I have already stated why HD's assertion was wrong in
4830. If HD bothered to read more than one verse (actually verses 5-7) he would have realized that +Paul was talking about a bishop (episkpon). Unfortunately, he remains silent on this.
I have already stated why HD's assertion was wrong in 4830. If HD bothered to read more than one verse (actually verses 5-7) he would have realized that +Paul was talking about a bishop (episkpon). Unfortunately, he remains silent on this. Sorry, but I’m exceptionally busy at the moment and my Internet connection isn’t all there. I'm missing some of the "action". You made the assertion in 4830…
From the context of that chapter, and the term presbuteros it is clear that +Paul refers to a bishop.
I have already stated that the term elder, bishop and presbyter are often used interchangeably. The King James Version (and many others) cite the passage as:
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:5-7
As you can see it uses the term interchangably. What I disagreed with is using the term “priest”. I thought I had it all figured out with Reader_David post that priest is now derived from “presbuteros” which seems to make sense. But you’ve gone and confuse me again by saying that
”first rank being deacon, then priest, then bishop”. If the priest is not a bishop, then how can you call a bishop a priest? Someone is not matching up.
I should also point out this mistaken error:
The source of error is your KJV because it was man-made to be acceptable to the Geneva-worshipping lost sheep.
The KJV was developed to compete with the Geneva-worshipping folks' Geneva Bible. While the KJV is a fine version, regrettably, King James was a little squimmish about the Calvinist leanings in the Geveva's Bible interpretation. He sought to tone the interpretation down simply by choosing other more plausible words.
You see, HD, prooftexting never provides you with a correct answer. It only confuses you.
No, what really confuses me is people telling me a priest is really a bishop but a bishop is not a priest.