Women pastors

[st. Worm]

So when Paul says in 1 Corinth 11 regarding the Lord's Supper, "let a man examine himself", according to your bizarre interpretation principles, he might only be talking about a specific man and not men in general? I think they call what you are doing Scripture twisting in order to further your agenda. What you are saying has no merit and no credible theologian would ever take the approach you are taking with that verse. Give me a break.

sw

Problem with this reasoning of yours above is that throughout vv17-34 Paul said 'you' singular never once changing the grammar from singular to plural and neither did he go from one topic (women's dress) to another (stopping 'a woman' from teaching). See the difference?

No. There is too much additional biblical evidence to support a prohibition against women pastors to allow such a blatant twisting of this verse. Paul was writing about women and not a specific woman. That is clear and has been clear for 2000 years. I must admit that I thought I had heard it all from the feminists on this issue. Your argument though exceeds all credulity. If you have to make arguments like that you should reconsider your position. You are misusing common grammatical rules and principles in an almost desperate way.

sw

[Vickilynn]

Perhaps if you reported this post to a mod you would get a quicker response than just waiting for a mod to stumble across it.

Shalom Ruth,

It's already been done. Dontcha worry. But, while you're waiting I see you're flippantly using the word, disregarding the Mod's admonition and any concern about anyone else reading here, especially young people. As you wish, but don't tell me it's "in Jesus", for it's not by a long shot. It's flesh, pure and simple.

And for the record, the TOS DOES say that if you have a problem with the Mods decision, the correct action is to PM them.

[firehill]

So when Paul says in 1 Corinth 11 regarding the Lord's Supper, "let a man examine himself", according to your bizarre interpretation principles, he might only be talking about a specific man and not men in general? I think they call what you are doing Scripture twisting in order to further your agenda. What you are saying has no merit and no credible theologian would ever take the approach you are taking with that verse. Give me a break.

sw

Problem with this reasoning of yours above is that throughout vv17-34 Paul said 'you' singular never once changing the grammar from singular to plural and neither did he go from one topic (women's dress) to another (stopping 'a woman' from teaching). See the difference?

No. There is too much additional biblical evidence to support a prohibition against women pastors to allow such a blatant twisting of this verse. Paul was writing about women and not a specific woman. That is clear and has been clear for 2000 years. I must admit that I thought I had heard it all from the feminists on this issue. Your argument though exceeds all credulity. If you have to make arguments like that you should reconsider your position. You are misusing common grammatical rules and principles in an almost desperate way.

sw

In order for this defense of yours to hold up you'd have to prove that those passages in the bible to which you refer are actualy evidence to begin with.

No I'm not mishandling the grammar.

Take note. You've still not refuted my first point by either giveing additional evidence or by your claims. You're claiming Paul is talking about all women. Then prove it! It's pretty simple.

[OopsMartin]

Sorry but I am including it in this thread since its completely relevant or are you saying God's word can only be used in one thread at a time? If you can't address it that is fine.

sw

Either way. I just think it's more orderly to discuss it there since the thread is specific to that verse (2:15) which required the discussion of the context of the verse (the passage) in order to understand v.15.

We can begin with the grammar. Paul uses 'a woman' which can be generic or specific and the context tells us which use it has. In other words it cannot be assumed without looking to the context whether or not Paul is meaning 'women' by 'a woman' and the inspired grammar is 'a woman' right after he spoke of 'women' in the previous vv9 & 10. So why did he changed from plural (vv.8 & 9) to singular? So the question is, was he prohibiting 'women' or just a specific woman? Start there?

You cannot be serious.

Oh, God's word should be taken seriously. (Not implying that you don't take it that way) Let me put it this way. Aside the context for one moment, IF Paul was stopping a specific woman from teaching then he conveyed it clearly by his choice of grammar, 'a woman'. BUT IF he was stopping all women from teaching then the context needs to support that idea since he began his train of thought with 'a woman'. He spoke of specific individuals in the previous chapter. He even named some. Therefore it is within reason that the grammar, 'a woman' that he chose was refering to stopping a specific woman from teaching. He was after all dealing with those who were teaching false doctrines (chp 1 which is also more context.) Eh, either Paul was precise or he wasn't. God word's dosent make mistakes. So let's look at the context to see what it supports. Does it support that he is stopping 'a woman' from teaching or 'women'?

So when Paul says in 1 Corinth 11 regarding the Lord's Supper, "let a man examine himself", according to your bizarre interpretation principles, he might only be talking about a specific man and not men in general? I think they call what you are doing Scripture twisting in order to further your agenda. What you are saying has no merit and no credible theologian would ever take the approach you are taking with that verse. Give me a break.

sw

Don't think so SW. The word in 1 Cor. 11 is anthropos, meaning human and refers to the "whoever" of verse 27. And the sense is that each human should examine themselves. Very different context.

[Eliyahuw]

Perhaps if you reported this post to a mod you would get a quicker response than just waiting for a mod to stumble across it.

Shalom Ruth,

It's already been done. Dontcha worry. But, while you're waiting I see you're flippantly using the word, disregarding the Mod's admonition and any concern about anyone else reading here, especially young people. As you wish, but don't tell me it's "in Jesus", for it's not by a long shot. It's flesh, pure and simple.

And for the record, the TOS DOES say that if you have a problem with the Mods decision, the correct action is to PM them.

I can't believe anyone here would call Gods word offensive much less censor or edit his word.

[firehill]

Don't think so SW. The word in 1 Cor. 11 is anthropos, meaning human and refers to the "whoever" of verse 27. And the sense is that each human should examine themselves. Very different context.

Oh yeah, that point to... That's an example of generic usage. Now is Paul using 'a woman' genericaly or specificaly is the question.

[Scarletprayers]

You either let me say a word that some find offensive, and that there are other words that can be used, that convey the exact same meaning, or I'll leave.

No: either I am allowed to quote from the original translation of the Bible into the English language - i.e. the AV, or I shall leave.

And not from pique but because once God's Word is made subject to, and/or altered to accommodate personal feelings, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and if that were ever to occur here at Worthy, then I would either have to leave or by default I would be traducing God's Word. I would prefer to leave than be guilty of the latter.

Ruth

Ahhh KJV only...................................never mind, this discussion just became moot.

[st. Worm]

Sorry but I am including it in this thread since its completely relevant or are you saying God's word can only be used in one thread at a time? If you can't address it that is fine.

sw

Either way. I just think it's more orderly to discuss it there since the thread is specific to that verse (2:15) which required the discussion of the context of the verse (the passage) in order to understand v.15.

We can begin with the grammar. Paul uses 'a woman' which can be generic or specific and the context tells us which use it has. In other words it cannot be assumed without looking to the context whether or not Paul is meaning 'women' by 'a woman' and the inspired grammar is 'a woman' right after he spoke of 'women' in the previous vv9 & 10. So why did he changed from plural (vv.8 & 9) to singular? So the question is, was he prohibiting 'women' or just a specific woman? Start there?

You cannot be serious.

Oh, God's word should be taken seriously. (Not implying that you don't take it that way) Let me put it this way. Aside the context for one moment, IF Paul was stopping a specific woman from teaching then he conveyed it clearly by his choice of grammar, 'a woman'. BUT IF he was stopping all women from teaching then the context needs to support that idea since he began his train of thought with 'a woman'. He spoke of specific individuals in the previous chapter. He even named some. Therefore it is within reason that the grammar, 'a woman' that he chose was refering to stopping a specific woman from teaching. He was after all dealing with those who were teaching false doctrines (chp 1 which is also more context.) Eh, either Paul was precise or he wasn't. God word's dosent make mistakes. So let's look at the context to see what it supports. Does it support that he is stopping 'a woman' from teaching or 'women'?

So when Paul says in 1 Corinth 11 regarding the Lord's Supper, "let a man examine himself", according to your bizarre interpretation principles, he might only be talking about a specific man and not men in general? I think they call what you are doing Scripture twisting in order to further your agenda. What you are saying has no merit and no credible theologian would ever take the approach you are taking with that verse. Give me a break.

sw

Don't think so SW. The word in 1 Cor. 11 is anthropos, meaning human and refers to the "whoever" of verse 27. And the sense is that each human should examine themselves. Very different context.

I agree with you on 1 Cor 11 but firehill's problem is Paul did not say "this woman" or "that particular woman". He said "a woman" which is commonly and clearly used to mean women in general. Like I said, its an argument without merit to say a it might mean a specific woman. Its just not there. Not even close to being there. Its downright laughable in fact.

sw

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

I'm starting to think that this is a subject that should be banned from talking abou there on Worthy.

I agree with you on this point Biblicist.

ONCE!

Just ONCE!

I wish we could discuss this topic without insults.

Why does there always have to be insults?

If you don't like someone's preaching/teaching/beliefs don't listen to them,

and by all means don't insult them.

[Vickilynn]

Ahhh KJV only...................................never mind, this discussion just became moot.

Shalom SP,

AMEN!!!