" The context of 1 Tim 5:1-22 is a set of instructions for relating to various people in the church -- elder males, younger males, elder females, younger females, elder widows, younger widows, all summarized in the instruction in 5:21 to "observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." So the entire passage is providing instructions for fair treatment of all in the body, whether old, young, male, or female, while recognizing and acting according to the unique needs and circumstances of each. We may do different things with or toward different people, but there is no language that elevates some over others just because of their gender and/or age."
"Then you have in verses 1 & 2 the instruction to entreat (rather than rebuke) various people. Verse one deals with entreating "elders" (presbutero, the singular masculine form of presbuteros, whom we are to entreat "as a father") and then younger men ("as brothers"); verse two gives the same instruction for "elder women" (presbuteras, the plural feminine form of presbuteros, whom we are to entreat "as mothers"), and then younger [women] ("as sisters")."
"Given the parallel construction of these two verses, the appropriate translation should be consistent."
"One could either translate presbutero as "elder men" [referring not to the concept of a specific church function, but just to "old guys" and presbuteras as "elder women" [referring not to the concept of a specific church function, but just to "old gals. Or translate it as "elders," [function] but you have to translate the language the same either way."
What is being said is, if you translate the former [verse 1] as "male elders" referring to the church function, which is how most do translate it. then the latter [verse 2] would have to be translated as 'female elders' also." [Not just "elder women."]
The point being, the KJV can't have verse one referring to "male elders".....[Church function] but verse two which is the feminine form referring to women who are not "elders" [Church function] and be CORRECT with the meaning of the text. It sounds like the KJV had an agenda and it wasn't textually accurate in translation at this point. What do you think?