Response to 20 questions for futurists (part 1)

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@ Hidden In Him

PS I posted in that topic, look at post #27
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
good post, #174.
yes, this is about husband and wife in the church. as said, if the context was G2338, thelus, a Female, then yes it's all women. but thank God for Good teaches who are lead by the Holy Ghost.

Keep up the good work.

Same to you!
@ Hidden In Him

PS I posted in that topic, look at post #27

Oh! LoL. I didn't read through that entire thread before posting. It was like nine pages already, so I figured I'd better just wing it : )
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Same to you!


Oh! LoL. I didn't read through that entire thread before posting. It was like nine pages already, so I figured I'd better just wing it : )
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger on topics with many post, it's hard sometime to go back and read them all, I know what you mean.

amen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Yeah. I went round and round with one of our members here back in June. He kept quoting the verses as they are translated in one of the English translations (KJV I think) to support his argument, and I was like, "No, you are assuming that translation is correct, but look at the context."

You might find my initial post interesting (see Post #174), as well as the previous posts by @OzSpen. He takes a similar view about women in ministry.
Looking for advice: Can women be pastors

HiH,

'Your women' (1 Cor 14:34 KJV) is based on the Textus Receptus Greek NT of the 16th century.

The earlier Alexandrian text of 1 Cor 14:34 (SBLGNT) reads: Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν· ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

Here, Αἱ γυναῖκες, means 'the women/wives'.

However, the much later MSS of the Textus Receptus (TR), compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century from a mere 6 MSS, dated from the 12th century and later, have this statement from 1 Cor 14:34 in the Textus Receptus, αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

Here αι γυναικες υμων = ai gunaikes humwn = the wives/women of you, i.e. your women.

Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected (Textus Receptus).

The favouring of the late MSS from the 12th century onwards and only 6 MSS by Erasmas was a dangerous precedent, especially in light of the fact the TR has almost 2,000 translations/readings that are gathered from much earlier sources than the 16th century.

Daniel Wallace's examination of the Byzantine text-type used by Erasmus led to this conclusion:

All the external evidence suggests that there is no proof that the Byzantine text was in existence in the first three centuries. It is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts, nor in the early versions, nor in the early church fathers. And this is a threefold cord not easily broken. To be sure, isolated Byzantine readings have been found, but not the Byzantine texttype. Though some Byzantine readings existed early, the texttype apparently did not (The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?)

Oz
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The favouring of the late MSS from the 12th century onwards and only 6 MSS by Erasmas was a dangerous precedent, especially in light of the fact the TR has almost 2,000 translations/readings that are gathered from much earlier sources than the 16th century.

Interesting. Especially this:
Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type.

The fathers were quite often paraphrasing from memory rather than quoting verbatim, which makes taking their quotes as "readings" dangerous in and of itself.

In a way the earliest reading might weaken our position rather than strengthen it, but only on the surface. I think either reading proves nothing.

Thanks for the interesting insight. Always wondered where all the different readings and augmentations came from.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
In a way the earliest reading might weaken our position rather than strengthen it, but only on the surface. I think either reading proves nothing.
The age of a manuscript is simple ONE CRITERION out of many others required to determine the authenticity of a reading. See Burgon for details. However, because of Westcott & Hort, and their deliberate conspiracy to undermine the Authorized Version and the Received Text, age was made THE SOLE CRITERION.

Thus you will find modern bible versions showing footnotes which say "The oldest manuscripts say such and such" or "The best manuscripts say such and such", and both those statements are blatant lies.

But not all textual scholars fell for this hoax. Among those who vigorously opposed W&H were Burgon and Scrivener, and it should be the duty of every Christian to read and study what they had to say about the untenable theory and Greek text of W&H. That would be enough for all Christians to continue using the Authorized Version (AV), also known as the King James Bible.

Today you will hear another lie, which is that textual critics after W&H do not follow W&H. But Nestle-Aland is simply warmed over W&H, and this truth should be known by all. When you search Bible Hub, you will see an entry which says Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]. This is telling you that W&H are still alive and well. *NA* stands for Nestle-Aland (the darling of the critics).
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The age of a manuscript is simple ONE CRITERION out of many others required to determine the authenticity of a reading. See Burgon for details. However, because of Westcott & Hort, and their deliberate conspiracy to undermine the Authorized Version and the Received Text, age was made THE SOLE CRITERION.

Thus you will find modern bible versions showing footnotes which say "The oldest manuscripts say such and such" or "The best manuscripts say such and such", and both those statements are blatant lies.

Well, @OzSpen would probably give you his own answer for this, but I personally don't always hold age to be the deciding factor. The general rule of thumb was that the shortest reading was the most preferred, and while I would agree with this in general, I have no problem with the scribes adding a few words here and there to clarify the text (within limits, when necessary, and when obvious in context). I actually regard Vaticanus most highly, and it provides slightly longer readings than you see in some of the earliest papyri. But it rings true to my Spirit, so I have no problems with it. But I ran into problems with some of the additions I found in the Textus Receptus, notably Colossians 2:18, where the TR added the word "not" to completely turn the verse around to saying the opposite of what Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and the other earlier texts read. Don't get me wrong, I grew up spiritually on the KJV, but when I read that I could make no sense whatsoever of how they could "investigate into visions they had [not] seen." How does one look into something he hasn't seen? It appeared to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the scribes to deny that the heretics in Colossians had seen anything at all, but in doing so they were corrupting the text and blurring an accurate understanding of what was being communicated. When I noticed that I realized I was looking at tampering.
But not all textual scholars fell for this hoax. Among those who vigorously opposed W&H were Burgon and Scrivener, and it should be the duty of every Christian to read and study what they had to say about the untenable theory and Greek text of W&H. That would be enough for all Christians to continue using the Authorized Version (AV), also known as the King James Bible.

Today you will hear another lie, which is that textual critics after W&H do not follow W&H. But Nestle-Aland is simply warmed over W&H, and this truth should be known by all. When you search Bible Hub, you will see an entry which says Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]. This is telling you that W&H are still alive and well. *NA* stands for Nestle-Aland (the darling of the critics).

About Westcott and Hort, as I was saying, I don't really favor their readings personally or put much time into studying them. They kinda get overlooked. I mostly just pay attention to the TR in comparison with Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (which I consider to both be more reliable).

Blessings in Christ, brother. I know this is a big thing with you, so I'm not really into arguing about it. Had I not gotten deeper into studying the original texts I would still likely be reading only King James today. It is still the English translation I use most by far, because it is a genuine word-for-word translation for the most part. I just no longer have great respect for the text behind which it is based.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for the reply,
I came to this conclusion in a few ways. only by the Holy Ghost who taught me this truth. and he showed me many way to understand it.

one of the main ways was in the term G2338, thelus and the term G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n.
both apply to a woman, but one apply to a married woman.

armed with that information just reading in context the scriptures are revealed.

as in
1 Corinthians 14:34 "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.

if one just listen to the scripture, the Holy Ghost will point it out to you. here in 1 Corinthians 14:34 it's not speaking to women at all, but to their husbands. and the very next verse bring it out, "Let them ask their "HUSBAND" at home".

sometimes we might need to read and re-read verse again and compare them with other scriptures in other places.
Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

by finding one thing over here then I see it apply with something over there. then one can build on another scripture, this is how I understood that a woman could preach, teach and ... Pastor.

Hi 101G, First for the discussion of these two texts G2338 is not used so it's kind of irrelevant. G1135 is what is used and the same word has been translated as woman, women or wife. The context of 1Cor. 14 is the public exercise of spiritual gifts and if you want to emphasize a married woman, then the restriction still applies but I don't think this means that it is okay for single women to teach either. Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11, you can't carry over the same line of thought either because it doesn't matter as it is also not specifying a married or unmarried woman. So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi 101G, First for the discussion of these two texts G2338 is not used so it's kind of irrelevant. G1135 is what is used and the same word has been translated as woman, women or wife. The context of 1Cor. 14 is the public exercise of spiritual gifts and if you want to emphasize a married woman, then the restriction still applies but I don't think this means that it is okay for single women to teach either. Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11, you can't carry over the same line of thought either because it doesn't matter as it is also not specifying a married or unmarried woman. So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?
first thanks for the reply,

second, you're not understanding the Spiritual "GIFTS".

see, it was not the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost, it was the Spirit in them. just as Teaching, Pastoring, or healing. it's not you the person, but he the Spirit in you.

now knowing this, is not the pastoral Gift, (the Spirit) is in the Spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8? as well as the Gift to speatk in other tongues as happen on Pentecost, verse 10.

see Trekson, these functions of preaching, teaching, or pastoring is the GIFT of the Holy Spirit.

and addressing the "Wives" of 1Cor. 14, and 1 Tim. 2 verses single women is this... THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN THE EXCRISE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL GIFTS, their HUSBANDS should had taught them .... "AT HOME". see the apostle was addressing the husbands for they had failed in their duties of "TEACHING" their "WIVES" how to act in the hous of God.

oh yes, many didn't know, hence to waring to Timothy, scripture,
1 Timothy 3:14 "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

this is why the apostle said,
1 Corinthians 14:31 "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1 Corinthians 14:32 "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

there is order to the Church of God, and all need to learn obedience.

see, the women with husband had no excuse, they should have been taught by their HUSBAND at home... 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

this is easy to see. LEARN at HOME before you come to church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Consider it: when we read back through Church history, we find examples that pretty much every generation held expectations that they were the generation that would see the Lord's return.
Essential to keep looking up, right? (Hebrews 12.2), whatever believers' exact understanding of the details is.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
first thanks for the reply,

second, you're not understanding the Spiritual "GIFTS".

see, it was not the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost, it was the Spirit in them. just as Teaching, Pastoring, or healing. it's not you the person, but he the Spirit in you.

now knowing this, is not the pastoral Gift, (the Spirit) is in the Spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8? as well as the Gift to speatk in other tongues as happen on Pentecost, verse 10.

see Trekson, these functions of preaching, teaching, or pastoring is the GIFT of the Holy Spirit.

and addressing the "Wives" of 1Cor. 14, and 1 Tim. 2 verses single women is this... THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN THE EXCRISE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL GIFTS, their HUSBANDS should had taught them .... "AT HOME". see the apostle was addressing the husbands for they had failed in their duties of "TEACHING" their "WIVES" how to act in the hous of God.

oh yes, many didn't know, hence to waring to Timothy, scripture,
1 Timothy 3:14 "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

this is why the apostle said,
1 Corinthians 14:31 "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1 Corinthians 14:32 "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

there is order to the Church of God, and all need to learn obedience.

see, the women with husband had no excuse, they should have been taught by their HUSBAND at home... 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

this is easy to see. LEARN at HOME before you come to church.

I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL GIFTS, their HUSBANDS should have taught them .... "AT HOME". see the apostle was addressing the husbands for they had failed in their duties of "TEACHING" their "WIVES" how to act in the house of God.

Interesting. He does round out the teaching in v.39-40 by returning to discussing prophecy and tongues... Certainly it doesn't mean that women could not prophesy, for Paul said they were doing so in 1 Corinthians 11:5. For me, it therefore must refer to asking questions about the revelations being brought forth as a result of prophetic utterances, as referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:26-30...

See, the kicker for me here is the statement Paul makes in verse 34: "Let your women be in silence.. [but] be under obedience, as also says the law." Whenever you try to find in the Jewish law words and commandments to this effect, you get nothing. The ONE place where you do find a command directly from God that "women" were to be obedient to men is in the garden after she sinned, where God told the woman "he shall rule over you." This was spoken to her as a wife, because she had influenced her husband into sinning against God. Not coincidently this story is exactly what Paul alludes to in 1 Timothy 2:14. "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." THIS is where the law says a "woman' is to be in obedience to a "man," and it is not talking about just any man and any woman but husbands and wives.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"

I think it was @amadeus that alluded to this, Trekson, but the implication from scripture was that it was not completely forbidden by God for women to lead, but the Jewish tradition was that men generally assumed the role. Hence Deborah led Israel and was not shamed by God for doing so, yet it would have been better had a man done so. And since men were indeed doing so during New Testament times, there was no need for women to then.

The question is, is there a need for women to do so now? My personal opinion is that much of Christian leadership today is just plain awful. I would take a Spirit-filled, Spirit-led woman of God over half of the men we have teaching and supposedly "leading" today any day of the week. Unlike during New Testament times, I believe we are in desperate need of good leadership today, anywhere we can find it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
I think it was @amadeus that alluded to this, Trekson, but the implication from scripture was that it was not completely forbidden by God for women to lead, but the Jewish tradition was that men generally assumed the role. Hence Deborah led Israel and was not shamed by God for doing so, yet it would have been better had a man done so. And since men were indeed doing so during New Testament times, there was no need for women to then.

The question is, is there a need for women to do so now? My personal opinion is that much of Christian leadership today is just plain awful. I would take a Spirit-filled, Spirit-led woman of God over half of the men we have teaching and supposedly "leading" today any day of the week. Unlike during New Testament times, I believe we are in desperate need of good leadership today, anywhere we can find it.

Yeah that was me here:
Response to 20 questions for futurists (part 1)
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I would take a Spirit-filled, Spirit-led woman of God over half of the men we have teaching and supposedly "leading" today any day of the week.
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.

She would be guided strictly by the Word of God ("that the Word of God be not blasphemed") and not the doctrines of men. She would focus her time and energy on teaching women to be better Christian wives and mothers, as the apostle Paul makes crystal clear.

TITUS 2
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1 PETER 3

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.

Then why did Deborah not refuse to assume leadership over Israel?
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
First thanks for your reply, I GAVE IT TO YOU BEFORE, BUT NO PROBLEM I MUST MAKE IT PLAIN.

you said TEACH, Prophets, Bishops and Pastors also teach, scripture,
Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Acts 18:25 "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Acts 18:26 "And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Acts 18:27 "And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Acts 18:28 "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

here we had a husband and Wife who both was Bishops/Teachers that expounded or clarified to this man, Apollos, a better way of the Lord, (other words he was Ministered or taught better). the word "instruct" in verse 25 is another word for "Teach".

but be it known, the gift of teacher is also in the Pastor. straight to the point, scripture,
Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding".

and the Pastor is found in the NT scripture of
1 Corinthians 12:7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

1 Corinthians 12:8 "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

a word of Wisdom is "UNDERSTANDING". so right in verse 8 here is the pastoral Gift of Knowledge and Understanding. and what did Jeremiah 3:15 say? "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding".

now, is this Gift only given to men? if so then God is a respector of Persons. but the scriptures says, 1 Corinthians 12:7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal". meaning there is no partiality with God.

now to make it very plain, Prophets also teach, as well as Pastors, and apostles. which are "ORDAINED" in the Church of God. scripture,
1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues".

and women are prophets? yes do prophets in the church.... YES. case closed..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.

She would be guided strictly by the Word of God ("that the Word of God be not blasphemed") and not the doctrines of men. She would focus her time and energy on teaching women to be better Christian wives and mothers, as the apostle Paul makes crystal clear.

TITUS 2
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1 PETER 3

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

LoL. Now don't get all bent out of shape here, but the more I read over this quote the more I get a chuckle out of it. I believe you are non-Charismatic as I recall, which makes me ask how you would know what a Spirit-filled woman would do. Trust me, the Spirit-filled woman will do whatever God asks her to do, whether you or me or anyone else on this planet likes it or not, LoL.

As for your two passages, they're both specifically about wives, not women in general.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Then why did Deborah not refuse to assume leadership over Israel?
Deborah was rendering judgments (not leading Israel, which she urged Barak the wimp to do), just like judges sit on the bench in courts today rendering judgments.

And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.(Judges 4:4,5).

There is nothing to stop a Christian woman from becoming a judge in a court of law. But Scripture bars her from leadership within the church (assembly).