1 Timothy 2:15

July 3, 2007

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

Have a close look at the verse you just quoted and see what you are missing. To Adam he (God) said, "Cursed is...." cursed is what? Cursed is Adam? No. Cursed is....the ground. Do you see the difference between cursing the ground and cursing Adam. God didn't say cursed is the ground because of Eve's sin. He said cursed is the ground because of Adam. When we add to God's inspired words we change the entire meaning. God did not curse Adam and he did not curse Eve.

I am not sure what you are arguing here?

I am arguing that the ground is cursed. Please show me from the passage how you interpret this to mean that the man was cursed. Now the REAL question is not that the ground was cursed (and Adam was not!) but WHY was the ground cursed? What do you think?

Maybe you should try reading what I wrote, again, very carefully. I did not in any way say that Adam was cursed. . .

July 3, 2007

I think I'm with you sister Ruth. This conversation is going nowhere. Simple Hermeneutics and understanding that Scripture interprets scripture, not man's idea of scripture is necessary to for understanding.

Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.

You can twist scripture to mean whatever you wish it to say, but the plain fact is that Adam and Eve sinned. They went against the Will of God. Because of that not only are our relationships with God going to suffer but our relationships with each other. Adam was not decieved and the curses mankind endured reflect that. Eve was decieved and the curses women endure reflect that.

If you can't understand that the passage telling a woman to "learn in silence" is a gift not a curse then you have no understanding of whom Paul was speaking of, nor do you understand the culture that he was preaching to [Hermeneutics]. In that day women were not even allowed to learn. So his offer that women could learn at all was a blessing, not a curse that they are to keep their mouths shut. It's pretty difficult to learn anything when one keeps talking all the time instead of listening. God gave us one mouth and two ears, for this very purpose. Learning. Sometimes we just need to shut up and listen.

Proverbs 10:19 When words are many, sin is not absent,

but he who holds his tongue is wise.

inhistime · July 3, 2007

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

Have a close look at the verse you just quoted and see what you are missing. To Adam he (God) said, "Cursed is...." cursed is what? Cursed is Adam? No. Cursed is....the ground. Do you see the difference between cursing the ground and cursing Adam. God didn't say cursed is the ground because of Eve's sin. He said cursed is the ground because of Adam. When we add to God's inspired words we change the entire meaning. God did not curse Adam and he did not curse Eve.

I am not sure what you are arguing here?

I am arguing that the ground is cursed. Please show me from the passage how you interpret this to mean that the man was cursed. Now the REAL question is not that the ground was cursed (and Adam was not!) but WHY was the ground cursed? What do you think?

Maybe you should try reading what I wrote, again, very carefully. I did not in any way say that Adam was cursed. . .

You did say:

No curse on the woman?

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

So woman is cursed but not the man? No, God did not place a curse on the woman and the pain that she will have during child birth is a result of God's changing her conception cycle and from the fact that that he body is now dying. God never said that it was a curse. You are right. You didn't say that Adam was cursed but you did say that woman was cursed.

inhistime · July 3, 2007

I think I'm with you sister Ruth. This conversation is going nowhere. Simple Hermeneutics and understanding that Scripture interprets scripture, not man's idea of scripture is necessary to for understanding.

Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.

You can twist scripture to mean whatever you wish it to say, but the plain fact is that Adam and Eve sinned. They went against the Will of God. Because of that not only are our relationships with God going to suffer but our relationships with each other. Adam was not decieved and the curses mankind endured reflect that. Eve was decieved and the curses women endure reflect that.

If you can't understand that the passage telling a woman to "learn in silence" is a gift not a curse then you have no understanding of whom Paul was speaking of, nor do you understand the culture that he was preaching to [Hermeneutics]. In that day women were not even allowed to learn. So his offer that women could learn at all was a blessing, not a curse that they are to keep their mouths shut. It's pretty difficult to learn anything when one keeps talking all the time instead of listening. God gave us one mouth and two ears, for this very purpose. Learning. Sometimes we just need to shut up and listen.

Proverbs 10:19 When words are many, sin is not absent,

but he who holds his tongue is wise.

Where did I say that in the 1 Timothy 2 passage that the silencing of "a woman" was a curse? Where did I say that it was a bad thing? I think it would be good to re-read what I said. May I respectfully say that you have misread?

methinkshe · July 3, 2007

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
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:

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
2Pe 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

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

inhistime · July 3, 2007

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
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:

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
2Pe 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

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

Edited July 3, 2007 by inhistime

methinkshe · July 3, 2007

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
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:

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
2Pe 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

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

Neopatriarch · July 3, 2007

Now once again I ask you to show me from the context of the complete passage starting with chapter one and show me how you can fit in the forbidding of godly Christian women from teaching correct doctrine to men. I will be waiting for this exegesis. It is important because it wouldn't be fair to attribute sin to godly women teaching the truth of God's word just because they don't discriminate against who comes to listen to them teach. It is a serious matter to tell women they are in sin. Please prove your case from the context and show how we can all understand that Paul is restricting true teaching and not just the teaching of error from one who is deceived.

Whew! I've been fairly busy preparing for my Visual Basic .NET final so I've had suprisingly little time recently. It's a homework intensive class. It would probably take me all day to give a complete response to everything in your posts, but I've tried to focus on some points that make your exegesis implausible (I'll let the lurkers in this discussion decide whether that's the case).

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

Now I know that, in an attempt to justify your claim that the woman is teaching false doctrine in 2:12, you've appealed to 1:3,7. I've structured my response as a modus tollens argument:

If the woman in 2:12 is one of the "certain persons" in 1:3, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
But Paul does exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Therefore, the woman in 2:12 is not one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.

Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

Regarding the antecedent in 1, a few things should be said:

They are teaching different doctrine. Different from what? If it's the gospel (cf. vss 12-17), it's serious.
They desire to be teachers of the law (v. 7), but they aren't using it lawfully (v. 8). You have to ask yourself what this means. Is it heresy?
They've missed the mark on Paul's aim which is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Note that they may never have had a sincere faith in the first place.
In 1:3 Paul says "certain persons" are teaching a different doctrine. Does this place them under the anathema in Galatians 1:6-10?

Do these "certain persons" have their heart in the right place? Do they love as they ought to? Is their faith genuine? Is it heretical? If you answer yes to these questions, then you have to wonder why Paul would exhort the woman in 2:12 to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control since she evidently was not practicing these things, but rather missing the mark on them (astocheō in verse 6). Further, if she is not a Christian (this may well be the case given 1:3-11), why would Paul say she will be protected through the Messiah?

I don't buy this distinction you are making between the deceived and deceivers. I know you cited a lot of verses to support the distinction, but it looks like confirmation bias to me. You already have in mind a black and white distinction between deceivers and the deceived based on 2:12-15 and are sorting verses into one category or the another based on this preconceived distinction. What needs to be demonstrated is that Paul has in mind a distinct category of false teachers in 1:3ff, and this category of false teachers is honestly tripped up over some nonheretical doctrines. In other words, these are genuine Christians in need of some minor doctrinal and character adjustments rather than heretical opponents of Paul and Timothy who have darkened hearts.

I don't often necro old posts, but for an explanation of why women are not to teach or exercise authority over men:

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=865268

Now I must enjoy my home roasted coffee before it gets too cold.

-Neopatriarch

OopsMartin · July 3, 2007

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

Now I know that, in an attempt to justify your claim that the woman is teaching false doctrine in 2:12, you've appealed to 1:3,7. I've structured my response as a modus tollens argument:
If the woman in 2:12 is one of the "certain persons" in 1:3, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
But Paul does exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Therefore, the woman in 2:12 is not one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.
Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

Regarding the antecedent in 1, a few things should be said:
They are teaching different doctrine. Different from what? If it's the gospel (cf. vss 12-17), it's serious.
They desire to be teachers of the law (v. 7), but they aren't using it lawfully (v. 8). You have to ask yourself what this means. Is it heresy?
They've missed the mark on Paul's aim which is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Note that they may never have had a sincere faith in the first place.
In 1:3 Paul says "certain persons" are teaching a different doctrine. Does this place them under the anathema in Galatians 1:6-10?
Do these "certain persons" have their heart in the right place? Do they love as they ought to? Is their faith genuine? Is it heretical? If you answer yes to these questions, then you have to wonder why Paul would exhort the woman in 2:12 to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control since she evidently was not practicing these things, but rather missing the mark on them (astocheō in verse 6). Further, if she is not a Christian (this may well be the case given 1:3-11), why would Paul say she will be protected through the Messiah?

-Neopatriarch

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.

methinkshe · July 3, 2007

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

Now I know that, in an attempt to justify your claim that the woman is teaching false doctrine in 2:12, you've appealed to 1:3,7. I've structured my response as a modus tollens argument:
If the woman in 2:12 is one of the "certain persons" in 1:3, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
But Paul does exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Therefore, the woman in 2:12 is not one of the "certain persons" in 1:3.
Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

Regarding the antecedent in 1, a few things should be said:
They are teaching different doctrine. Different from what? If it's the gospel (cf. vss 12-17), it's serious.
They desire to be teachers of the law (v. 7), but they aren't using it lawfully (v. 8). You have to ask yourself what this means. Is it heresy?
They've missed the mark on Paul's aim which is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Note that they may never have had a sincere faith in the first place.
In 1:3 Paul says "certain persons" are teaching a different doctrine. Does this place them under the anathema in Galatians 1:6-10?
Do these "certain persons" have their heart in the right place? Do they love as they ought to? Is their faith genuine? Is it heretical? If you answer yes to these questions, then you have to wonder why Paul would exhort the woman in 2:12 to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control since she evidently was not practicing these things, but rather missing the mark on them (astocheō in verse 6). Further, if she is not a Christian (this may well be the case given 1:3-11), why would Paul say she will be protected through the Messiah?

-Neopatriarch

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