Women pastors

[methinkshe]

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.

I don't believe I ever said AV (KJV) ONLY, just that I have always read from the KJV. Actually, I have many different translations which I use for referral, but I prefer to use the AV as the authoritative translation, largely because the translators were self-confessedly led by the Holy Spirit, wheeas modern translators are more pleased to parade their lingusitic credentials such that on the committe of linguists that produced the NIV was a self-confessed lesbian - and her influence is evident in the NIV translation - but that's for another thread. All I would like to remind you of, or perhaps draw your attention to, is the terrible suffering and martyrdom that produced for our benefit the AV. (Tyndale - for instance). Perhaps we should show some gratitude to those who were burnt at the stake for their efforts instead of just dismissing their efforts as "moot"

In Jesus,

Ruth

[refugepsa91]

I cannot believe how the word "censor" is being thrown out...no where in this thread did I see a "mod" say that we had to censor the what the bible says...

Quote all the scripture you want....Lord give me patience....

For the record...quote the bible all you want in my home...but do NOT...and I mean do NOT throw that "w" word out constantly when speaking to me in your own words...I would show you to my door...

That is the point....this has nothing to do with censorship (unless one makes it that way) it has to do with courtesy....

Enough blowing out of proportion what was intended.

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[OopsMartin]

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

IF there had not been a deliberate shift from speaking of all women in the plural, then what you say would be true. But the grammar is inspired and therefore means something. Paul was very particular in his words.

The question is what does it mean. I can think of three relatively frequent choices amongst scholars.

1. it means nothing.

2. one on one general refers to a husband wife relationship.

3. since the subject is not husbands and wives but false teaching, it is likely about A particular woman teaching incorrectly.

I believe #3 makes the best sense exegetically.

[st. Worm]

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

IF there had not been a deliberate shift from speaking of all women in the plural, then what you say would be true. But the grammar is inspired and therefore means something. Paul was very particular in his words.

The question is what does it mean. I can think of three relatively frequent choices amongst scholars.

1. it means nothing.

2. one on one general refers to a husband wife relationship.

3. since the subject is not husbands and wives but false teaching, it is likely about A particular woman teaching incorrectly.

I believe #3 makes the best sense exegetically.

You have the right to believe whatever you want in total disregard of all standards. If the words meant what you say, then they obviously would have been translated to clearly say that. Not a single translation of the Bible has been translated to mean what you and firehill are saying. In fact of all the translation controversies and issues dealt with by the numerous scholars involved in translations like the NKJV, NIV, and all the others, I have never heard of this verse being a concern. So all of the language scholars involved in that process for ALL of the major translations chose not to translate the verse to make it as if Paul was referring to a single woman. Not a single one.

In addition to that, I have never read or heard of ANY theologian or anyone else (except those with a feminist agenda which includes you and firehill) that have interpreted that verse that way. So you have the right to say 1 + 1 does not equal 2 if you want but obviously you are putting your agenda before what God's Word is clearly saying. If you want to justify ordaining women by this type of spin that no credible scholar of the original language would agree with and that the church has never interpreted that way and that no credible theologian would agree with then your agenda is showing.

sw

[OopsMartin]

If the words meant what you say, then they obviously would have been translated to clearly say that. Not a single translation of the Bible has been translated to mean what you and firehill are saying.

The words DO mean what they say. It

[Smalcald]

The issue of course is that we have the entire sweep of scripture which defines this particular role as one to be held by men not just that verse.

We have the very specific guidance on who should be a Bishop, elder and deacon, they all start with it being a male. We have the issue of teaching authority once again male; we have the issue of authority within the Church in general. All of these things would support very directly men being ordained.

Of course as we have said numerous times this has nothing to do with men being more or less qualified or anything to do with the ability of women in the secular world to achieve all that they desire professionally or personally. It does have to do with our very ancient traditions, handed down by God from Genesis forward on how we should conduct our spiritual gatherings. We don't always understand the reason for all that God asks us to do, particularly when they don't always line up with modern secular ideas.

But I don't want a modern secular church; I can get that at the mall or on TV. or in politics. God calls us to be different and this is just one of those areas where we are going to be different from the world.

But the twisting and tortured explanations to get around the straight meaning of these versus are a huge red flag. This was not an issue until the feminist movement, so who is correct 2000 years of Christian

[st. Worm]

If the words meant what you say, then they obviously would have been translated to clearly say that. Not a single translation of the Bible has been translated to mean what you and firehill are saying.

The words DO mean what they say. It

[Treasure]

I confess!!! I used to watch Joyce Meyer's program faithfully. I attended a conference and really wasn't all that impressed. At the time I thought there was something maybe wrong in my spirit...some hardening in my heart. Then God opened my eyes. One problem is that it's "her ministry".

You might also want to look at this website (now let's see if I can actually get this to work )

www.ministrywatch.com

It's interesting information.

[Treasure]

As you can see my link posting ability hasn't improved much. I hope that doesn't keep anyone from looking at the website and I'm sorry for the sloppiness and inconvenience.

[exrockstar]

The thread is about women pastors and that is what we have been discussing. Like I said before you can't really be taken seriously if you believe that those verses refer only to a specific woman. If that is what you saying and apparently it is, then that is perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have seen on this site and that covers a lot.

sw

agree.

Im under the impression that people take Christianity and shape it to where it's going to please the majority of society.

you capture the major by bending the rules a little.

you cant please everyone in this world.

Chrisitianity was looked down on 2000 years ago and it will get looked down on today if Christians accept what it says.