Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[firehill]

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.

Even further kephale doesn't have to be translated "source" to mean "source" when it is used in a metaphorical sense. I have no intention of discussing the structure of Corporate America.

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.

I've argued plenty for the meaning of 'source' from the immediate context just not here in this discussion.

You are assuming that the first century's useage of the metaphor 'head' is the identical twin of our twentieth century's. In Paul's day, the heart not the head was the seat of thought and reason.

... 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.

It's not about me or men it's about correct translation and interpretation.

"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.

'Preeminence' is merely a meaning you propose as an alternative.

Cervin understands it to mean 'preeminent'too and rather than 'source' or 'authority over'and he explains his view in the context of that culture of male domination.

Ofcourse scholarship makes no one correct by default not even Cervin!

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.

Your confusing the body part 'head' with the internal organ, 'mind' and further ignoring Paul's understanding of the heart not the head being the seat of reasoning, thought, judgement.

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,

Male ego? Hum? You're hissing. Right, only you, Shilo, don't have any opinions!

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.

Uh huh. Your ego, pride and attacks show real maturity.

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

Show some respect.

[firehill]

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.

WSB is correct. It's about getting to the Truth. I also do believe though that many of the views held by gender hierarchalists are demonic.

[firehill]

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?

I was wondering the same thing myself?

[firehill]

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?

I was wondering the same thing myself?

LOL You in particular!!! I only responded because FA jumped on the comment I made to Emily Anne. I was talking ot nobody but Emily when I made it, but that's okay! Now you Firehill, you specifically questioned if it was "finger of God" or "mere-man" regarding the Apostle Paul. I wasn't going to go there with you, but since you brought it up, how do you answer the same question I asked FA?

Do we get an amen? I mean it was two entire chapters, hardly anything out of context. So what is it?

Amen?

or...

Amenbut?

Uh kinda lost me there. Anyway..

It was God's finger through Apostle Paul to the people of his culture to put it simply.

The entire text you quoted cannot be taken literaly. You cannot pick and chose what should be taken literaly and what really meant 'blah blah blah', ya know? The authority of the bible is undermined when the author's intent is misunderstood and the text is ripped out of it's very real historical context. Culture is relative like anything else. You wanna live in the first-century be my guest and so you must be consistent regarding your literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 & 3. Thing is I gotta run too now which is why I can say no more presently.

[Guest]

Amen?

Or more amenbuts?

Amen?

Or amenbut?

No amenbuts?

Just amen?

For once let or yes be yes, or your no be no. Pretty please!

To help you along with the idea of what I'm talking about, watch me do it first...

I answer: Amen.

amenbuts?

A first I thought I'd checked into the Quit Smoking thread!

God's Love turned into amenbut ash?

Please Dear ones listen to The Master's Voice

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." (Revelations 2:15)

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6)

Grace

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

Grace

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Order of The Day

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34)

Humble

"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." (1 Peter 5:6)

Snake's A'hunting Worthy

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (1 Peter 5:8)

Healing

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16)

"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:"

"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:"

"The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:" (Numbers 6:24-26)

Yes and Amen Lord!

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." (Luke 18:13)

Love , Joe

[mrs]

Uh kinda lost me there. Anyway..

It was God's finger through Apostle Paul to the people of his culture to put it simply.

The entire text you quoted cannot be taken literaly. You cannot pick and chose what should be taken literaly and what really meant 'blah blah blah', ya know? The authority of the bible is undermined when the author's intent is misunderstood and the text is ripped out of it's very real historical context. Culture is relative like anything else. You wanna live in the first-century be my guest and so you must be consistent regarding your literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 & 3. Thing is I gotta run too now which is why I can say no more presently.

You speak heresy.

And its sickening.

[Mutzrein]

Uh kinda lost me there. Anyway..

It was God's finger through Apostle Paul to the people of his culture to put it simply.

The entire text you quoted cannot be taken literaly. You cannot pick and chose what should be taken literaly and what really meant 'blah blah blah', ya know? The authority of the bible is undermined when the author's intent is misunderstood and the text is ripped out of it's very real historical context. Culture is relative like anything else. You wanna live in the first-century be my guest and so you must be consistent regarding your literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 & 3. Thing is I gotta run too now which is why I can say no more presently.

You speak heresy.

And its sickening.

That was blunt. Where is the heresy?

[firehill]

Uh kinda lost me there. Anyway..

It was God's finger through Apostle Paul to the people of his culture to put it simply.

The entire text you quoted cannot be taken literaly. You cannot pick and chose what should be taken literaly and what really meant 'blah blah blah', ya know? The authority of the bible is undermined when the author's intent is misunderstood and the text is ripped out of it's very real historical context. Culture is relative like anything else. You wanna live in the first-century be my guest and so you must be consistent regarding your literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 & 3. Thing is I gotta run too now which is why I can say no more presently.

You speak heresy.

And its sickening.

Drive by, *splat*. Comical.

You're not getting what I'm saying are ya?

Paul's principles need to be sifted from out of the cultural and historical context in which they were written.

If the entire text is taken literaly then men must always lift up their hands in prayer, women shouldn't ever wear pearls to church, women shouldn't ever teach men, and women are saved by having children if the husband and wife ('they') keep faith, love and holiness, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Mar 9 2007, 06:24 PM)

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.

Even further kephale doesn't have to be translated "source" to mean "source" when it is used in a metaphorical sense. I have no intention of discussing the structure of Corporate America.

The problem is that it is not used as "source" metaphorically in the passages in which are demanding it to be employed in that manner. Again, the context does not allow for such a rendering in passages such Eph 1:22-23. You simply cannot arbitrarily assign meanings to passages as you are attempting to do. A word has to be understood in the context in which it is given and according to the intention of the author. Those parameters of interpretation cannot be ignored if a proper understanding of Scripture is the goal. Only those who have an agenda-drive interpretation as you apparently have ignore the commonly held rules of literary analysis.

QUOTE

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.

I've argued plenty for the meaning of 'source' from the immediate context just not here in this discussion.

You are assuming that the first century's useage of the metaphor 'head' is the identical twin of our twentieth century's. In Paul's day, the heart not the head was the seat of thought and reason.

You may have argued for the meaning of kephale to be source from the immediate context, but you would be wrong. I am not assuming anything about the 1st century usage. I am simply arguing from a hermeneutic or literary perspective. No one approaches common literature in our day the way you are trying to approach the Bible. Your methods of interpretation simply do not hold water, except in your imagination. It amazes me that the same rules of literary analysis that we use everyday when reading biographies, cookbooks and Shakespeare, go out the window when reading the Bible.

QUOTE

"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.

'Preeminence' is merely a meaning you propose as an alternative.

No, I do not offer it as an alternative. It is the correct understanding as can be seen in a real parallel passage in Colossians:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18) "Head is used in terms of rank."

QUOTE

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.

Your confusing the body part 'head' with the internal organ, 'mind' and further ignoring Paul's understanding of the heart not the head being the seat of reasoning, thought, judgement.

Nonsense. Even in ancient times, they understood that without the head the body was dead. In fact, the heart (not the bodily organ) was seen as existing in the head.

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,

Male ego? Hum? You're hissing. Right, only you, Shilo, don't have any opinions!

No, there is no male ego. It would no more male ego for me to argue that the earth is round and not flat. The facts support it and I am right on the basis of fact. Not everything can be relegated to "opinion." There are many things that are true, simply because they are true. Sure, you can erect all kinds of arguments against the truth, but it is just a excersize in futility.

QUOTE

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.

Uh huh. Your ego, pride and attacks show real maturity.

Sorry, but the facts are on my side. It is easily demonstratable that your position lacks any hermeneutic integrity. There is simply no way your position holds water when held up to the most basic rules of interpretation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul's principles need to be sifted from out of the cultural and historical context in which they were written.

If the entire text is taken literaly then men must always lift up their hands in prayer, women shouldn't ever wear pearls to church, women shouldn't ever teach men, and women are saved by having children if the husband and wife ('they') keep faith, love and holiness, etc.

Paul was a man of his day, and his words and principles as you refer to them, need to be understood in the historical context in which they were written.

You apparently don't know how the concept of "literal" works. To take something "literally" means to interepret it has "literature." In other words, it is read with the literal meaning supplied by the author, not a wooden "face-value" approach which is commonly misunderstood as the "literal" approach. To take the Bible literally means to understand the Bible from the standpoint of the intent of the authors, and any figurative literary devices employed by the authors need to recognized and handled in such a manner that we are able to understand the literal truth being communicated by the authors using said devices.