Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with your study is that it based upon using other words as they are applied in other contexts and issues, and not according to the issue at hand. This is a common mistake made in hermeneutics: People will try to justify their use of one word by how it appears in other passages that speak to different issues and contexts. If you were demonstrating your position using parallel passages that speak to the same issue, that would be different. Furthermore, you are using Strongs which is not meant to be a stand alone resource. Most people, as you have here, completely misuse Strong's dictionary.

Being that kephale is never ever translated as 'authority' looking to the related word study then is meant to simply shed light on the menaing of the word just by comparing how it is used in other contexts. Related word studies can be a helpful tool in determing a word's meaning. I wasn't meaning for Strong's to be used as a stand alone resource. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Really to draw all the seeming conclusions about 'my study' that you have is simply, ridiculous. Ask, don't assume.

The problem is that kephale doesn't have to be translated "Authority" to mean "Authority" when it is used in a metaphorical sense. When I refer to man as, head of the company" I mean mean that he is the one in charge. The head of the company is the final authority of that company. He is the ultimate decision maker, and the one who decides the direction the company takes.

Strongs is an exhaustive concordance/dictionary. That means it gives you ALL of the possible meanings a Greek or Hebrew word might possess. The problem is that it does not give you an anylitical breakdown showing which definition applies to which contexts. Simply quoting Strongs is not sufficient to provide a competent exegesis. A real, working knowledge of how biblical languages work is also helpful.

As for related word studies. You really don't understand. Related word studies are only helpful with respect to the current debate when one is using parallel passages that pertain to the same subject matter and and context. The problem is that you are applying word usages in other contexts to shade and color the way you understand the word kephale a different passage speaking to a different issue. It is apparent that you do not possess a good working knowledge of proper hermeneutics in your application of word usage.

If I say, "That man is green," what do I mean by green? Am I literally saying the man is the color of green? Am I saying he is "inexperienced?" Am I saying he is "Jealous?" The only way to know is by the context of the conversation in which the sentence appears. I could study all day on what the word "green" means, but that does not help me understand what "green" means int he above sentence. Only context will tell you if I am using the word metophorically or literally.

Point being, you can study till hte cows come home on the meaning of "kephale," but only applying it within the given context, and in the light of the object that the author has in view, will the proper understanding of the passage be made clear. As it stands, you have some stigma about men, and you are allowing it to flavor your interpretation, as a long as it continues, you will never arrive at a true understanding of the passage.

QUOTE

Notice the constrast. Jesus preeminence in the universe and Headship over the Church are pictured in similar fashion. Just as the entire created order is subordinate to Jesus, likewise He is head of the Church.

No I don't see or understand what you do regarding these statements and neither do numerous scholars.

"head" used metaphorically refers to preeminence and that is true no matter what context you apply it to, metaphorically. Head of the church, means "chief." Anyone can come up with "scholars" who see it their way. That is meaningless. Just because someone is a scholar does make him/her correct by default.

In verse 23 this is highlighted by calling the church His body. The body is subordinate to the head. The head determines the actions of the rest of the Body.

This is your opinion. I don't see a head/body metaphor defined like this as you do and again neither do numerous scholars.

Actually that is not my opinion at all. That is just how words work. That is just how it is in real life. Your theology can't make room for it, because you have to justify some neurosis about men you possess, but the truth is that words mean things, and you live in stubborn adolescent-style denial if you want, but you are just unwilling to show some maturity and face facts.

[Guest shiloh357]

But other numerous scholars agree with Shiloh. An appeal to numbers is not a sound logical argument

I'm not making an appeal to numbers as an argument. I simply stated just what is. Many assumptions are made all too often. It's frustrating.

You are the one making assumptions, and you are using sloppy hermeneutics to do it.

[Emily~Anne]

Firehill, what is it about the concept of women submitting to men that bothers you so much? Frankly it makes me feel safe.

[Iryssa]

Has it occurred to anyone that even the wording of the title of this topic and that of its "for women" counterpart were meant to incite an emotional response? This tends to cause knee-jerk reactions and fruitless bickering just by its very nature.

Hey, I'm all up for a good debate, as I'm sure you well know...but I'd really prefer that it stays on topic in a rational, non-threatening manner...instead of dissolving into bickering and the "you're the one who ----!!" arguments.

[Joshua-777]

Firehill, what is it about the concept of women submitting to men that bothers you so much? Frankly it makes me feel safe.

This is a view many have on this concept. Now, lets look at marriage

Christ and his love for the church, he gave himself for her, she submits to him, and he provides for her.

In Ephesians 5, You see this relate to marriage, as an example of Jesus' love for the church.

[Guest shiloh357]

Has it occurred to anyone that even the wording of the title of this topic and that of its "for women" counterpart were meant to incite an emotional response? This tends to cause knee-jerk reactions and fruitless bickering just by its very nature.

Hey, I'm all up for a good debate, as I'm sure you well know...but I'd really prefer that it stays on topic in a rational, non-threatening manner...instead of dissolving into bickering and the "you're the one who ----!!" arguments.

I don't see where this has really gone all far off topic, nor do I see anything "threatening" about it. Debates evoke emotions, particularly where one's views are basically on the line, no matter what subject it is. I see very heated debates on the news all of the time, even when Christians are involved. That is just how it is in life.

[Guest shiloh357]

Firehill, what is it about the concept of women submitting to men that bothers you so much? Frankly it makes me feel safe.

This discussion is not about "women feeling insecure".

Its about whether or not certain scriptures regarding women's role in the church are being interpreted correctly.

Yeah but for those like firehill it is deeper than the "woman's role in the Church." There is a lot more at stake, where her theology is concerned.

[Floatingaxe]

In all fairness, this is what I posted on the "Why cant women believe what the Scriptures say? And that a fair question as well.

Guy's lets sit down and as we in Australia say, have a beer, and mull this over. My missus is smarter than me many times all over. I am a retired coal miner, with no great education, but one thing I can garantee you all, she often advises me, teaches me in many and all things not related to mining, or a a mans family responsibilities. This, family responsibilities, was taught to me by my Mom, yes, as woman. And my wife often thankfully preaches to me and teaches me in many things. But one thing she has never done nor will do, and that is to try and take away my authority over our family, our household as a man! HER MAN!, thats me. She can rely on me to defend her with my life, love her, protect her, nurture her, but she relies upon me, as smart as she is, as my teacher, to be her final authority after God, in all things. Will she stop teaching me, to improve me? NEVER!

This is what I posted:

Dear friends in Jesus.

What is being totally forgotten and missunderstood in this debate regarding women teachers and preachers chosen by God is this:

Being a teacher or preacher does not give the teacher or preacher any authority over any man, be this teacher a male of a female, unless they are af corse Jesus Christ Himself, or God the Father and they are not female last time I spoke with either of them in prayer.

If the preacher/teacher is female, and she is married, she will love and respect and obey her husband as he will her. He will love, guide, protect and praise her name and thank God for her for ever more! She may know more than her husband, as my wife and yours often times knows more than we do, but she will not, and does not userp her husbands authority over her or their houshold. Another example;

If, lets say I was a divisional manager of a large corperation, Im a real smart manager, know most everything about the company business, and I was sent to the company organized yearly convention to be updated on the latest stratergy plan, and the speaker was a woman? sent by the corporate director of the said company, to teach me and others on what was required. As my teacher in this matter, would that give her authority over me a divisional manager?? Not on your bippy! And neither would she want authority over me and take on all my responsobilities. All she would be doing is tell me, preach to me, teach me and others of what is required and expected of me by the BOSS! Put God in the bosses position, God sends who He will, and many are women, as Scripture shows in another thread on this board, which some men cannot come to grips with, to teach, preach, as is recorded in Scripture, DOES NOT MAKE THEM IN ANY WAY, IN AUTHORITY OVER MEN! God does not say they are in authority does He? GOD, through the apostles say women are not to be in authority, and neither do they want to be. If they can, and do teach men of the things of God, what is wrong with that, especially if God empowers them to do this?

Please men, we need to get a grip, or many women will hold us accountable when we will be hiding ourselves for what we have done wrong in our lives.

Pleas let God decide who will teach, preach, and who is in authority. Women want men to have the authority and responsibility, and they are happy to obey God as we men should.

In Jesus Name,

Haz.

Oh HAZ! Astounding! You and your wife sound like my wonderful husband and I!

[Floatingaxe]

If the bible is so flawed we have to work this hard to figure out what it really means, then boy are we in trouble!

The bible is fine Emily Anne!

It's only when people try to beat it into something it is not where these perceptions of difficulties arise. Always look for the fruit of the spirit and test them as the Apostles instruct us. When you see rebellion against God's word, you should be very careful in what to do with that particular message. The only thing worse than a lie from the pit of hell, is a half truth pretending to come from heaven above. It's how and where Satan does his best work. The bible is without flaw, inerrant. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and deciever. Run from such a person!

So....who is telling her the Bible is flawed? No one here! Why the hysterics?

[Emily~Anne]

While we're on the subject of "not believing what scripture says", why can't the very same people who are on here telling us who can and can't be pastors or deacons, why can't you people believe the Bible when it says God created everything that is in six days? Why can't you believe the Bible when it says Adam and Eve were the first human beings who lived just a few thousand years ago?

I do believe that God created everything in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who lived yes, just a few thousand years ago, not millions, and I will not be getting into an evolution/creation debate with you. I believe only in microevolution, not macroevolution.