End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I have no problem with either scripture...

I disagree .

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by rdp

When Paul pointed down the road of time to the church, he said:


"11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But 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.…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."


We accept allllll of Scripture at face-value - not just some of it .

Some people say, Sister Alvear, we believe I Cor. 14:34, 35 exactly like it reads, I wonder why they don’t believe Acts 4:34, 35; Acts 5:1 exactly like it reads? Acts 4:34-35, Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 5:1, But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold possession. Some one said they believed literally just as the Scripture was written well, I said it says except a man be born again of the water and spirit... does this exclude women? Of course not! The Bible contains a great variety of literary forms such as parables, fables, allegories, poetry, and symbolism. Few would take literally the words of Jesus, If your eye offend you, pluck it out - If your right hand offend you, cut it off (Matthew 5:29-30).
Strange how we read into the bible what we want it to say. We spiritualize what we don’t like, shy away from what we don’t understand.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Some people say, Sister Alvear, we believe I Cor. 14:34, 35 exactly like it reads, I wonder why they don’t believe Acts 4:34, 35; Acts 5:1 exactly like it reads? Acts 4:34-35, Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 5:1, But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold possession. Some one said they believed literally just as the Scripture was written well, I said it says except a man be born again of the water and spirit... does this exclude women? Of course not! The Bible contains a great variety of literary forms such as parables, fables, allegories, poetry, and symbolism. Few would take literally the words of Jesus, If your eye offend you, pluck it out - If your right hand offend you, cut it off (Matthew 5:29-30).
Strange how we read into the bible what we want it to say. We spiritualize what we don’t like, shy away from what we don’t understand.

Oh brother - Here comes the ol' copy-paste jobs again .


You are mistaking a narrative in Acts 4.34-35; 5.1 for didactic instruction. To illustrate, Luke (also in Acts) records that Judas's hung himself - should we now follow suit - using your identical hermeneutic approach ?


And, parables, by their very nature are intended to convey a lesson via symbolism (which is why it's prefaced with the preposition "para" generally meaning "alongside" or "in the opinion of").


The difference is that the epistles are clear instructions to the churches with minimal symbolism - kinda' like:


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....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.



John 3:3 uses the generic noun "anthropos" - meaning "human being," whereas I Timothy 2 uses the specific noun "aner" specifically meaning "male!"


Nice try Sis....Next?

[KeptByTheWord]

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."

Ahh, RDP, so you are switching to the "prophesy" mode now. Putting these scriptures in light of women prophesying. BUT you've said a woman can prophesy. HOW in the world can you say this verse allows for her to prophesy, and yet keep silent. See.... dancing around the issue, never answering. Silence means "no language." If we interpret the passage to mean word for word what it says, silence in the churches must mean that a woman can't prophesy, sing, testify or preach at all in the church, and that she must remain SILENT. After all, that is exactly what Paul said. Why then, do you allow your women to sing, pray and prophesy, speaking out loud in your church?

See... not even you are following Paul's words. You are disobeying Paul's writings (per your interpretation) by allowing your women to speak, prophesying or not. Silence means SILENCE, QUIET, NO LANGUAGE. Per your context, and definition, it would mean that a woman could not speak at all in the church.

You are wiggling now... please explain how your women keep silent, and yet can sing, testify, and prophesy.

1 Cor. 14:27-35
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

RDP... Your women who speak at all in the church, even when they prophesy, are out of order, according to your context.

Paul says it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church, and you let your woman speak in the church because YOU interpret this verse to mean prophesy.

You see, you have taken these verses out of the context and place that Paul was trying to teach. Most likely, Paul was talking about woman being silent when others were speaking, and not to interrupt or try to usurp the authority of their husbands in the assembly, of that we cannot be sure, it is a guess. We don't know the circumstances under which Paul wrote this letter, the questions that were asked, or scenarios that were presented, but we do know that his letters were addressing issues, and questions in the church.

So... if we literally interpreted this verse, a woman would not be able to utter a single peep in a church service, not so much to pray, sing, testify, or even prophesy.

Contrariwise, we know that Paul certainly allowed for all believers to take an active part in the assembly, so it stands to reason that Paul was addressing something that was happening in the church assembly and to keep things in order. Since there was perhaps a problem with women interrupting, he was telling them to be silent, in this scenario. The culture and context must be understood, or else, all women should just come to church, and be quiet as church mice, and not say a word, if this scripture is interpreted literally.

What you've done, is placed your own interpretation on it, simply being that you think this means a woman can't preach... but the word "silence" destroys that interpretation. Silence means silence. It means no language, no prophesying, no language.

Keep wiggling. Maybe we'll get to the bottom of this.

RDP wrote:
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 bear my own burden, and bear another's burden too in prayer or in any way I can help, how is that so difficult to understand?

RDP wrote: 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!

I've said before, I'm not a Greek/Hebrew scholar. I can't argue with you on that level. However, if one has to learn Greek/Hebrew to understand the word of God, then 99.9% of the people who think they understand the word of God are in big trouble. Setting yourself up on a pretty high pedestal there, if that is what you are trying to do.

My perspective is this... these words were written in a different culture from ours, and we must keep that in mind when reading Paul's writings.

Let's look at some terminology today if someone 2000 years from now were to read, and wonder what we meant?

That person just burns me up .... (a scholar might grammatically break this down to read ... that person just on fire me up)

I'm texting (a scholar might interpret this to say I'm reading text)

And I know there are more examples of phrases that have a meaning beyond their literal interpretation... so in all cultures, we understand certain phrases, and terminologies together mean something totally different than if they were broken down according to what each word literally means.

So, a lot more goes into understanding a language than just grammar. You have to understand the culture and context of the writing in order for it to make sense.

I've said that to say this.... we don't know for sure what situations Paul was addressing with these remarks, but certainly they contradict the fact that in other places woman are allowed to prophesy as in 1. Cor 11, which means that they are able to speak and break their silence... so.... obviously translating the 1 Cor. 14 passage word for word doesn't quite work here. The culture and context must be considered in understanding this passage, and correlating it with Paul's other writings.

Meanwhile.... I guess your women are busy disobeying the Apostle Paul by not being silent in your church, according to your definition....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by rdp

Tell you what - I've chased rabbit-trail questions for almost 70 pp. now - & have responded to every-single query. After I answer your question, how about answering just one of mine - deal?


Your question entirely ignores my response earlier. I've already stated that no saved women has any business consorting with an unsaved-sinner man in Bible studies - esp. when there are innumerable men to do the job, so your question in strictly theoretical & not practical.

I'm sorry but I don't see how my question is ignoring your earlier response. Rather your response brought about the question.

Originally Posted by rdp

Further, you're placing Paul's words in my mouth - I did not write the following passage, he did:


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.…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.

Again sorry, but I am not trying to put words in your mouth am simply responding to the scripture you quoted.

Originally Posted by rdp

Tell me, does this mean exactly & specifically what it says or not? If not, please provide textual reasons why not (esp. if you opt for the ol' "home-order" angle).

Thank you.

In answer to your question, yes I believe scripture means what it says.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Another question I have rdp in respect to a woman witnessing to a man. How is sharing scripture that would save a man's soul usurping authority over that man?

I would like to point out that you didn't truly answer my question.....

[rdp]

[QUOTE=KeptByTheWord;1299483]Ahh, RDP, so you are switching to the "prophesy" mode now. Putting these scriptures in light of women prophesying. BUT you've said a woman can prophesy. HOW in the world can you say this verse allows for her to prophesy, and yet keep silent. See.... dancing around the issue, never answering. Silence means "no language." If we interpret the passage to mean word for word what it says, silence in the churches must mean that a woman can't prophesy, sing, testify or preach at all in the church, and that she must remain SILENT. After all, that is exactly what Paul said. Why then, do you allow your women to sing, pray and prophesy, speaking out loud in your church?


Ummm, it was YOUR self-induced conundrum regarding (ready?) "prophecy" & "silence" - hardly "switching modes" .


See... not even you are following Paul's words. You are disobeying Paul's writings (per your interpretation) by allowing your women to speak, prophesying or not. Silence means SILENCE, QUIET, NO LANGUAGE. Per your context, and definition, it would mean that a woman could not speak at all in the church.

You are wiggling now... please explain how your women keep silent, and yet can sing, testify, and prophesy.


LOL - As if we cannot see what you're attempting to do . Feign the high-ground of victory by constantly asserting that your opponent is "dodging" & "wiggling" - when he's "explained" this to you over & over & over & over & over - you simply do not like the answer because it easily unravels your "earth-shattering" conundrum .


Old debate trick .

1 Cor. 14:27-35
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.



Then, Paul goes on to another topic & entirely distinct context:



12.1 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.

14.28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

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



Kinda' overlooking something there ain't ya' ?


RDP... Your women who speak at all in the church, even when they prophesy, are out of order, according to your context.


Oh my land - I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're a real person - or someone just pulling my leg here ? Not "my context" - it's called "Bible context," you oughta' give it a try & your self-induced "conundrum" would be satisfied & perhaps you could sleep tonight !


The biblical "context" proves the diametrical opposite of what you just said above. For about the 10th time now (seriously, how old are you?) - The passages BOTH MEAN exactly what they say in their distinct contexts. The "contradiction" is entirely within the confines of your own mind - & nowhere else .


Paul says it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church, and you let your woman speak in the church because YOU interpret this verse to mean prophesy.


Ummm, say what?? Paul explicitly said women could pray & prophesy?? You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever now? I do not interpret anything - I allow the distinct texts to define themselves ?


You see, you have taken these verses out of the context and place that Paul was trying to teach. Most likely, Paul was talking about woman being silent when others were speaking, and not to interrupt or try to usurp the authority of their husbands in the assembly, of that we cannot be sure, it is a guess. We don't know the circumstances under which Paul wrote this letter, the questions that were asked, or scenarios that were presented, but we do know that his letters were addressing issues, and questions in the church.


Umm, no, I have taken these verses specifically IN their context - it is YOU who's attempting to isolate them from one another? Man, this just gets weirder & weirder as it proceeds ?


So... if we literally interpreted this verse, a woman would not be able to utter a single peep in a church service, not so much to pray, sing, testify, or even prophesy.


Which would not allow for each distinct context to stand on its own merits - It's very clear you need to do more research into hermeneutics-proper (not being ugly - just honest).


Contrariwise, we know that Paul certainly allowed for all believers to take an active part in the assembly, so it stands to reason that Paul was addressing something that was happening in the church assembly and to keep things in order. Since there was perhaps a problem with women interrupting, he was telling them to be silent, in this scenario. The culture and context must be understood, or else, all women should just come to church, and be quiet as church mice, and not say a word, if this scripture is interpreted literally.


No, the issue was no more "cultural" than it was in I Tim. 2.11-14 inasmuch as Paul uses the order of creation as his basis of appeal in both passages - not a mere "cultural issue" - Sorry, that attempted dodge will not work either ?


What you've done, is placed your own interpretation on it, simply being that you think this means a woman can't preach... but the word "silence" destroys that interpretation. Silence means silence. It means no language, no prophesying, no language.


Umm, watch how easy this is: No, the word "silence" does not at all "destroy" the interpretation . "Speak" is alternately translated as "preach" 6 times elsewhere...context....context....context....conte xt .



Keep wiggling. Maybe we'll get to the bottom of this.


LOL- Yea' explicating distinct contexts is now relegated to "wiggling" - welcome to AFF-proper ! Kinda' like all those exhaustive responses you've offered eh'? LOL.



I bear my own burden, and bear another's burden too in prayer or in any way I can help, how is that so difficult to understand?


Ohhhh, so now you allow both statements to stand - even though they're "contradictory" ? Why don't you apply the same logic to your (& it is yours alone) "silence" vs. "speak" issue?? "How is that so difficult to understand"?? LOL.



I've said before, I'm not a Greek/Hebrew scholar. I can't argue with you on that level. However, if one has to learn Greek/Hebrew to understand the word of God, then 99.9% of the people who think they understand the word of God are in big trouble. Setting yourself up on a pretty high pedestal there, if that is what you are trying to do.


Which being interpreted means - "I do not have an answer & refuse to consider it" ! Not "trying" to do any thing other than accept the biblical witness as it's plainly written. Nice "wiggle" though!


My perspective is this... these words were written in a different culture from ours, and we must keep that in mind when reading Paul's writings.


And?? All of the Bible "words" were "written in a different culture from ours" - Your point?? "Wiggle" away - But it isn't helping you any. LOL.


Let's look at some terminology today if someone 2000 years from now were to read, and wonder what we meant?

That person just burns me up .... (a scholar might grammatically break this down to read ... that person just on fire me up)

I'm texting (a scholar might interpret this to say I'm reading text)

And I know there are more examples of phrases that have a meaning beyond their literal interpretation... so in all cultures, we understand certain phrases, and terminologies together mean something totally different than if they were broken down according to what each word literally means.

So, a lot more goes into understanding a language than just grammar. You have to understand the culture and context of the writing in order for it to make sense.

Cont.....

[rdp]

Yea' - pretty hard to understand this 'eh??



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.


What portion of this confounds you?? But, keep "wiggling"......



I've said that to say this.... we don't know for sure what situations Paul was addressing with these remarks, but certainly they contradict the fact that in other places woman are allowed to prophesy as in 1. Cor 11, which means that they are able to speak and break their silence... so.... obviously translating the 1 Cor. 14 passage word for word doesn't quite work here. The culture and context must be considered in understanding this passage, and correlating it with Paul's other writings.


Yes, we do know exactly what situations Paul was addressing - he specifically said what he was addressing?? You just refuse to accept what he clearly said - all under the guise of "Well, we cannot be clear what he meant"?? Ummm, yes we can - he meant what he said in each context! LOL.



Meanwhile.... I guess your women are busy disobeying the Apostle Paul by not being silent in your church, according to your definition....


LOL - Yea', whatever you say. The women I teach in church have absolutely no problem with the contexts - they understand how to read the Bible & do not have an agenda to eradicate the same - & I know many women who would quickly get up & walk out if a woman got up to preach-teach men !


Nice try - next?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm sorry but I don't see how my question is ignoring your earlier response. Rather your response brought about the question.





Again sorry, but I am not trying to put words in your mouth am simply responding to the scripture you quoted.






In answer to your question, yes I believe scripture means what it says.



I would like to point out that you didn't truly answer my question.....

Good, if I Tim. 2 means what it says then do you accept women-teachers in the NT church?


Yes, I clearly answered your question....Are you doubling as "KeptByTheWord" ?

[RJR]

Originally Posted by RJR

Sis Alvear, I am trying to reconcile your statements above and am having difficulty doing it. Am I reading these posts correctly?

1) Phoebe was a deacon, "and in the Pastoral Epistles both Bishops and Deacons were to govern their households well."

2) "Phoebe was a ruler or another overseer in the church."

If I read these two statements correctly, as a "ruler or another overseer in the church", Phoebe (if married, or if she would ever marry) could not rule her husband (as you stated in the last quote above), yet as a deacon was required to rule her own household well. What a dichotomy! In the same line of thought according to the last quote above, could not rule her husband, but due to her position of authority and being a ruler in the church evidently could rule over other women's husbands. If Phoebe was a minister in training, why wouldn't Paul who acknowledges her in Rom. 16, fail to do so in 1 Tim 3? He could have done so by giving qualifications for her present or potential marital status in 1 Tim. 3:12, by stating a deaconess should be the wife of one husband? And considering verse 15, he is discussing expected behavior in the house of God, would you propose she could not govern her husband at home but could at church?

[Roxanne Murphy]

How sad, to be able to read and write Koine Greek, but not rightly divide the Word of truth. When anybody makes the critical error that continues to be made by rdp, the gross error of holding one or two verses of scripture on any subject as being more authoritative than the rest of scripture on a subject, that person demonstrates either an ignorance of basic hermeneutics, or a blatant disregard of hermeneutics because it interferes with a pet belief. rdp is doing what countless trinitarians do with Matthew 38:19: they fail to allow scripture to interpret scripture and follow true Biblical scholarship by studying EVERY text that pertains to the subject. Yes, mr. rdp, I did put you in the same class as those who dogmatically argue the doctrine of the trinity.

Do I have any hope that rdp will be able to lose his blinders and honestly see all that scripture says about the subject of women in ministry? No. I rather suspect (because I used to be a part of his type of sect) that he comes out here to be able to say, "Bless God, all these poor deceived souls out there on that Internet forum, they've been sent a strong delusion! You better thank God He loves you enough to send you a preacher who will preach it to you straight so you don't end up lost and on your way to a devil's hell like those poor reprobates! If they don't acknowledge the truth I am declaring to them, then they can't be saved! Bless God!"