End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[KeptByTheWord]

RDP still hasn't explained how his women prophesy, sing, and testify in silence.... (much to his consternation, and ignoring of posts where I have questioned this.) He will never be able to explain how a woman can keep silent in church, and still speak. That is his "dichotomy".... lol

Yes, this is my question, and below is the typical answer I've gotten.

Originally Posted by rdp

LOL - Yea' my "consternation" is just more than I can handle ! Your "earth-shattering" query regarding both biblical "prophecy" & biblical "silence" in each context has been "answered" & explained on a textual levelover & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - ad nauseum infinitum.
What do you do? What those in favor of "women-preachers" always do - totally "ignore" the specific-inspired original voice of Scripture & keep parroting "You've not answered me" ?

Weird stuff - weird stuff .

It's like arguing with a 5-year old who thinks they've "silenced" an adult with their self-induced misunderstanding of a topic....After so long of trying to reason with them from facts - you just have to allow them to live in their contented delusion. This is why so many others can see how absurd y'all's arguments are looking in the face of crystal-clear Scripture & exegesis (trust me, they've told me). In the final analysis, I'm not interested in chasing these same ol' rabbit trails all day & night - when absolutely NO ONE has even attempted to offer ANY SORT of exegetical-grammatical rejoinder to the mountains & mountains of syntactical points that have been offered. Mere denial of the biblical texts? - Sure, y'all have plenty of that ! Textual reasons for your denial of the biblical texts? - You have not an ounce !

Yeah, this is typical of the "answer" that RDP has provided. Not there. No simple answer as to how a woman is to be silent, yet still can speak in the church. Lots of "exegetical-grammatical rejoinder to the mountains & mountains of syntactical points that have been offered" yes, all that... but...nothing that that offers a simple answer to this dichotomy.

Good try RDP... but you are only fooling yourself

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Might I ask a few questions?

If I have read correctly, according to rdp, women are not permitted to expound scripture to men in a church setting.


No, it's not "according to rdp" - It's according to the Word of God.


11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.


The Greek verb translated "teach" (διδάσκειν) is lexically defined as (ready for this?): "In the NT, 1321 /didáskō ("teach") nearly always refers to teaching the Scriptures (the written Word of God). The key role of teaching Scripture is shown by its great frequency in the NT, and the variety of word-forms (cognates). This includes three noun-forms, two adjectival forms, and one verb, totaling about 220 occurrences in the NT. (http://biblehub.com/greek/1321.htm).



If you take issue with this lexical data - please offer grammatical & biblical reasons why?


Does this mean women are allowed to expound scripture to other women in a church setting?


Scripture states that older women should teach younger women submission to their husbands (doesn't that just bring out the venom in the ultra-feminists ?), to be keepers of the home, etc. No headship violation occurs is said scenario...I really don't understand how this interacts with the biblical data presented in this thread?


Does this mean women are permitted to expound scripture to men outside of a church setting?


I can only speak where the Bible speaks & be silent where the Bible is silent:


11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner....I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church.



34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.



The Greek verb translated "speak" above is equally translated as "preach" no less than 6 timers elsewhere in the KJV (& this has been explained over & over & over & over - not to you directly, but to those who keep asking for an "answer" ).


Also if I have read correctly, I believe it was rdp who stated it was ok for women to do outreach/soul-winning? According to the statement about women not being allowed to expound scripture to men, does that mean you believe women aren't allowed to witness to men but only to women? I am asking this because I have never been in an outreach situation that doesn't require an explanation of scripture.

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that no saved woman has any business giving Bible studies to unsaved-sinner men. It's simply not proper - particularly when there's innumerable men who can perform the same job. So, your query (& I do believe you're being sincere in your questions ) is only theoretical & not really practical.



Further, as pointed out above, the contexts of I Tim. 2, I Tim. 3, I Cor. 14, Eph. is the assembly of saints together - whereas the context of Mt. 28.19 is winning the lost. Both passages mean precisely what they say in their own contexts (same with the supposed "contradiction" of simultaneous prophecy & silence ) - there's no need to pit one against the other - we can accept & practice both !

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rdp

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that no saved woman has any business giving Bible studies to unsaved-sinner men.

Thus saith rdp: It is better for a man to not hear the gospel and go to hell, than be taught a Bible study by a woman.

[Sister Alvear]

He needs not to address me any more...I don't care for his style and did not appreciate him insinuating whatever he meant about My character (?) and his derogatory remarks...I can disagree with whoever without attacking them personally...

I think even when we disagree we can be kind and nice. I do not agree with Elder Epley but he has never insulted me or acted as if I had some kind of problem...in fact he invited us to his campmeeting and said he would pay the hotel. I have no problem with people that we may not see eye to eye but we can be kind and respectful.

Sherri Cupples is one of my sweetest friends...we agree to see some things different...Margie is "my twin sister" (our name for each other...) She and her sweet husband came to here us when we were in their area and took us out to eat.

Randy came to here my son and I in Az. He is a great guy and so sweet and kind.

Many others I have met...Renda, Mrs. Brattified, Liz, Coonskinner, CCI...and on and on... We are all different in one way or another...but we can be kind...Kindness is one of God's laws....along with respect.

I know who his circle of friends are...It is fine with me whatever they believe...Jonathan Alvear my nephew does not believe in women preachers either but is very kind to me when I go to his church...No one will ever have to worry about me trying to take over...lol...my whole life has been centered around helping churches get started...not taking over....

[Sister Alvear]

No saved woman would watch a building burn and not try to save someone needing help...I really don't think the drowning man cares who thows him the life jacket....

[Sister Alvear]

I once sat through a whole devil worshipping service just to tell the witchdoctor the story of Jesus...and won him to the Lord...I gave him a Bible study in his devil worshipping church! He thanked me for coming and became a preacher...The bible study worked!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Yes, this is my question, and below is the typical answer I've gotten.


Big Yawn & a hearty Ho-Hum . Hmmm, lemme' see, maybe if I write in another font she'll understand the plain English ? Here, let's try this (note the italicized font ):


For almost 64 pp. now I've explained to you that both the passage allowing women to prophesy & the admonition to be silent appear in entirely distinct context (did you R-E-A-D that ?).


I Cor. 11 is NOT the same context as I Cor. 12-14 inasmuch as Paul begins chp. 12 by shifting topics from the hair issue-Lord's Supper to the gifts of the Spirit.


As it relates to I Cor. 14 women are commanded to be silent in the church in the context of either preaching (viz the verb "speak") or the evaluation of prophecy. In this context women are to be "silent," but in the context of I Cor. 11 women can "prophesy" - but biblical "prophecy" has never, nor will it ever, be a "sermon from the Scriptures."


Hence, both contexts mean exactly what they say - & this is about the 7th time you've been "answered" .


Now, let's have a lil' look-see at everything you've "ignored":


I've asked you over & over to explain how we "must bear our own burden" & yet "bear one anothers burden(s)" simultaneously? No answer !


I've asked you to offer syntactical objections to Dr. Daniel Wallace's detailed exegesis of I Tim. 2? No answer !


I've shown you how I Tim. 2 CANNOT be discussing the supposed "home-order" scenario viz Paul's clear declaration that he was writing his letter to Timothy to instruct him in church-order - No answer !


And, the list goes on & on - but this should suffice for the time-being!




Yeah, this is typical of the "answer" that RDP has provided. Not there. No simple answer as to how a woman is to be silent, yet still can speak in the church. Lots of "exegetical-grammatical rejoinder to the mountains & mountains of syntactical points that have been offered" yes, all that... but...nothing that that offers a simple answer to this dichotomy.



Ummm, there is no "dichotomy" - save the one you've invented ! It's like someone making up a non-existent scenario & demanding that everyone submit to that which does not even exist ?


Just curious - do you believe in Bigfoot ?



Good try RDP... but you are only fooling yourself

Right back at ya' .

[Sister Alvear]

Acts 18:24-26, we read of a lady named Priscilla, who, along with her husband Aquila, "expounds the way of God more perfectly" to a brilliant Jewish man named Apollos, who would later become a mighty preacher of the Gospel. If 1 Timothy 2:12 was intended to totally forbid women from teaching men, then Apollos was sinning by accepting spiritual guidance from Priscilla. However, if this was the case, the Bible certainly doesn't indicate it. Priscilla provides a beautiful picture of a woman who, in right relationship with her husband, uses her God given gifts to further the Kingdom of God in a powerful way. In fact, notice that when Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned, her name is usually mentioned first! (See Acts 18:1-4; 18-28; Romans 16: 3-4; 1 Corinthians 16: 19; 2 Timothy 2: 14).

Finally, we will look at 2 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, both of which teach that elders, deacons and other church leaders are to be "the husband of one wife". As we discussed earlier, all Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture as a whole. With this in mind, if these verses were intended to be an absolute command that only married men are permitted to be church leaders, then Paul himself would be disqualified, as he was unmarried (2 Corinthians 9:5). If the title of "deacon" was solely reserved for men, how do we explain a lady named Phoebe, who is called a "servant of God" since the Greek word translated "servant" is diakonos, which is where we get the word "deacon?"

We have numerous other examples in the Bible of female prophets, (Romans 16:1-2, 1 Timothy 3: 11,) and others who were "laborers in the Gospel" (Phillipians 4: 2-3.) In fact, Romans 16:7 refers to a woman named Junia, who was even recognized by the early church fathers as being a female Apostle! Is this a contradiction? Not at all. It simply illustrates that the intended meaning of this passage to be is a guiding principal: Church leaders, be they male or female, are to be faithful to their spouses.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by ILG

Thus saith rdp: It is better for a man to not hear the gospel and go to hell, than be taught a Bible study by a woman.

Thus saith the Scriptures:


11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor....I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church.


What was I ever thinking by appealing directly to the Bible on AFF ?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I once sat through a whole devil worshipping service just to tell the witchdoctor the story of Jesus...and won him to the Lord...I gave him a Bible study in his devil worshipping church! He thanked me for coming and became a preacher...The bible study worked!

You never should have done that, Sis A..... You are a naughty girl!