Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868504)

Jeffrey, you reveal your bias via your quick agreement w/ Prax w/out serious examination.

He's not explaining the text of I Tim. 2:12-15 at all...other than "synagogues," which are NOT even hinted at in these verse???? And you jump up & down saying "well done"??????????????????????????????

Sheesh, is this all it takes to explain away Scripture for you??

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 868511)

:ursofunny

You've made things up before, that's why.

The "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has other names, depending on the field of Hermeneutics you study (yes, there are many)! It's an approach not skipped by other fields to (those who suggest first learning authorial intent for example).

The plain, literal meaning works great. Read on in your instruction manual for passages that seem "obscure" or that are "controversial." To give you a heads up, the "Golden Rule" is used to discern whether the passage is figurative or not! That's the case with the passages you are presenting. We know Paul is not waxing poetic.

The "plain" and "literal" is defined by the context of what Paul's addressing, by Paul's time and day, by the situation unique to the churches -- these all help inform us what the "plain and literal" mean.

Your Golden Rule is an instrument for determining literary genre, not overall interpretation. Try again.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 868512)

Well, actually, by "consistency" I hope you don't mean if the gender means one thing in one passage it means the same thing in all passages? Please tell me you don't mean that.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 868514)

Bias?

"well done" -- I thought he did a great job at do a line-by-line break-down on the text. Bias? lol

Synogogues are not mentioned. True. But clearly you didn't read Prax's post then. He never made that comment. He did say that many of these Christians were Jews, and one's that just a year earlier religiously and faithfully assembled in synagogue. That those traditions would cease in one year is unthinkable.

So calm down and address his points.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868516)

Oh brother, just refuse to acknowledge your ignorance eh' Jeffrey!?

Don't have much time: How can one "determine" interpretation w/out 1st determining the genre???????????? Sheesh, 'round & 'round it goes...............

Besides, you're the one asserting that I've "made things up"....but I forgot that you're the only authority that you accept, or those who agree w/ you:ursofunny!

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868517)

And all of this by me simply making an observation made by scholars for years. The term for "Elders" is ALWAYS in the masculine, NEVER in the feminine! Trivialize it all day long, it's still a grammatical fact, which would work fine if it was in your favor......but it's not! Sorry Charlie, come again!

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 868518)

Ughhhh, I just did address them. He's making unsupported assertions outside of the text. And you applaud him for it???????? Unreal. Is this what they taught you in your "hermeneutics" courses????