methinkshe

Where did you get this? Disney movie? Sorry, none. I thought I was delusional. I read the passage, read this thread, then rubbed my eyes and did it again. I thought I must not be reading the bible and that I was seeing things that weren't really there in the bible. I was like, Naturally, people will see what they want to see. It's not a bad thing, not all the time. Maybe I can't see something like the message to be submissive to your husband because my particular husband would lead my family and I, if I did "submit" to his pagan ways, into the pit of satan. Maybe I'm "failing to see the beauty" because I've seen too many submissive women killed by their overbearing husbands. Maybe it's because I read the history books where 100,000 women were burned at the stake just for being a women, and by whom, by men. Should men really dominate women in this way, or did Jesus come to set women free from that slavery, as well as the men who were captives. I, too, have an unbelieving husband, and in no way do I submit to anything ungoldy that he suggests. However, where possible, and where there is no direct contravention of God's law, I do allow his authority to pertain. And, guess what, he then has to take the reponsibility when it all goes wrong! Over the years, he's learnt to become a little less keen to oppose me when I offer good reason for not following a particular course, but then defer to his authority. Personally, I find it very convenient to have the God-given right to submit to authority and therefore require my husband to take authority and place on him the responsibility when it all goes wrong. I kinda like that freedom! Ruth

Whilst I totally agree with you, for the sake of dissenters may I just reiterate that the bigger point that buckthesystem was making is that once we allow governments to regulate what occurs on private property, we are on the proverbial slippery slope. Whether or not one thinks smoking is harmful, disgusting or whatever, it can never be the government's job to encroach on the liberty of citizens do as they choose within their privately owned properties. And pubs and clubs and restaurants and even places of work (apart from government offices) are ALL privately owned. And remember, smoking IS NOT ILLEGAL. Governments take far too big a tax rake-off from tobacco sales for it ever to be made illegal. Those who condone a smoking ban on private premises are condoning government regulation of ANY legal activity on private premises. So the real debate is: do you or do you not want the government to regulate ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING legal that you do on your private property? If you condone the smoking ban on private premises then you have already answered "yes" to this question, and should not be surprised when other regulations are imposed on what you do on your own property. Do not be surprised, then, when a government makes it illegal to suggest that Chritianity is the ONLY truth and that all other religions are false, within or without the confines of your privately owned property. And don't be surprised when the neighbour to whom you make this observation snitches on you, just as your neighbour is required to snitch on you if you smoke in a privately owned restaurant. It is not a matter of smoking or not smoking, healthy or unhealthy, I like it or I don't, it is a matter of whether or not a governbment should have the power to regulate what is legally done on private premises. Ruth

Suzanne, God bless you for drawing to our attention the beauty and blessing of submission to God-ordained authority as so wonderfully expressed in the Book of Esther. It is another of those lovely passages that are types of the submission of the church (believers) to her head, Jesus. Blessings in Christ, Ruth

What about all the babies that live with smokers who are so much sicker on a regular basis than those who do not? My younger sister worked with a woman who smoked thoroughout her pregnancy. Her words were, "So he'll have a low birth weight, no big deal." You can't make people care about themselves or their families. If smokers have low birth weight children then I am sure glad that I smoked through all of my prgnancies and only had minimum 8.5 pound babies! I'm not sure that I could have coped so well with 9 pounders+. If they were underweight at 8.5 pounds, I consider that a small mercy! Actually, in my experience, it is not the smoking but the diet that can accompany SOME smokers - junk food, in other words - that is the cause of low birth weight. A healthy diet is infinitely more important than smoking or not smoking when it comes to birthweight imo. I've always had a very healthy and balanced diet so I never saw my smoking as an issue - until successive governments turned it into one. Believe it or not, when I gave birth to my first son, smoking was allowed on the maternity ward where mothers were in bed alongside their babies in their cots, and I was given an ashtray on my bedside locker. Didn't seem to me to do much harm to anyone. At least, in those days, no-one complained. In any event, would you rather be a Prozac junkie or smoke cigarettes? Just because one is prescribed and the other not, does not make one a healthier option than the other. Peronsally I'd have 20 fags a day in preference to Prozac any day of the week! But that's just me. And always remember, it is not what goes into the body that defiles, it is what comes out of the mouth which proceeds from the heart that defiles the man. Ruth Yet Adam and Eve were defiled by taking in the wrong fruit. I think that Scripture is often quoted out of context. Then if you have a different understanding of what Jesus was teaching, please enlighten us. Don't just accuse us (me) of taking a Scripture out of context. It seems to me far more likely that you have mis-contexctualised by trying to make a connection between the eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and Jesus' words concerning defilement via what goes in through the mouth. A bit like the person who plunged into his Bible and read in one verse: "and Judas went out and hanged himself" and then did a quick riffle through the pages and alighted on the verse: "go and do thou likewise." Ruth

What about all the babies that live with smokers who are so much sicker on a regular basis than those who do not? My younger sister worked with a woman who smoked thoroughout her pregnancy. Her words were, "So he'll have a low birth weight, no big deal." You can't make people care about themselves or their families. If smokers have low birth weight children then I am sure glad that I smoked through all of my prgnancies and only had minimum 8.5 pound babies! I'm not sure that I could have coped so well with 9 pounders+. If they were underweight at 8.5 pounds, I consider that a small mercy! Actually, in my experience, it is not the smoking but the diet that can accompany SOME smokers - junk food, in other words - that is the cause of low birth weight. A healthy diet is infinitely more important than smoking or not smoking when it comes to birthweight imo. I've always had a very healthy and balanced diet so I never saw my smoking as an issue - until successive governments turned it into one. Believe it or not, when I gave birth to my first son, smoking was allowed on the maternity ward where mothers were in bed alongside their babies in their cots, and I was given an ashtray on my bedside locker. Didn't seem to me to do much harm to anyone. At least, in those days, no-one complained. In any event, would you rather be a Prozac junkie or smoke cigarettes? Just because one is prescribed and the other not, does not make one a healthier option than the other. Peronsally I'd have 20 fags a day in preference to Prozac any day of the week! But that's just me. And always remember, it is not what goes into the body that defiles, it is what comes out of the mouth which proceeds from the heart that defiles the man. Ruth

What I fail to understand is how so few people seem able to equate pernicious laws such as the ban of smoking in private premises (albeit open to the public) with the thin end of the wedge. Don't you see that the moment that you allow Goverment to dictate what is done in a PRIVATELY OWNED restaurant or pub or club, then you have admitted the government into your own home, which is just as equally open to the public, if only by private invitation. And how does that differ from private membership? Or the simple choice of a pub landlord, which is enshrined in British Law, to tell any person to leave the premises at his wish, on the basis that he is only there by invitation of the Publican? Ruth

Are you from the UK? In the UK the law against smoking encompasses ANY place of work. So, a company car is a place of work. A private home is a place of work when a government official is required to enter your home. The smoking ban applies to any place of work, and if that includes the home, because some wretched bureaucrat is entitled to admission to your home, then the long arm of the law can reach into your home and incriminate you. If someone visits a person's home as a work detail, then that person's home becomes a place of work for that visting bureaucrat. Good, isn't it? Do you still agree with the anti-smoking legislation? Ruth

No problem - glad you appreciate the warning. I learned many years ago, through firsthand experience and when things weren't half as bad as they are now in the UK, that the State's hold over our private lives, and thence our children, is frightening. I'll tell you a true succession of events that had me on my mettle 20 years ago. My children used to play a game called "pirates" with their Dad. I think I had five or six kids at the time (I have nine, now) and they were all under 14. Anyway, "pirates" was a very physical game that involved not putting your feet on the floor, just jumping from one piece of furniture to the next until you got caught by the pirate. My kids adored the game - they'd beg their Dad to play it! It did awful things to the furniture (which wasn't up to much, anyway, so I wasn't overly careful) but gave the children a huge amount of enjoyment. Anyway, as a large family we had wooden benches around a wooden table so as to seat our family. One of my boys, aged about 6, slipped from the bench whilst trying to make a leap, and banged himself on the table somewhere in the lower torso area. I comforted him but didn't think too much about the incident until I happened to follow him to the lavatory and noticed there was blood in his urine. So I took him to see a doctor who referred him to the hospital for a kidney scan. So far, so good.. But then the examining medic began to question my son about how he was injured, and was his daddy chasing him, and did he feel frightened, and was he in fear of injury from his father - all very leading questions. At which point I surmised where the questions were leading, took huge offence, and discharged him from the hospital and went straight back to my GP to explain what I had done and why. Fortunately, I had a sympathetic GP who understood my concerns and agreed to cover the injury through urine testing. It transpired that he'd probably given his kidney a knock on the table when he slipped from the bench which had produced blood in his urine on just that single occasion. It never recurred. However, only a week later, my five year old daughter was jumping around on the arm of a sofa and literally "split the difference" to use slang terminology, causing bleeding. Back to the GP. Although the cut was tiny - no more than one-tench of an inch, because it was on a blood vessel, he couldn't staunch the bleeding so sent us to hospital. I was terrified in the light of my previous attendance at the hospital. So I prayed and prayed and the Lord was so good. My daughter was examined by a doctor, with a Christian nurse whom I knew in attendance. She had to have a single stitch (under anaesthetic) but there was absolutely no questionbing that the injury was anything but accidental, although by modern standards a social worker might very well have put son's injury and daughter's injury together and made a huge amount more of it. What is so scary is that today, I think I wouldn't have stood a chance - except by God's miraculaous intervention - and would have had Social Workers knocking on my door ready to take away my children. That's how dangerous it is to allow the State to have too much power over individual lives. In the interests of protecting the few, from the depredations of the few, the majority is incriminated unless they can prove otherwise. Ruth

I agree wholeheartedly. Are you aware that because a private home becomes a place of work for, say, a home-help employed by Social Services but paid for by the client, to help an elderly gentleman wash or dress or cook a meal, he is obliged to desist from smoking his pipe/cigarette/tobacco, whatever, in his home for one hour before the home-help arrives or she is legally entitled to refuse to do the job for which she is paid? Firstly, how is this rule to be policed unless every home is fitted with CCTV monitored by surveillance officers to record the exact time our elderly gentleman extinguised his pipe? Moreover, once the government begins to legislate what may or may not be done on private premises, a door has been opened that could allow any amount of regulation in our private lives. How soon before parents have to prove they are non-smokers before they are allowed to procreate, for instance? Smoking is only the beginning. Soon it will be that if you teach your children that homsexuality is a sin, your children could be removed. Which reminds me; an unforseen consequence of setting adoption targets for Local Authorities is that Social services have been removing children from their birth parents almost on a whim (well, at the slightest hint of the possibility of non-accidental injury, say, but without any supporting evidence) so that adoption targets can be met. Advice is, never comply with a request to visit a doctor on a Friday evening (the appointment will be a Social Services set-up) because Social Workers deliberately choose late on Friday to remove children from their parents so that legal advice cannot be sought until the following Monday, by which time it is too late to reverse the emergency child protection orders that are readily obtainable from the courts on the say-so of a Social Worker. And because all cases dealing with child safety are held in camera it is impossible for a parent to seek public support. Anyone who values liberty should resist the banning of smoking on private premises (and restaurants and clubs are just that even if the public is invited to enter) whether or not they find smoking an unpleasant and obnoxious habit. Far worse than a bit of second hand smoke is a State that has made it its business to regulate, BY LAW, the private lives of its citizens. That way lies totalitarianism. As the saying goes, give the state an inch and it'll take a mile; or, in the light of the prosecution of shopkeepers who dared to offer their customers a choice of imperial or metric weights to dispense their goods, contrary to European diktak which required metric only - give the state a centimetre and they'll take a kilometre. Ruth

Know what, (and please feel at liberty to refute me) I think that it is this type of discussion that is a necessary precursor to the evolution/creation debate. At least, it is for those who claim to be critical thinkers (to use your description, System!) Once one is persuaded that there IS a truth, whether or not it is known or perceived, and that logic disallows diametrically opposing positions to simultaneously equate to truth, then any further debate on truth (an accurate record of existence and events) can be very honed and directed. What do you think? Ruth

Shalom Ruth, Who exactly is parroting anything? Are you? I'm certainly not. Since you can only speak for yourself and not for others, you are speaking for yourself. What is meant by worshiping in spirit and in truth is to worship G-d spirit to Spirit, to wholly, fully and intimately worship and adore Him in the spirit and of course, in all truth, according to the Scriptures. NOTHING in the song I posted goes against that. John 4:23-24 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." That's what it says. And that's what we are to do. No place does it say a certain type of song doesn't meet the criteria, so you cannot add to Scripture. You are entitled to your opinion, but you must realize, this is your opinion. I believe the Bible is VERY clear about G-d and how He relates to us. To me, there is definitely a romantic (not sexual) aspect, Song of Solomon is an excellent example of that. I do not agree with your assessment that all romantic references to G-d are carnal, that is simply NOT supported in Scripture. So, when you say "we", you are not talking from Scriptural truth, but opinion. Maybe YOU have a problem with this song and worshiping in spirit and in truth, but I don't. So, you are speaking for yourself, not the Body as a whole. And please, remember, whatever you believe about the song is your opinion and those who hold differing views are NOT your enemy or any less spiritual or in love with Jesus. Perhaps I didn't explain myself too well. I was trying to focus on the concept of worshipping God IN SPIRIT which requires that we understand what spirit is. If spirit does not include flesh, and romance, for instance, does, then to worship God in terms of romance would be to not worship Him in spirit - to put the argument briefly. Is romance associated with God's attributes (spiritual) or with man's attributes (physical)? Ruth

Talk about patronizing, whew. And this is one woman to another no less. Ruth, I do believe you have misread Cheryl. When she asks "do you see", she is really hoping that you are understanding what she is trying to show you. Text only communication is very difficult because most of human conversation is exchanged in tone, eye contact, and body language, none of which is present in text only communication. Your comparison between child bearing and teaching/leading authority is ??? since there is no comparison. They are not opposites. One does not oppose the other. One has nothing to do with the other. The balance is that the stronger human was given the ability to contain and pass the seed and the weaker in frame human (body adpatability for the carrying of the child) was given the ability to feed the maturing seed to birth. Buddhism teaches that men are leaders and givers because of the shape of their genitals and women are receivers and followers because of same. These are not Scriptural teachings. No such thinking exists in Scripture. OOOPs, Cheryl is trying to show HER opinion, not reveal God's word on the matter. At least, that is how I have received it. And whether or not she intends, I have found her "let us see what..." approach patronising, and it has not only been used to me but is rather a general approach on her part towards all protagonsists. Fair enough, I did say that I was offering a very non PC response and was ready to have my head bitten off for same. Nevertheless, that is my honest opinion - right or wrong. And no, in a word, I am not "understanding what she is trying to show me". All I am understanding is a woman who has an ulterior motive which is to attempt to prove a personal preconception through distorting the plain counsel of Scripture. And now I shall fully retire even from debating the debate. Ruth

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them. And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have. Ruth You know, that last paragraph is right on spot! I've been having some discussions with my friend who has trouble believing, and I think this very statement will help him understand what I've been trying to tell him for the past 6 months. If you don't mind, I might paste this paragraph in word and print it out for him to read. I'll give you kudos of course... Wow, I'm still amazed at how well you worded that... bravo, bravo.. My dear System, If I speak any words that have about them some wisdom, then it is not mine, it is the Lord's, and therefore it is not copyrightable and is freely available to be reproduced without any recourse to me! However, if I speak trash, I take full responsibility, and you are more than welcome to offer my name as the offending culprit! Does that help!!??? lol! Ruth

The woman in 2:12 is a woman who has been deceived, as we all can be deceived, but is still a Christian. Being deceived does not negate our Christianity. There are many false doctrines being spread throughout Christianity because people have been deceived, but they are still Christians. For the majority of them their deceptions are not about denying Christ as Hymenaeus and Alexander whose faith was shipwrecked. Therefore it is likely that the woman in 2:12 is indeed one of the "certain persons" in 1:3. As for those Christians who are teaching different doctrines from what Scripture actually says, they are all over the internet, all throughout churches, some are even pastors. And yes, some of them simply do not know how to study and exegete truth or Scripture. They have sorely missed the mark of God's love from a pure heart and good conscience and sincere faith and instead push teachings tthey think benefit themselves. And no it does not place them under the anathema in Gal. 1 which speaks of those turning away from Christ. They love God and are growing in grace. But they handle the Word of God incorrectly. When the Word is handled incorrectly it condemns persons instead of sin. Such thinking as you have displayed is why we have Christians calling other Christian foul names, heretics, and questioning their commitment to Christ. Just because one loves God doesn't make them perfect like God. Everyone is at different stages in growth and maturity. And there are wolves out there deceiving people and then the deceived turn around and try to spread the deceptions. I've seen it often, even on Christian forums. Interesting. Are you from a Roman Catholic background, OooooopsMartin? No-one of the reformed faith whom I know bandies around the word "anathema". it is not Scriptural but has to do with the traditions of men, vis a vis the Roman Catholic church. What made you choose to use the word "anathema?" Ruth

Shalom Ruth, If you've read my posts, I have quoted this repeatedly and it supports the FREEDOM to worship with this song and others. As long as the Believer is worshiping G-d in spirit and in truth, no other Believer has the right to judge their worship. Your opinion on the song choice is your opinion. You can voice your objections to your leadership, but since this is NOT a doctrinal issue, you must realize it is opinion and preference. Yes, but what is MEANT by "in spirit and in truth" It's all very well to parrot the words, but what exactly is MEANT by them? Are we to praise God for His romanticism? Is that one of God's eternal attributes? Or is romanticism a fleshly/carnal attribute, such that when we introduce romance to worship we have neglected to worship in SPIRIT and therefore necessarily in truth, and have thus succumbed to some kind of carnal inverted adoration of man? Ruth

One thing that I try hard to do is to never judge the motives of another person's heart because we are told not to do that. We are told to study to show ourselves approved: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Yes we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, but it also requires a great deal of work on our part. We must also work hard especially on the tough passages of scripture. We cannot ignore the meaning of the original words. It isn't hard. There are many study helps available, many of them free on-line resources. When we work hard at understanding what the bible says we won't as easily fall prey to tradition that teaches us things that are not in scripture. We cannot just hold to tradition without checking that tradition against scripture. Tradition says that Eve added to God's word and lied about what God said. When we are diligent and test everything by the word of God in its original context with its inspired words and inspired grammar, we are able to lay aside the faulty traditions and hold fast to the truth. I encourage all to study earnestly. The blue letter bible is a great resource to start with. You don't even need to download anything. E-sword is also mostly free. There are tools available to allow any one to study to show yourself approved. The Holy Spirit will lead all those who are diligent, who work hard to know the truth. That is His way - that we put in the effort to know for ourselves. Amen, dear Lord, your word is truth. It is worth the study to intimately know God's word by putting in the hard work. Dear Inhistime, I have no doubt that you are earnestly attempting to seek God's truth. However, I have sincere doubt about the hurdles one has to overcome to accept your interpretative position. You require that we discern minute grammatical differences that totally change the APPARENT word of God. Now, as the mother of a mentally retarded child, am I meant to tell her that it is better that women keep silence in church (NOTE: IN CHURCH) and allow men to TEACH as is the plain understanding of the instruction to Timothy, and which in her simple understanding she is capable of receiving (apart from anything else, she just adores men and seeks their approval - I wonder why - could be sexual even though she has the mentality of a 6 yr old, but could be God's order of authority, it is something I am still exploring), or should I explain to her that that is not what was really meant, what she must do is understand that there were certain grammatical conditions that altered the plain meaning of the passage such that it should be understood totally differently and she will need a person who is versed in Greek and Hebrew to understand? Whatever happened to: "unless ye come as a little child?" Ruth Btw, as previously posted, I am not inclined to continue the debate in terms of Scripture. I post this only in terms of how I receive God's word. It is for better apologists than I to debate Scripture. All I can do is offer my experience which has nothing more to qualify it than personal understanding. Dear sister Ruth, The essentials that we need for salvation are simple and even a child can understand them. However there are other doctrines that are definitely not simple to understand. Peter explains: There are some things that are not essential to salvation that are very hard to understand. Do you see that this is what Peter is saying? Do you see that these "hard to understand" things are found in Paul's writings? If we take these "hard to understand" things and just take them at what seem to be face value, they contradict other clear passages. So how do we view these "hard things"? We have to work diligently at understanding these passages so that we do not fall prey to the error of those who twist these passages out of their context. For example in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 you are saying that it is better that WOMEN keep silence in the church and allow men to teach and that this is the plain understanding. However, let me point out to you that in that passage the word "women" and "men" plural, is not there. You are reading into the passage what tradition has taught you. We cannot take this passage out of its context of the stopping of false deceived teachers and then with a broad paint brush apply it to all godly Christian women. If we do that we are denying the character of God and the principle of the "two or three witnesses" so that every fact is to be established. There simply is no other passage that denies women from teaching the bible to men. There is no second witness so that is a huge red flag that says that we need to have another look at what Paul is really saying. There are some basic questions that just beg to be asked: 1. If God wanted this as a general principle for all women for all time, then why did he never repeat the prohibition just as he repeated every other prohibition that he has given to mankind? 2. Why did Paul say "I am not allowing" instead of "God does not allow"? Where are any of God's other commands ever framed in the words of a man instead of as coming from God himself? 3. Why would God have put this prohibition in amongst the stopping of deceived teachers? Did God not know the future and know that many godly people could see this as a prohibition of false teachers and not a prohibition of godly teachers? 4. Why would God have placed a question about women's salvation in the passage when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul is talking about? When is women's salvation ever questioned in scripture? 5. Why would we ignore the inspired grammar in verse 15 and correct God's word by making it say "women" when the plural for women is not even in the Greek? Can we add to God's word and be guiltless or should we diligently try to find out what the Holy Spirit is saying? 6. Why would God force women to discriminate against men by refusing to teach the bible if a man shows up at their bible study? Does that not force us to go against our conscience? Would not Satan be able to stop the teaching of all godly women by merely sending men into all the women's bible studies? Wouldn't all the women's bible studies then have to stop if men showed up? 7. Why is tradition held over the inerrancy of God's inspired words and his inspired grammar? Yesterday I received a review (below) from a Baptist Pastor regarding my teaching on 1 Corinthians 14. He has struggled with the passage for years and says that for the first time he now is able to understand the passage. Should we be able to consider what he says because he is a man? Pastor Jon writes: APPARENT BREAKTHROUGH IN UNDERSTANDING THE

One thing that I try hard to do is to never judge the motives of another person's heart because we are told not to do that. We are told to study to show ourselves approved: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Yes we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, but it also requires a great deal of work on our part. We must also work hard especially on the tough passages of scripture. We cannot ignore the meaning of the original words. It isn't hard. There are many study helps available, many of them free on-line resources. When we work hard at understanding what the bible says we won't as easily fall prey to tradition that teaches us things that are not in scripture. We cannot just hold to tradition without checking that tradition against scripture. Tradition says that Eve added to God's word and lied about what God said. When we are diligent and test everything by the word of God in its original context with its inspired words and inspired grammar, we are able to lay aside the faulty traditions and hold fast to the truth. I encourage all to study earnestly. The blue letter bible is a great resource to start with. You don't even need to download anything. E-sword is also mostly free. There are tools available to allow any one to study to show yourself approved. The Holy Spirit will lead all those who are diligent, who work hard to know the truth. That is His way - that we put in the effort to know for ourselves. Amen, dear Lord, your word is truth. It is worth the study to intimately know God's word by putting in the hard work. Dear Inhistime, I have no doubt that you are earnestly attempting to seek God's truth. However, I have sincere doubt about the hurdles one has to overcome to accept your interpretative position. You require that we discern minute grammatical differences that totally change the APPARENT word of God. Now, as the mother of a mentally retarded child, am I meant to tell her that it is better that women keep silence in church (NOTE: IN CHURCH) and allow men to TEACH as is the plain understanding of the instruction to Timothy, and which in her simple understanding she is capable of receiving (apart from anything else, she just adores men and seeks their approval - I wonder why - could be sexual even though she has the mentality of a 6 yr old, but could be God's order of authority, it is something I am still exploring), or should I explain to her that that is not what was really meant, what she must do is understand that there were certain grammatical conditions that altered the plain meaning of the passage such that it should be understood totally differently and she will need a person who is versed in Greek and Hebrew to understand? Whatever happened to: "unless ye come as a little child?" Ruth Btw, as previously posted, I am not inclined to continue the debate in terms of Scripture. I post this only in terms of how I receive God's word. It is for better apologists than I to debate Scripture. All I can do is offer my experience which has nothing more to qualify it than personal understanding. Dear sister Ruth, The essentials that we need for salvation are simple and even a child can understand them. However there are other doctrines that are definitely not simple to understand. Peter explains: There are some things that are not essential to salvation that are very hard to understand. Do you see that this is what Peter is saying? Do you see that these "hard to understand" things are found in Paul's writings? If we take these "hard to understand" things and just take them at what seem to be face value, they contradict other clear passages. So how do we view these "hard things"? We have to work diligently at understanding these passages so that we do not fall prey to the error of those who twist these passages out of their context. For example in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 you are saying that it is better that WOMEN keep silence in the church and allow men to teach and that this is the plain understanding. However, let me point out to you that in that passage the word "women" and "men" plural, is not there. You are reading into the passage what tradition has taught you. We cannot take this passage out of its context of the stopping of false deceived teachers and then with a broad paint brush apply it to all godly Christian women. If we do that we are denying the character of God and the principle of the "two or three witnesses" so that every fact is to be established. There simply is no other passage that denies women from teaching the bible to men. There is no second witness so that is a huge red flag that says that we need to have another look at what Paul is really saying. There are some basic questions that just beg to be asked: 1. If God wanted this as a general principle for all women for all time, then why did he never repeat the prohibition just as he repeated every other prohibition that he has given to mankind? 2. Why did Paul say "I am not allowing" instead of "God does not allow"? Where are any of God's other commands ever framed in the words of a man instead of as coming from God himself? 3. Why would God have put this prohibition in amongst the stopping of deceived teachers? Did God not know the future and know that many godly people could see this as a prohibition of false teachers and not a prohibition of godly teachers? 4. Why would God have placed a question about women's salvation in the passage when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul is talking about? When is women's salvation ever questioned in scripture? 5. Why would we ignore the inspired grammar in verse 15 and correct God's word by making it say "women" when the plural for women is not even in the Greek? Can we add to God's word and be guiltless or should we diligently try to find out what the Holy Spirit is saying? 6. Why would God force women to discriminate against men by refusing to teach the bible if a man shows up at their bible study? Does that not force us to go against our conscience? Would not Satan be able to stop the teaching of all godly women by merely sending men into all the women's bible studies? Wouldn't all the women's bible studies then have to stop if men showed up? 7. Why is tradition held over the inerrancy of God's inspired words and his inspired grammar? Yesterday I received a review (below) from a Baptist Pastor regarding my teaching on 1 Corinthians 14. He has struggled with the passage for years and says that for the first time he now is able to understand the passage. Should we be able to consider what he says because he is a man? Pastor Jon writes: APPARENT BREAKTHROUGH IN UNDERSTANDING THE

Valid observation and one with which I agree - but probably not for this thread. Point taken, anyway. Ruth

One thing that I try hard to do is to never judge the motives of another person's heart because we are told not to do that. We are told to study to show ourselves approved: 2 Timothy 2:15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Yes we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, but it also requires a great deal of work on our part. We must also work hard especially on the tough passages of scripture. We cannot ignore the meaning of the original words. It isn't hard. There are many study helps available, many of them free on-line resources. When we work hard at understanding what the bible says we won't as easily fall prey to tradition that teaches us things that are not in scripture. We cannot just hold to tradition without checking that tradition against scripture. Tradition says that Eve added to God's word and lied about what God said. When we are diligent and test everything by the word of God in its original context with its inspired words and inspired grammar, we are able to lay aside the faulty traditions and hold fast to the truth. I encourage all to study earnestly. The blue letter bible is a great resource to start with. You don't even need to download anything. E-sword is also mostly free. There are tools available to allow any one to study to show yourself approved. The Holy Spirit will lead all those who are diligent, who work hard to know the truth. That is His way - that we put in the effort to know for ourselves. Amen, dear Lord, your word is truth. It is worth the study to intimately know God's word by putting in the hard work. Dear Inhistime, I have no doubt that you are earnestly attempting to seek God's truth. However, I have sincere doubt about the hurdles one has to overcome to accept your interpretative position. You require that we discern minute grammatical differences that totally change the APPARENT word of God. Now, as the mother of a mentally retarded child, am I meant to tell her that it is better that women keep silence in church (NOTE: IN CHURCH) and allow men to TEACH as is the plain understanding of the instruction to Timothy, and which in her simple understanding she is capable of receiving (apart from anything else, she just adores men and seeks their approval - I wonder why - could be sexual even though she has the mentality of a 6 yr old, but could be God's order of authority, it is something I am still exploring), or should I explain to her that that is not what was really meant, what she must do is understand that there were certain grammatical conditions that altered the plain meaning of the passage such that it should be understood totally differently and she will need a person who is versed in Greek and Hebrew to understand? Whatever happened to: "unless ye come as a little child?" Ruth Btw, as previously posted, I am not inclined to continue the debate in terms of Scripture. I post this only in terms of how I receive God's word. It is for better apologists than I to debate Scripture. All I can do is offer my experience which has nothing more to qualify it than personal understanding.

It seems to me that there are two ways to approach Scripture. The first is to receive and learn REGARDLESS of preconceptions, and therefore to mould one's beliefs on what Scripture teaches, and the second is to come to Scripture with preconceptions and to try to prove them from Scripture. I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss Scripture in its original languages and to debate the "jots and tittles", but I do have an awesome wonder for the truth of God's Word and for the WHOLE COUNSEL of God. In this thread I have experienced more of the second approach to Scripture (as I have outlined above) than the first. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't just my personal opinion getting in the way of truth. However, I have yet to be convinced that anything more is being done in this thread than wriggling - serpentlike. I have no sense of revelation or of an unfolding truth - only of fallen humanity trying to justify itself and current fashions one way or another. In any event, I withdraw and continue to wait on the Holy Spirit whose mission is to guide into all truth. Ruth

Shiloh said: ""Romance" is based on self gratification. It has nothing to do with glorifying or even worshipping God. It leads people into an area of pure emotion, and it is the wrong kind of emotion with respect to what we offer the Lord as "worship." Romance has absolutely no spiritual connotation, no spiritual component whatsover, and while I understand what the author of the song in question was trying to do, and while I understand that he meant well, the truth is that he is wrong to inject romance into a worship song as romance is not a biblical component of our relationship with God." I agree. I am reminded of John 4:24 God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Ruth

Can anyone explain this line????? L.o.l. Has anyone replied to this, yet? I think it is a valid question and for what it's worth, my opinion is it's gibberish! From a poetic p.o.v., it sounds just about acceptable until one begins to examine it and then one discovers that it is just a couple of apt sounding phrases, lifted from the Bible or other hymns or wherever, and combined into a rather ambiguous demand to be "romanced", whatever that might imply, to the "song of all songs", whatever that might be. Moreover, I've never been too keen on the American tendency to change nouns into verbs, and "romance" is certainly a noun according to my English-English dictionary! Its informal use as a verb has more to do with the influence of American English on current English useage than to do with correct grammar. But, heh, I expect I'm just being pedantic! Ruth

Wow! I've been absent for a day or so and I come back to find all these posts! No, it was not the song posted, but I'm afraid I cannot find the actual song - the songs we sing in our fellowship are all very new to me. They are displayed on a screen so there are no hymn books to refer to, either. I know by heart hundreds of old hymns but not any of these new ones. I don't even know how to begin looking it up so I shall have to wait until I meet one of the worship group to find out the full lyrics to the song. And that won't be until Sunday week because we are again having a worship evening on Friday instead of a normal church meeting on Sunday. Another variation that I'm not too happy with, but.........oh, dear, what to do....? Shiloh, thanks for the teaching - it sits well with my spirit and explains why I felt so uncomfortable. The word "romance" is just far too carnal, as you say. Mind you, I find a lot of the new songs to be on the sensual/emotional side and more concerned with how I, me, myself, and I feels rather than magnifying God for His perfect character and goodness toward sinful humanity. Ruth

LOL! You'd be surprised, though, by how many people I have met who do not understand, or who refuse to accept, this basic philosophy and hold to a concept of relative truth such that whatever they choose to believe is "true for me" as they put it. Of course, that they believe in mutually exclusive, diametrically opposing positions doesn't seem to bother them. And you are, of course, correct in in observing that it is open to every individual to decide where truth lies. It is my contention, though, that because truth of necessity cannot be known for certain by limited humanity in and of themselves, and can only be known by an omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being, then it is a good start, for a person seeking to know truth, to look for such a Being and find out if He has made any claims to reveal truth. Which is exactly what God revealed in the Bible has done, as has His Son Jesus. It was for very good reason that Jesus prefaced so many of His words with: "verily, verily I say unto you..." or "truly, truly...." and that He claimed to be THE TRUTH. In short, revealed truth from an almighty God is the only certainty of truth that any human can ever have. Ruth