Wormwood said:
Barrd, again, I am disappointed that you would continually employ this kind of tactic in your responses. Let’s address the Scriptures rather than implying that my real motivation is some sort of hidden sexist agenda. If you choose to believe I am a sexist bigot, then that is your choice. I am not going to try to defend my character in this matter. I allow my views to be guided by the Scriptures and I would appreciate it if you gave me the benefit of the doubt in this matter. I think that is the Christ-like thing to do.
Believe it or not, I am actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.
Perhaps the problem is that my experience as a woman growing up in the 50s and 60s is quite different than your experience as a man growing up in the 80s and 90s.
I've told the story of how I was left a widow with seven kids to support, and no assets, while the baby was barely out of diapers. Until you've been a woman in that sort of situation you have no idea just how much sexism is still left in this world...yes, even in the 21st century. And much of it is fostered by the church, sadly.
I suppose I do have an "attitude" about it, and I apologize. I should not let it spill over into the forum. I need to get it through my head that not every man I meet is a sexist pork pie...
Sorry, WW.
So, according to this rationale, we should only accept a command in Scripture if it is repeated in every NT Epistle. Is that what you are suggesting? Two separate epistles with near identical commands is not enough? Paul making no mention of women elders to either Timothy or Titus in his characteristics for men is not sufficient? It seems to me you need a lightning bolt from heaven to convince you differently on this matter. Scripture doesn’t work that way…not on any topic. This argument of yours effectively renders all of the NT meaningless.
This injunction against women teaching goes against everything Jesus taught. It also goes against Paul's own teachings in other of his epistles, for instance, the ladies of Romans 16, and the clear indication in Ephesians that there are no more boundaries between Jews and Gentiles, or between men and women. There must be a reason for Paul to reverse himself...and reverse Jesus as well...as he advises Timothy. Now, what could it be?
Sigh. Again, let us please deal with the Scriptures rather than implying that I want to see it a certain way because I have deep-seeded bigotry in my heart. Homosexuals make the exact same argument. Never mind the explicit commands in the Bible against such practices….
I have to say that I am not happy about the comparison you are making.
Being a woman is not at all like being homosexual.
First of all, God never did call being female "an abomination".
And second...I really was "born that way"...
Just the fact that you are making such a comparison whispers of sexism. You just are not aware of it in yourself, WW.
Don't get me wrong, I still think you're a great guy...and I still like having doors opened for me, and my chair pulled out...I do like being a girl. <_<
Well, I find this confusing. If it is so simple that a child or housewife could read it and understand it, why do we need 20 pages of Corinthian and Ephesian backgrounds along with Greek arguments to show the basic commands of 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 are not valid? When I have my kids read 1 Tim. 2:11 and ask them what it means they reply, “Women should learn quietly, and not teach men in church.” Seems like the recent scholarship is what is causing all the confusion, not the simple reading of the text.
20 pages? LOL. Let's not exaggerate. I'm not that ambitious.
To truly understand scripture, I believe it is necessary to know a couple of things.
I want to know who is speaking. Paul is a many-faceted character. Let us not forget that he started out as a Jewish lawyer, whose parents obviously had money. Yes, Jesus confronted him, and he did a complete 180...but he still writes like a Jewish lawyer, and as his friend Peter says, there are things in his letters that are difficult to understand.
You also must have an idea who the intended audience is.
You may not realize it, but it sounds a whole lot like you are planting the seeds of sexism, my friend. I'm betting that you are not explaining to your progeny that the situation in Ephesus was a mite...touchy. Do you have them read in Acts about the angry silversmiths who sold silver statues of Diana? Even as a little girl, I knew that was going to be a problem.
Of course, as I mentioned, I was also fascinated by Greek mythology. Did you know that the Amazon gals did a bit of surgery on themselves, to rid themselves of a certain female accoutrement that tends to get in the way for some gals who want to practice archery? OUCH! Do not doubt it, these ladies were
serious.
And they did not trust men. You are good for just one thing, pal...and you'd better be good at it, if you want to live.
Oh, and did you catch your own remark:
"If it is so simple that a child or housewife could read it and understand it"??
Tell me again how you are not sexist, WW?
Well, as a “simple housewife” that believes the Bible is easily understood, you sure dive into Greek arguments a lot to dismiss these passages. It seems like when I discuss the Greek, you respond by saying, “We don’t need to be scholars to get it.” And then when I point to the simple reading of the text, your respond by pointing to Greek and historical background studies.
Are you surprised to find that a "simple housewife" might know how to use Strong's concordance, WW?
So, if we are going to look at the Greek, lets look at it and accept the scholarship for what it says. I have pointed you to two detailed works on this word that have done extensive study on its use. Also, I find these arguments from silence not very persuasive. It is like saying, “Barrd used the word, ‘why.’ Why did she do that when she could have used the words, ‘How come’ or ‘For what reason?’” If it is proven that the word Paul used means authority in the neutral sense, then I assume that Paul used this word because he wanted to speak of authority in the neutral sense. Until you can prove that the word means something other than that, then I don’t think this line of rationale goes anywhere.
If The Barrd regularly asked "how come" and then suddenly changed to "why", she had a reason. Knowing her as I do, I'd guess she was working on a new character for one of her stories, and his ways of speaking have "bled out" into her posts.
It is kind of funny that this term is not used anywhere else in the entire Bible. Why?
Ahem....I mean "How come?"
Again, we are going back to Greek, this time plural forms to determine what Paul meant. This is fine, but just pointing out that this is an appeal to scholarship and linguistics. I know Greek, and I assure you that Paul used the language in the precise way to show he was talking about women in general and not a specific woman or group of women. He would not have worded it this way if that were the case. In fact, he would have worded almost the opposite of how he words this if he had someone specific in mind. Paul uses no definite article and he does not use the demonstrative pronoun εκοινος for “those” women. The right translation is “I do not permit a woman to teach…” There is no indefinite article in the Greek and the lack of the definite article, the context and the construction of this sentence makes it clear Paul is referring to women in general. It is also why pretty much every translation renders it this way.
I'm going to take your word for this one. I do know a bit about Greek mythology....but I do not speak a word of Greek.
I generally do not waste my time with online blogs. Anyone can post a blog and most of them are filled with nonsense and are written by people who do not cite their sources and have no expertise on the topics they discuss. Its almost like grabbing a random guy off the street and asking his opinion on this matter. If I am going to spend my time reviewing an argument, I prefer it be from someone reputable who actually spent time studying the material and provides sources for my own review.
The thing about that is that not all scholars always agree. I've seen in these threads folks pull up scholars to back up totally different povs...and I'm sure you have, as well.
And after all...it's the very same Bible, isn't it?
Okay, so I don't speak Greek or Hebrew. Does that mean that the plain English my Bible is written in is somehow inferior?
Does one really need a fancy shmancy theology degree in order to "exegete" the Bible? Must I have written a dissertation in order to understand "hermeneutics"?
WW, when I started reading the Bible...and I mean the grown up KJV...I was still very young. I had read and understood Shakespeare's 'Midsommer Night's Dream', and his 'Merchant of Venice' before I was 12 years old..but I didn't know what words like "doctrine" or "dogma" meant. My parents were not exactly fanatic about taking us to church, so I did not study under a Sunday School teacher, nor did I hear many sermons. You might say that I was educated by a great Rabbi...Jesus, Himself.
I was fascinated by Jesus, and I still am. It never occurred to me, ever, that I did not have as much right to grow in grace and wisdom as my brothers, nor did anyone ever tell me that my thoughts and ideas would not be welcome in God's House.
That being said, I did read this article, and I found pretty much what I expected. First, if this guy’s writing informs your decision making for understanding “why [you] feel as you do” you should understand the following: 1. This author claims he is the “president” of his ministry which consists of his own blog. 2. The author has a bachelors degree in finance from ECU in Oklahoma. 3. The author took some online courses at a Seminary in Florida and did not graduate. 4. The author has not been published. 5. The author offers no citations for his sources to check the accuracy of his claims.
A bit of an intellectual snob, then? Yeah, I suppose it's an occupational hazard.
So, I find it pretty alarming that you would entrust yourself to the teaching and scholarship of someone who is the president of his own blog online on such an important issue and would take his word about words like authenteo over the books I have cited where PhD’s actually looked up every Greek usage of the word over 13 centuries!!!
Except that I had long ago come to the very same conclusions as he did.
For a very long time, I did think that women were to take a secondary role...oh, not because Jesus said so, but because the church said so. Silly, I guess.
Then a couple of things happened in my life.
a. I was suddenly widowed, left with seven small kids, no assets, and no marketable skills. I busted my....uh...I worked my tail off for the first several weeks, taking any drudge job I could find. I cleaned houses, I did laundry, I did yard work, I washed windows, I mucked out stables, I walked dogs and fed and cleaned up after cats, I baby sat...I did anything and everything that would make me a few honest dollars. And through it all, I managed to get myself an Associate's degree in legal studies, which landed me a pretty good job as a legal secretary, which eventually worked into a permanent job as a legal assistant...and suddenly I was making more money than hubby had done.
b. I was mauled by a vicious dog, and bled out before the ambulance got there. I should have been DOA...but an angel intervened. It's a long story, and I don't really like telling it on the internet, because people accuse me of making it up...but I assure you, it is true.
And i met a man who was quite impressed by my writing. One thing led to another, and he showed me Romans 16, and told me about Junia. Of course, I was hooked.
That being said, I will give you my comments of his blog in my next comment. I have to run an errand so I will just respond in another post a bit later.
I think you've pretty well told me what you think of the article, WW. Besides my three youngest grandkids are here, with my daughter, who wants to take me out to supper. I think I'm gonna put on some lipstick and maybe even a pair of earrings...and go out with her and my son in law....
