJV)

12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1 Timothy 3:12 KJV

6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Titus 1:6 KJV

NIV 1984 adds the word but which is not there in KJV.

NIV 2010 gets rid of the whole one wife thing

Although the word MIA is in Greek, isn't it?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Very interestng DTT.

This is indeed an improvement for this verse. For years the NIV had inserted the "but" into the clause so that it read "the husband of but one wife."

The top two options for this text are that either that man is to be with a lady or that he is to be faithful to his lady. So this does place this verse in a better position grammatically and contextually.

Dr. Allen

 

[welltan]

At least in 1 Tim 3: 2, the Blue Letter Bible website shows "heis" (which could be 'one', 'a', 'other', 'some'), being used instead of "mia". Also the word "husband" or "aner" can mean "of a betrothed or future husband", or "with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy"
I wonder if this can be directed at a man that is betrothed and/or not married yet and more directed at the time and abilities of the man rather than how many ladies he is with. Perhaps this verse throws light on the intent of the "mia" usages elsewhere.

 

[Mark C]

Perhaps the "Nearly Inspired Version" is demonstrating some sensitivity to (justifiable) criticism of the rendering.

Interestingly, the rendering of those verses in a text I have (called the "King's Covenant" of the "Word of Yah", Original Scriptures E1, which purports to be a new translation of the "new testament" from originals in the Hebrew) is translated from echad isha. (I have personally discussed those translations of the verses with one of the principle publishers.)

So, husband of "BUT one wife" is clearly an addition to that language. But "at one with a wife", or "in unity with a/his wife", or similar variants would not be.

 

[Tali]

Perhaps the "Nearly Inspired Version" is demonstrating some sensitivity to (justifiable) criticism of the rendering.

Interestingly, the rendering of those verses in a text I have (called the "King's Covenant" of the "Word of Yah", Original Scriptures E1, which purports to be a new translation of the "new testament" from originals in the Hebrew) is translated from echad isha. (I have personally discussed those translations of the verses with one of the principle publishers.)

So, husband of "BUT one wife" is clearly an addition to that language. But "at one with a wife", or "in unity with a/his wife", or similar variants would not be.

That rendering certainly makes more sense in the context, ie, the requirements for a "bishop" to live his life well and model good management skills where it matters the most, at home.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Very interestng DTT.

This is indeed an improvement for this verse. For years the NIV had inserted the "but" into the clause so that it read "the husband of but one wife."

The top two options for this text are that either that man is to be with a lady or that he is to be faithful to his lady. So this does place this verse in a better position grammatically and contextually.

Dr. Allen

Although I do not know enough Greek I think the King James does better than both of them. Because as I see it "mia" means either one or first not faithful. But adding the word "but," to NIV 1984 was a mistake that seemed to come from a priori assumption of the Monogamy Only Position.

I already explained how those who think "the deacon sets the example therefor if the deacon is required to have one wife, everyone should be required to have one wife," would result in Jesus committing sin when he was born unmarried, Adam sinning before he ate the tree when he was created unmarried, etc. Showing that clearly the deacon rules only should be applied to the deacon. I like using the KJV because by using one instead of faithful (which is not in the text that I know of) it shows that Monogamy Only Position people commit doublethink, because if the deacon rule applied to everyone it would make the Bible irreconcilably self contradictory. Instead however they should have said one or first and put a footnote that says Mia can mean either one or first.

 

[VictorLepanto]

I hate the NIV. It is notorious for using loosey-goosey "dynamic equivolent" translations instead of as faithfull as possible to the original text translations. The NIV or the RSV translations are best in English. The whole dynamic equivolent nonsense is born from the original Protestant chimera of perspicuitous text. The Bible is simply often difficult to read & to understand. It says as much. Jesus himself said His parables were meant to be misunderstood.

As for these qualifications for bishops. I am convinced they are talking about priests who are candidates for elevation to episcopacy. The word used for "rule" here is also used in I Tim. 5:17, "proistemi." It says that priests who rule well are worthy of double honor, a double honor goes to a legitimate 1st born son in Genesis, & for Elisha after Elijah. Prostemi obviously has to do w/ the performance of the priestly office.

The meaning in essense: If priest has run his parish well, if the members of that parish have learned orthodox teachings & are of true Christian virtue, make them a bishop.

This explains the discussion of deacons which follows. Deacons would be elevated to the priesthood once a priest is made bishop. The one wife (or rather woman) is his parish. In reality, this is a proof of priestly celibacy. A priest is to be married to his church only. No other wives to distract him w/ worldly affairs. This would be highly consistant w/ St. Paul's teaching in I Cor. 7. I never really thought too deeply on this matter, but I growing daily in my insight by reading this site.

 

[Anonymous]

I hate the NIV.

Me too! I don't trust it at all. I have one but I never use it for any serious study. It's not reliable at all, IMHO.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Tlaloc]

Contrary to popular belief, the church (or parish) is not a bride of anything or anyone. New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ. Timothy and Titus are necessarily talking about literal wives and literal children. The word Rule here is used quite a few times in scripture, and it is a compound word, 'to stand or uphold' and 'in front of'. It's talking about leadership. Its not a special word pertaining to priestly offices. 1 Corinthians 7:1 is a chapter loaded with cultural and historical considerations, I've done several writeups on different parts of that verse, some posted on this site even. Even with that context a perfect understanding is not possible because this chapter is "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:" and we do not have the things the Corinthians wrote. Either way, 1 Corinthians is not talking about what it takes to be a member of the clergy, but is addressing the church as a whole.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I hate the NIV.

Me too! I don't trust it at all. I have one but I never use it for any serious study. It's not reliable at all, IMHO.

Blessings,
Fairlight

Well...

How about the King James?

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James

How is letting the deacons have one wife, a prohibition on deacons having other numbers of wives? This command in King James is nothing to prohibit deacons from having 0 wives or 2 wives but to allow the deacons to have one wife. Perhaps people were forbidding the deacons to have even one wife in the past or requiring them to have multiple wives, but they were actually allowed to have only one wife, if they wanted to, so Paul had to say "Let" instead of "Require." Or perhaps that section of King James was translated incorrectly a little bit of Greek Knowledge would go a long way here.

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 King James

 

[VictorLepanto]

The willingness of poeple on this site to engage in speculations based on what is not written is astonishing. The word for household (oikos) is used broadly, it is even used for a nation. As in economics; being the study of The Wealth of Nations, as Adam Smith wrote. The oikos here is the household of God, the kingdom of God, the church. A presbyter or priest is to be married to his parish. If he does a good job, he will be put in charge of an entire local church. That is an entire local church as the Catholic Orthodox churches have always defined them, including the episcopacy. A deacon will also be elevated to a priesthood, if he married to the church instead of an earthly spouse.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a breakdown on the word "Mia"

"One" Wife

When first faced with a direct presentation of the Scriptural basis of Biblical Polygyny, fellow believers often try to refute this truth by referring to what are known as the three "one wife" verses.

Trustworthy is the word: If a man longs for the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of one [3391] wife, sober, sensible, orderly, kind to strangers, able to teach, not given to wine, no brawler, but gentle, not quarrelsome, no lover of money, one who rules his own house well, having his children in subjection with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim? (1 Timothy 3:1-5, The Scriptures)

Let attendants be the husbands of one [3391] wife, ruling children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy 3:12, The Scriptures)

If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of one [3391] wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly. (Titus 1:6, The Scriptures)

These three "one wife" verses, of course, are only instructions to overseers (bishops), attendants (deacons) and elders, and not to any others in the assemblies, or indeed to anyone else at all. Nevertheless, they certainly could be seen as a restriction that prevents multiple wives, or even divorce and remarriage, for those in leadership. Yet each of these verses suggest that having a family (wives and children) gives one experience in how to rule or manage or govern. These Scriptures might simply be saying that these leaders should be husbanding a wife and children, not necessarily ONLY one wife.

In each of these "one wife" references, the word translated as 'one' is actually the Greek word 'mia' (Strong's #3391). This same Greek word (#3391, 'mia') can also be found in other Messianic Scriptures, where it is translated differently:

Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first [3391] day of the week, Miryam from Magdala and the other Miryam came to see the tomb. (Matthew 28:1, The Scriptures)

When therefore it was evening on that day, the first [3391] day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the taught ones met, for fear of the Yehudim, Yahushua came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace to you." (John 20:19, The Scriptures)

Reject a divisive man after the first [3391] and second warning (Titus 3:10, The Scriptures)

The word mia can be translated to mean either "one thing", "a thing" or "first thing", depending on the context of its usage. Here is the definition of the Greek word mia, according to the Strong's Concordance:

3391. mia, mee-ah; irreg. fem. of 1520; one or first:- a (certain), + agree, first, one, x other.

In light of all the other Scriptures permitting polygyny, those "one wife" verses could simply establish the principle that bishops, deacons and elders should not be divorced, and they should still be married to their "first" wife, namely the "wife of their youth" (Malachi 2:14,16). Clearly, translating mia as either "first" or "a" fits the context better, while bringing it into harmony with all the other Scriptures. For example, Revelation chapter 6 tells us about seven seals:

And I saw when the Lamb opened one [3391] of the seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, like a sound of thunder, "Come and see." (Revelation 6:1, The Scriptures)

Revelation 6:3 states that the Lamb "opened the second seal". Revelation 6:5 states that He "opened the third seal". Revelation 6:7 states that He "opened the fourth seal". Revelation 6:9 states that He "opened the fifth seal". Revelation 6:12 states that He "opened the sixth seal". Revelation 8:1 states that He "opened the seventh seal".

Considering that seals two through seven were all descriptively mentioned by number, and that seal one was referred to as mia, which can be translated either as "one" or "first", perhaps a better translation of the word mia within the context of Revelation 6:1 would be "first", since this would be consistent with the manner that the other seals were described when they were opened. Revelation 6:1a might therefore better read, "And I saw when the Lamb opened the first seal".

There are many other places in Scripture where the word mia is translated as "first" or "a", but the point is that those "one wife" verses could just as easily be translated as "first wife" or "a wife" instead of "one wife". Considering the reference to family (wives and children) in each of these verses, it seems that the plain sense meaning in these Scriptures is that the man must have been married.

Taken from http://www.righteouswarriors.com

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[VictorLepanto]

If a man has a 2nd wife, he by definition has a 1st. To say that mia only means a 1st wife defies all commonsense & logic. If my point was that a man should take a 2nd wife or even can take a 2nd wife, I'd say,"He should be of 2 wives." or "he can have a 2nd wife if he wants to." This is another absurd attempt to force a meaning from silence. In effect the person who wrote this article is saying, "A 2nd wife is not directly forbidden here, thus it somehow implies we are permitted to have 2 wives." This kind of argument from silence (an absurd claim of silence as any common sense reading of pasage does show forbidding of two wives) is not defensible.

If I tell my son not to hurt his sister, he can not interpret this as permission to kill her.
You simply can't shoe horn polygamy into the NT.

 

[Anonymous]

To say that mia only means a 1st wife defies all commonsense & logic.

Mia can mean "A", "First", "One", "An".....not just "First". What Mia doesn't mean is ONLY one.

This is another absurd attempt to force a meaning from silence.

This is not an argument from silence. There are multiple passages throughout the Bible that speak to the issue of polygyny.

If I tell my son not to hurt his sister, he can not interpret this as permission to kill her.

Dumb analogy :roll:

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Mark C]

If a man has a 2nd wife, he by definition has a 1st. To say that mia only means a 1st wife defies all commonsense & logic.

Not if he has abandoned or put away the first! Good grief.

This kind of argument from silence (an absurd claim of silence as any common sense reading of pasage does show forbidding of two wives) is not defensible.
...

You simply can't shoe horn polygamy into the NT.

Silence is silence. Scripture is NOT silent on what is ordained for marriage...whether you are willfully BLIND to it or not.

What IS forbidden (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19, and every place where Yahushua rightfully called the Pharisees -- and later the popes -- who did exactly the same thing "hypocrites" for doing so) is "adding to" and "subtracting from" His Word!

And "adding" a PROHIBITION against marriage that He did not put there (I Tim. 4:1-3) is not only "not defensible", it is rebellion to Him, and His direct and specific commandments.

The fact that YOU cannot "shoehorn polygamy [sic] into the NT" hardly means that He is incapable of it, much less that He even had to! It is already there! Since He is clearly unchanging (Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8) and clearly said He has never changed the smallest part of His teaching and instruction (Matt. 5:17-19) there is only one way to read ANY of the letters of those who followed Him, and taught in His Name -- and that is in accord with His Word and His character! Any passage which is INTERPRETED to contradict Him is being interpreted WRONG!

You ignore the obvious, that any bit of honest study would reveal -- whether it is the "silence" of a Savior who never prohibited polygyny as you try to, but DID tell the parable of the Ten Virgins and consistently teach about marriage as He has from the Beginning, or a careful reading of Shaul/Paul's letters before obvious mistranslation. Scripture is consistent, from Genesis to Revelation. Your "logic" is not.

You prattle a lot about about reading Scripture and then deny what is clearly Written. Most of what you asked, in this thread and elsewhere, has been answered in more detail than your superficial questions and critiques merit. But if you will not read His Words, why would any of us expect you to read our rebuttals? (John 5:46-47)

Either He "changes not", or He is a liar. As for me, I know what Romans 3 is about. Those who teach that His Word has been "done away with" by the claims or traditions of men are all liars. If you claim to follow Him, learn to read what is Written...not what you have been told it should say.

 

[sweetlissa]

So, if an elder must be married, a pastor who has never been married would be against scriptures, right?

SweetLissa

 

[sweetlissa]

Victor wrote:

The word for household (oikos) is used broadly, it is even used for a nation. As in economics; being the study of The Wealth of Nations, as Adam Smith wrote. The oikos here is the household of God, the kingdom of God, the church. A presbyter or priest is to be married to his parish. If he does a good job, he will be put in charge of an entire local church. That is an entire local church as the Catholic Orthodox churches have always defined them, including the episcopacy. A deacon will also be elevated to a priesthood, if he married to the church instead of an earthly spouse

This would tend to prove our point, not argue it. If a presbyter does a good job of caring for his parish (first wife) then he will be put in charge of an entire local church (presumably made up of several parishes). Would he then be forced to put his parish aside for the entire local church. No. That would make him guilty of "putting away" his first wife in preference for another. I suggest that he would then be husband to all the parishes.

SweetLissa

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Victor said:

The willingness of poeple on this site to engage in speculations based on what is not written is astonishing.

That is coming from one who believes that "Church Magesterium" (the traditions and commandments of man) and the utterings of a man who happens to be called "the Pope" are as authoritative as God's Inspired Word.

As to speculations based on what is not written in Scripture, where is it written, "Thou shalt have only one wife?" Or, "Thou shalt not commit polygyny?" Or anything at all like that?

Victor, all of us are waiting to see which Bible passage you can refer us to that explicitly prohibits polygyny. You know, like those passages that explicitly prohibits murder, adultery, stealing, worshipping false gods, coveting, ...

We have given you Bible passages that explicitly regulate, not prohibit, polygyny. We have given you Bible passages that sometimes require, not prohibit, polygyny. You have yet to refute even one argument based on those passages.

We want Scripture, not tortured logic. We want God's Word, not man's. We want Biblical instruction, not church tradition.

We're waiting.

 

[Scarecrow]

"The willingness of poeple on this site to engage in speculations based on what is not written is astonishing."

I found it interesting that when I Googled "heresies of the catholic church" I received

"About 2,260,000 results (0.33 seconds)"

The Catholic religious cult is in the same position as the other false religions that claim to have some type of relationship with Yeshua and will all hear Matthew 7:23. As a non-denominational Christian I had never investigated the Catholic church. When I heard the Pope publicly announce that if a person was not a Catholic they couldn't go to heaven I was shocked. At this point the Catholic religion immediately obtained cult status with me. Upon further investigation I became aware of many cult practices promoted by the Catholics who use numerous arguments from silence. The Pope later retracted his statement due to public outcry...so much for his infallibility. I also heard him recently state that God caused the "Big Bang". I wonder how he would have been treated 1000 years ago if he had made that statement. God doesn't change, unlike Catholic doctrine.

So you may want to be astonished at the teachings of your own cult before exhibiting such dismay at those who do indeed study their Bibles seeking truth - and yes, speculating with the intent of exploring alternative understandings to what they have been taught and possibly learning something.

Luke 11:27-28 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Victor wrote:

The word for household (oikos) is used broadly, it is even used for a nation. As in economics; being the study of The Wealth of Nations, as Adam Smith wrote. The oikos here is the household of God, the kingdom of God, the church. A presbyter or priest is to be married to his parish. If he does a good job, he will be put in charge of an entire local church. That is an entire local church as the Catholic Orthodox churches have always defined them, including the episcopacy. A deacon will also be elevated to a priesthood, if he married to the church instead of an earthly spouse

This would tend to prove our point, not argue it. If a presbyter does a good job of caring for his parish (first wife) then he will be put in charge of an entire local church (presumably made up of several parishes). Would he then be forced to put his parish aside for the entire local church. No. That would make him guilty of "putting away" his first wife in preference for another. I suggest that he would then be husband to all the parishes.

SweetLissa

Married to his perish....

So if the perish contained multiple people he could be married to only one set of multiple women!

One man and one group of multiple people (parish) married together.

parish (first wife)

Why not Parish (one wife) instead of Parish (first wife) if you are trying to defend the Monogamy Only Position?