Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

I think i will leave the previous discussion alone now since you are insistent on thinking i’m a liberal, and am not willing to tell me which of Jesus words in the gospel are his direct actual words.

I already told you. All of the words of Jesus that are recorded are His words. Just because you don’t believe that doesn’t mean that I don’t. I can’t pick out one author and say that he quoted Jesus accurately and the other didn’t because I believe they all quoted Him accurately and none of the them added to His words. I sure would like to see which authors you think added to Jesus’ words? Surely couldn’t have been John. He was the one who Jesus loved. He wouldn’t have take the remembrance that the Holy Spirit gave and added to it. How about Luke? He was a historian. Surely he didn’t add to Jesus’ words? So my guess is that you believe that Matthew or Mark added to Jesus words? How would we be able to trust any of them again? What words ascribed to Jesus are now untrustworthy but concocted by a disciple in the name of the Holy Spirit’s approval?

I think it is just fine to drop the issue of liberalism. Let’s continue to discuss the truth of God’s word and leave aside the things that you think had to be rewritten. I am curious to know if CBMW or other complementarian authors agree with you that the conversations in Genesis may have gone to the rewriting department? If you have a quote from them or others that I could see, I would be extremely interested to know if this is also their view. I can’t say that I have ever read anything like this from them, but then sometimes things go right over my head.

By the way i don’t see contradictions in the bible, i see contradictions in your view.

Nah, you just don’t get my view. If you did, you wouldn’t keep asking me the same questions when I already gave you an answer. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that you don’t see contradictions because you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the gospels to add in things that they thought that Jesus said. So while one apostle thought Jesus said it one way, another thought Jesus said it another way and that was okay by the Holy Spirit because His job was just to help them remember that Jesus said something, not exactly what He said. Correct? So there are not actually contradictions but just inaccurate memories that were good enough for this level of a historical account. After all these men felt that it is not important what Jesus actually said but rather the feeling of the story and the principle is the important thing, not the actual words. Am I getting close to what you believe?

Now this makes no sense to me:

I have no problem with the spirit giving rememberence to the gospel writers, i just keep in mind the intended audience and purpose, therefore we can understand the structure, arrangement and whihc of Jesus miracles, words etc that particular gospel writer is using. Do i think that they say things Jesus didn’t say, of course not- so don’t think i think this.

What has the intended audience have to do with whether these were actually Jesus’ words or not? The gospels are historical accounts. They emphasize different parts of Jesus’ ministry and one some emphasize His humanity, John emphasizes His Diety. Does His words as a human have less need for accuracy than His words as Deity? How can the quotes of Jesus be inaccurate if they don’t say things that Jesus didn’t say? If you believe that the quotes are accurate and Jesus really did say those words then why do you dispute with me and try to make me accept that God had to fix up the quotes afterward to add things that weren’t said in the beginning like apparently God did with Eve? Or are you saying that what God did to Eve by messing with her words is not the exact thing that He did with Jesus? Do you see how confusing this has become? If you don’t want to carry on with this, that’s fine.

I would like to ask one thing…do you consider yourself an Emergent kind of guy? Are you a postmodern? Is truth fluid to you?

I am not trying to pin you down with a label. I am just trying to understand. If we need to move on, sure let’s move on. Maybe if you could give me a book that teaches what you are trying to say, then I could get a handle on it. I haven’t read any commentary or book that told me that God added to what Eve said after the fact. This is a novel idea to me and it just doesn’t fit in the world view of an Almighty God who is not like us.

Since you are so quick to ignore ANE context and the contexts and prupose of the gospel writers i’ll assume you will abandon your opinion on 1 Cor 14 where you rely heavily on the cultural talmud?

I’ll send the email soon.
Great! Now I want you to realize that you are special. Other than a debate situation I have never allowed a comp to post on my blog before. Now don’t get too puffed up. It may not happen again either 😉

Cheerios

We eat these for breakfast.

P.S I would really like you to tell me what you see as male headship? Or at least direct me to somewhere on this blog where you talk about it directly

Here are some of the posts that deal with this subject:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/11/23/jesus-our-example-of-a-godly-husband/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/11/03/does-head-mean-boss-when-it-is-connected-to-the-body/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/11/who-cares/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/20/gods-woman-is-she-needy-of-a-representative-priest-part-2/

Mark,

Not true! Moses wrote this and God used him to record what God wanted recorded. It in no ways makes it deceptive. I’m sure you will realise this once you get a chance to do some research on it.

The Watchtower thinks it is okay to rewrite history too. They have done this many times and have excused themselves. Now God is telling a man to rewrite a history account and that is okay? Maybe in Australia, but that doesn’t fly here in Canada.

I just don’t see that the ‘quotes’ have to be the exact words that people spoke. God has provided what he wants us to know.

So God wants us to “know” that it was wrong for Eve not to use His name so He had to put it back in to make sure she looks good? What other conversations did He rewrite? Or what other conversations didn’t even happen, but they have been added into history? Surely if God can add information that wasn’t there before, He can add anything else too. What’s the difference? Maybe when Adam saw Eve he really said “Huh? Um, God, I don’t like this one can you try again?” But God didn’t want that on the record so He changed Adam’s words so that Adam was now delighted with Eve.

If we take this same attitude we could rewrite the New Testament in the same way. Sure Paul wrote to Timothy “I am not permitting a woman to teach or authenteo a man” and God has no problem changing that to say “God is not permitting all women of any kind to teach men in the church or have any authority over men, husbands, or boys.” I mean, if that is what God really wants to say, then why can’t we just add in what He thinks should have been said? The opportunities for corrections are mind boggling. Where do we start and where do we end?

So which gospel is more accurate? Did Matthew quote Jesus properly on the sermon on the mount (Matt 5) or did Luke quote Jesus properly on his sermon on the plain (Luke 6)? Which gospel writer is being the deceptive one since they are not identical? Do you see the logical problem with what you are saying?

You are kidding right? You are trying to tell me that Jesus’ teachings has to be said the same in each place he went? Mark, you are trying so hard to find errors in the Bible as if differences are the same as inaccuracies? Why are you doing this? Is this what happens when one starts to believe that God can inspire people to change accounts and add in words that were not said? Now is the Bible inaccurate everywhere in your understanding? That Matthew or Luke added to what Christ said in His sermons? Do you see why I said that you are showing liberal ideas? If I dismissed Paul and said that I didn’t believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 was in the original but added later by someone who was inspired by God to add in a restriction, wouldn’t you say that I had liberal ideas? Mark, you scare me.

Oh dear Cheryl! What we have is what God wants us to have. He wanted us to have 4 differnet gospels although not identical.

So you are saying that God wants us to have inaccurate accounts? That the words that are quoted have been added to what Jesus said? There are 4 different accounts but they are not contradictory and every single one of them is true without embellishments. But it seems to me that you believe that one or two or more of the gospels were given freedom to change the events and embellish the conversations with details and words that never happened? Mark, my friend, Christians who hold to inerrancy don’t believe in fictitious embellishments that have been inspired by God. We believe that the events really happend and the conversations were brought into remembrance by the Holy Spirit so that they were recorded from the perspective of the author without additions to the conversation.

Just because the words are not identical doesn’t mean it’s a contradiction.

But just because the words are not identical doesn’t mean that some of the words are not what the person said and had to be added to the text.

Actually your view seems contradictory, because the gospels are so different in what they record Jesus saying- again which one is Jesus actual words? Please answer which gospel is closer to depicting Jesus actual words?

This is the voice of unbelief. All of the words are Jesus’ words. You tell me, which words are not those that Jesus spoke? Since I believe all of them are His words, then it is up to you to tell me which words are the words added in afterward?

What i am saying is that Moses recorded what God wanted recorded, so whether these are Eve’s exact words or not is irrelevant to inspiration, because what we have is what God wanted.

Can you give me a verse that says that God wants to add to our words? That God adding to the historical record is not noodling with the text? Please show me from the Scriptures where God says that He does such a thing. Again, if it was I that was saying these things, you would have blown me off a long time ago saying that egalitarians do not believe the Bible and have to accuse God of changing the original account in the area of women in ministry. You would call me a liberal and rightly so.

All i am saying is that we need to keep in mind contextual circumstances (Ancient near Eastern circumstances) and not ignore deliberate Hebrew emphasise which might help us understand the text better.

So God now has to be subject to culture? If the culture thinks it is fine to add to the words of a person, then God should just follow along with the culture and add to Eve’s words? What other words have been added to Adam? What other words have been added to the serpent? And how are you going to determine what words are added if the Bible doesn’t tell you? Is this placing God’s word underneath you and your discernment?

So your happy for people to add to narrative, but not direct quotes?

First of all I don’t know who added Moses’ death. It could have been a prophesy, could have been Miriam who added. It doesn’t claim the author so I don’t know. When Paul and Timothy wrote letters together which words were written by Paul and which ones were written by Timothy? I don’t know, but I do know that if a conversation is quoted and a person adds in words that are not original and claims that these words were original, then that is a lie.

If you don’t trust the quotes why do you trust the narrative? Again please give me your understanding of the gospels!

Please spare me. I don’t trust the quotes? I am not the one who is saying that someone added to Eve’s words. You are. I trust all of the quotes. You are the one who says that the quotes are not necessarily what the person said. You are the one who has the burden of proof to decide who was the one who did the noodling.

This is why i am here. Trying to understand your position. What does male ‘headship’ look like in your opinion?

That has already been discussed on my blog. The issue at hand is the exegesis of 1 Cor. 11.

Seems you against CBMW and am trying to link anything i say to them. Maybe i’m just indoctrinated by the bible?

I am not against the Christians at CBMW. But I do believe that they need to be held accountable for the doctrine that they teach. If you are really just indoctrinated by the Bible, then show me what the Bible says about “superiority” or “authority over” in 1 Cor. 11. Then I will be able to evaluate to see.

By the way i have done an exegesis for you all, and yes i am supposed to be studying, but church history is hard to be excited about. This blog is much more engaging. Do you want me to email it to you Cheryl?

Absolutely! I will then get it up for the next post.

My friend, I am very glad that you find this blog engaging. Thanks! I love talking about the Bible and women issues, etc. I do struggle with the liberal issues where people think that they can judge for themselves what is literally true and what is not quite accurate. There have been egalitarians here who have had that view and I have been upfront with them that if we don’t see the Scriptures as fully inspired as truth but see merely stories that give a general principle but which may not be factually correct, we are going to be deceived. Anytime our own judgment is pitted against the accurate Word, we will steadily lose confidence in the Word. I don’t want to see any precious brother or sister in Christ go down that path. That includes a brother who is an egalitarian or one who is a complementarian. Each is my brother and each needs to watch that they do not listen to the lie of “Hath God said?”

For all reading this post,

Okay, I eagerly await for the exegesis from Mark. Watch out for the next post, because I think that we can have some good discussion/debate. Just make sure that you treat Mark with respect and then away we go to the races!

Thanks gengwall for providing that link!

Great comments!

Dave,
Thanks for being sensitive to explain that the capitals were for emphasis not shouting. I understood that quite clearly but I do know that some may be sensitive and I am glad that you cleared that up!

It is time for the exegesis. I have made it clear to Mark that his work on the meaning of kephale is insufficient without a study on the meaning of kephale in the context of the passage. Mark was hesitant at first to even really consider that this would be needed, but I am glad to see that he seems to have changed his mind somewhat because he has admitted that context is necessary to determine the meaning in the passage.

So, I am assuming that we have an agreement from Mark to present his exegesis. I think it would be appropriate in this post comment thread, but I could start another post if that would be better.

I actually am very interested to see what Mark comes up with. I have been scratching my head to try and remember if I have ever seen an exegesis of the passage showing “authority over” or “superiority” as an interpretation that would fit quite easily into the passage. Honestly, I do not remember ever reading such an exegesis. I know that my memory is not as good as it used to be (in fact it is terrible if I can be honest) but I am thinking that the only thing I have seen has been focused on the word and never on the context.

Well it is time to change that. Mark is very convinced that there is a hierarchy meant in this passage. Since I have not yet seen his exegesis, I am really geared up to consider what he has to say. I think that we all can be very respectful to Mark. After all he has been brave enough to enter this debate on an egalitarian blog. That is to be commended.

So, Mark, I think that it is time. The context is important because it is God’s Word. Show us how a consistent hierarchist can explain the context verse by verse so that we can actually hear your heart and understand the hope that is within you. (1 Peter 3:15) Consider it witnessing to the skeptical, but also to brothers and sisters in Christ who are in need of the truth if you have it.

And for all others, let’s remember that Mark is a brother in Christ. If we strongly disagree with his view and can show where his view cannot fit the context, that is great. But whatever we do, let’s not question Mark’s motives. Let’s assume that he believes what he does because he is honest with his views and he believes that this is the best way to serve God by obeying what he believes he has found in the Scriptures.

So go ahead, Mark, let’s read your exegesis of the passage. I will keep a handle on the conversation so that we can all have a respectful “iron sharpens iron” discussion on the proof of hierarchy in the passage that apparently none of us has been educated to see.

Mark, if you need a day or two or three, etc, because of a busy school schedule, please let us know. We can patiently wait for your explanation as long as we know that you will indeed be giving out what is needed to prove your point. After all you have made it clear that others point of view is “silly” so it is up to you to prove your own point of view as the scholarly one.

Over to you, Mark.

Mark,
One last thing, you said:

Also it might surprise you but i have had very little to do with CBMW, in fact ive probably only visited their site a handful of times.

While you may not have been on the CBMW site, the fact is that most comp resources have a tie to CBMW so you are getting CBMW indoctrination whether you realize it or not.

Mark,

This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see you be corrected and accept the word.

Like I said, I was corrected before I looked up the “contradiction” in the resources I have. I just accepted the words of Eve that were recorded as the words that she spoke. Since it appears to me that you do not accept that Eve spoke these words and they were added later, this “fix” of the contradiction allows for additions completely outside of the knowledge of the person who is quoted. Not good. This view makes the Bible deceptive by claiming something that is not true. I would reject that outright because in my world view God is not a deceiver nor does He inspire His Word to be deceptive. I also accept every word that is recorded of what Eve and the serpent said as statements that they did say and not later additions. I accept the words and the grammar as accurate. My belief in the Bible allows me to pay attention to what is said and understand the circumstances by the clear words and grammar.

The other conservative view is somewhat basically what i am putting forward. But again the research here is extensive and i am by no means an expert on it,

I have seen a lot of “research” from people who dispute the validity of Genesis. When God says something two or three times (two or three witnesses) it is determined.

Gen 41:32 “Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.

Yet people feel free to set aside God’s clear words and to make them into Genesis “parables” so that they can determine what they think God is saying that will conform to their own understanding. My view is that I take God at His Word. From there I work to see why there is a contradiction, but I never “solve” the problem by making God human who can lie or deceive. Words put into someone’s mouth that they didn’t actually say is nothing less than deceptive.

For example, did Jesus perform the same miracles 4 times over, did he say the same parables 4 times over etc etc. I’ll leave this here and hopefully if you choose to look into this further you might see why it is inaccurate to label me a liberal.

I have already done a lot of work on the so-called contradictions and when you pay attention to the words and the grammar the “contradictions” disappear. I don’t have to set aside any accuracy of the account to do so. Those who solve the problems by believing that those whom the Holy Spirit inspired add to the words of Jesus or add to the words of Eve are heading down the path of liberalism. What else has been added? And what else has been taken away. It is the Mormon claim that great and precious truths have been removed from the Scriptures. Is their view true? Why can’t it be true if people are allowed to embellish on the story, surely they can remove a story too. Adding to and taking away are in exactly the same camp. I would not want to see you slide further in to this camp for once you grant that the account is inaccurate and you don’t have to pay attention to the exact words and grammar, it is only another step to start the doubt on other passages and on and on. I will not go there. I already had my own crisis of faith in 1986 and I chose to accept God’s word even though I saw a major contradiction. I chose to accept that He was right and there was no contradiction even though I could not accept it. By God’s grace, He gave me that answer later that year, but I was very happy that I believed God first without knowing the answer. He is faithful! No one will ever convince me that God allowed additions to the words quoted as being from a witness of YHWH.

Not totally sure what you mean by this? Do you think this is what i believe?

Yes. If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that either Moses added God’s name to Eve’s quote in Genesis 4 or else Eve was following the serpent’s lead at removing God’s name in Genesis 3. You said that Moses could add God’s name in Genesis 4 in to Eve’s quote and that would apparently be fine with you. I strongly disagree.

For example it is almost universally recognised that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet it records his own death. If another writer redacted this at a later date does that make it less ‘inspired’ in your opinion? Or is it some sort of prophecy on Moses behalf about his own death?

I haven’t studied this one because my life is too busy right now to be distracted to other issues, but I can accept that either Moses prophesied about his own death or else another writer finished the story. Either way does not have another writer adding words to Moses’ mouth. Did Moses say “I died”? or is it written in the third person? Add words to another person’s mouth is deception, pure and simple.

“Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings.”
I’m glad you have said this, it makes it much easier to progress in the arguments.
In the OT septuagint, I believe that the translation (not inspired) used head to mean something other than source so apparently those writers were aware of another usage. However it appears that you now are ready to accept that “source” or “point of origin” is also an acceptable meaning while you were disputing the validity of other lexicons before. Have you now accessed the writings of Wayne Grudem to see where he admits this? I think his admission is a vital piece of evidence.

“It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers.”
So he is NOT saying it is her works that gives her salvation? Was Lin wrong in what she said about works salvation? His view is that it will just stop her from being deceived right and has nothing to do with her salvation?

He is saying that her role saves her. Being deceived by satan is being carried away from the faith. Keeping her role will keep her in the faith. He is very clear about that. Andreas believes that if a woman teaches the Bible to men she is removing herself from her God-ordained role and God will remove His protection from her and will allow her to be deceived by satan. In essence the only thing that remove her out of the place of deception will be her repentance and her placing herself under the proper role. Perhaps “works” salvation would not be the right term. It would be more appropriate to say that he teaches a “role” salvation, which in my mind means the exact thing as “works” salvation. It is the work or place of a woman in her proper domain that will save her. Clear enough? Yah, I know pretty bad. I talked to him about that. I told him that it is showing a prejudice in God in that God never promised to save and keep preserved men who stay in their proper “role”. He said that my questions were good and deserved an answer but that he didn’t have an answer for me. I don’t think that he has properly thought this one through.

I didn’t say people haven’t rejected male leadership until feminism, i said people using ‘source’ as a definition combined with rejecting male leadership is new. I got that from David Garland’s Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians. He might be wrong, i dunno???

First of all rejecting male leadership is not “new” and neither is the term “source” or “origin” a new term. In my DVD I document one of the early fathers using this term for head.

Secondly since David Garland admits that “Earlier interpreters understand (kephale) to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.” and since the rejection of male leadership is at least hundreds of years old, then how can you appeal to Garland as proof that the term “source” and rejection of male leadership is a new thing stemming from feminism?

Let’s see what Garland has to say in some of his comments that are very eye opening:

This analysis is not without its critics. First, the word “head” was rarely used to describe the relationship of one individual to another. Conzelmann (1975: 183 n. 21) notes, “Head does not denote sovereignty of one person over another, but over a community.” Thiselton (2000: 815–16) goes further and maintains that (kephale) “does not seem to denote a relation of ‘subordination’ or ‘authority over.’ ” He cites Chrysostom’s (Hom. 1 Cor. 26.3) comment that if Paul had intended to convey the idea of rule and subjection, he would have used master-and-slave imagery rather than the figures of man and woman. Chrysostom, however, is primarily interested in fending off any possible heretical interpretation of the subordination of Christ to God (see additional note). Second, Perriman (1994: 602–10) argues that Grudem misinterprets the texts that he adduces as evidence.8 Cervin (1989) is more pointed in challenging Grudem’s examples and methodology (see also Fee 1987: 502 n. 42). Third, this interpretation projects anachronistic physiological notions onto the meaning of “head.” Perriman (1994: 610 n. 20) notes that Plutarch’s fable (Agesilaus 2.3) about the serpent whose tail rebels against the head and takes the lead with disastrous consequences does not illustrate the head’s authority over the tail but that the head is specially equipped to go first. Finally, Perriman (1994: 620) maintains, “The question of authority is irrelevant to a discussion of the proper manner in which men and women should pray and prophesy; nor is it a valid deduction from the idea that man has authority over the woman that she should veil herself in worship, an activity directed not towards the man but towards God.”
A second alternative understands (kephale) to mean “source.” Christ is the source of man’s existence as the agent of creation (cf. 8:6, “through whom all things are”) or as the archetypal man (15:46–49). Man is the source of woman’s existence, since woman was made from man (Gen. 2:18–23; cf. 1 Cor. 11:12). God is the origin and final goal of all reality and is the source of Christ (3:23; 8:6; 11:12; 15:28). Earlier interpreters understand ?????? to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.9 Many recent interpreters who prefer this option seek to eliminate any hint of women’s subordination.10
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (514–515). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

So Garland gives some excellent points for why source or origin works within the text. Although he doesn’t appear to favor this option, but his words seem to set aside a subordination/rulership option for 1 Cor. 11:3. Garland continues:

Paul lays out an order of relationships that asserts the man’s precedence over the woman. Some conclude that he is trying to reinforce the idea of the woman’s inferiority and subordination. But if woman stands in a lower place, why does she stand in the middle of the sequence, and why is God mentioned last? Paul is not outlining a chain of command, since references to Christ frame the statements about man and woman.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (513). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

So 1 Cor. 11:3 is not about a chain of command and Garland gives women’s freedom to prophesy as being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

(1) Paul takes for granted that women may pray and prophesy in the assembly as long as they have an appropriate head covering. Meier (1978: 218) thinks it an “astounding fact—astounding at least for a group rising from a Jewish synagogue—that women were free in the church to pray openly and to prophesy under charismatic inspiration.” (2) The passage is not about the subordination of women, because the patriarchal order expressed in 11:3, 7–9 from creation is counterbalanced by the emphasis on the “mutual interdependence” of men and women in the Lord in 11:11–12.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Garland goes on to list the meaning of the show that the passage is about the shame/honor culture and that women’s public speaking is permissible.

In a hierarchically structured shame/honor society, Paul is concerned about the propriety of women’s appearance in public worship. He is not worried about male Christians becoming more effeminate in appearance. Nor is he concerned that women should wear something to show that their speaking in public is permissible
Garland, D. E. (2003)…This passage is “not about wearing hats to church or about proving that women are intended to be subordinate to men” (R. Williams 1997: 59). The command “let her be covered” (11:6) communicates different things in different cultures…Faithfulness to the teaching of the text can be maintained by female participants in the worship service by observing the proprieties of polite society.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510–511). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Maybe you can point out to me Cheryl, someone before the rise of feminism who used ‘source’ as the basis of the rejection of male leadership. His evidence shows that even scholars who saw kephale as source, still did not reject male headship.

You greatly misunderstand. I am not rejecting male “headship”. It is what this “headship” means. It does not mean rulership or authority over just as the early church did not believe that the Father was in “authority over” Jesus in the Trinity.

Have you done a thorough study of the egalitarian view? Which books have you done a serious study of that present the other view? If you have looked into this from both sides, why do you have a problem understanding our view? If you haven’t looked at the other side, why not? I believe that looking at the other side may be even more important than bolstering your own view. This is what I do. I research the opposition to find out if there are holes in my argument and if so why there are holes. If I only look at one side, then I may be wrong and not even know it.

Mark,

Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

I changed my view as soon as I saw Eve proclaim God’s name. I didn’t think that she knew God’s name, but I cannot argue against the Scripture. I had not paid attention to that before. I accept the Bible as written and I do not believe that God’s name has been added to Eve’s quote by Moses. That would be an unethical quote.

I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.

Are you now saying that you accept that Eve spoke God’s name in chapter 4 and that there was no malice by using the term “God” when she spoke to the serpent just as there was no malice by Moses when he wrote chapter 1? I would sure like you to admit when you change your mind too. Or are you still holding on to your believe that Eve was Eve (and apparently Moses) was siding with satan when she used the term God? It is a view that liberals hold who have blasted me for my trust in the Scriptures as they are written.

My basic opinion is always that the Bible is right in its original autograph. I do not believe that it has been tainted nor that someone later added to God’s Word. I struggle with understanding those who believe that God’s Word can be added to. It doesn’t make sense to me.

The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor.

Mark, if I didn’t know better I would think that you were me writing from Australia. It is ultimately the context that is the deciding factor. Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings. That is why I said that the exegesis of the passage is of utmost importance and that a word study alone without the context will not be sufficient to determine the correct meaning.

I think that Suzanne does great work on the issue of “source” and “kephale” http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/

It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers. See here http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/bible/will-women-be-saved-by-childbearing and on this page there is a link to the CBMW article.

Andreas is a nice guy. I liked him a lot. But his theology in this area is faulty. He had no answers to the questions I gave him regarding the holes in his argument. Saved from deception into safety in Christ by remaining in one’s roles has some serious theological issues and Andreas admitted to me that his view does not have full acceptance in CBMW. Problem is that they publish it as if it is a valid Biblical view. My DVD goes through Andreas’ view on 1 Timothy 2:15

I recently purchased a booklet written by a woman defending women’s freedom to minister the Word of God. It was written in 1666. Hardly a view influenced by “feminism” in 1666. It is a common tactic that CBMW uses and seems to dissuade people from looking at all the women ministers hundreds of years ago. No one wants to pay attention to that because they want to say it is a recent trend. That isn’t true.

Now back to work for me.

Mark,

I missed your Bible references on your post. Sorry. I have been copying and pasting sections for comment and for some reason I must have been interrupted and didn’t finish reading that one post. I apologize for my misstep. There has been a lot of reading and a lot that could be missed.

So let’s see. There does appear to be a contradiction. But since I know for sure that God does not lie and I also know that God does not contradict Himself, let’s have a look at the Hebrew to see what is going on.

A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 notes that God says, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.” The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, know as beth essentiae, in the phrase “by my name.” This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses’ day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. “By the name” is better translated “in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known].”
From Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Peter H. Davids, FF Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch pg 88

So here is an “apparent” contradiction that I had not encountered before and the specific Hebrew grammar that I had not researched before but others have shown the inspired grammar that fixes the problem.

I really do appreciate you Cheryl, you are chalenging. I am sorry for questioning your motives, please forgive me. I am passionate about the word of God and im sure you know its hard not to lose control sometimes.

Mark, I forgive you. I will not let it taint the way I accept you as a dear brother in Christ. I understand that this issue (and myself) can be challenging. That’s okay. Challenges stretch us and grow us and make us more like Christ.

What I have learned to do and I hope that I succeed more than I fail, is to strive to give my patience to others, and to remove myself from the emotional connection. This entire issue has caused me great pain in the past. I lost dear friends because they treated me very badly and walked out of my life over the issue of whether a woman can teach the Bible to men. The issue was about Bible studies in the home teaching verse by verse not an issue of being a pastor in a formal church building. I was judged by those who should have loved me. But with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit, I chose to take the harm that had been done to me and turn it into a work of love for God. It took me quite awhile to get healing and not to feel great pain when dealing with this issue.

I chose to research the hard passages of Scripture verse by verse and present the Biblical evidence without striking out at the complementarian camp who greatly hurt me. If I were to stay in my emotions because of the way I had been treated I would feel worthless and useless because I was born female and to many complementarians that is a place of restriction, a place of silence (meaning my spiritual thoughts are not worth hearing when a man is present) and a life of shame supposedly passed on to me through the deception of Eve.

But God doesn’t see me that way and His love has brought me great healing. He has given me strength to be kind to those who I believe have been deceived. I don’t want to treat them like the enemy. Our enemy is satan not our brothers in Christ. I believe that God specializes in using the weak to confound the wise. The worth of a woman, even if she is worth far less than a man in the eyes of the world and far less in the eyes of some in the Church, is a tremendous gift to the Church when she walks in the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Please do consider the problems with some of your views regarding Genesis. In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale.

No problem with Genesis at all. I just learned something new myself. Learning about the Hebrew and Greek grammar has been invaluable to me in my research and this issue is just one more example that the exact grammar in the Hebrew can remove all charges of a contradiction.

As far as your exegesis, putting your “proof” of the word usage along with your exegesis is the powerful way to prove your point. That is how I did not DVD set and since the lexicons differ on this word, the deciding factor will be the “fit” in the passage. I am asking you to please work on that and send it to me. I think that it will work for a new topic here and be lots to talk about.

I will probably not be on line much tonight as I have lots to do and have spent more time on my blog that I should have. Yes, Mark, passion is part of my character too.

Mark,

Did i not show earlier that Abraham and Jacob both refer to God as LORD. How could God make such a comment if he did reveal his name to them? You have in no way answered my question.

No you didn’t. Please show the verses where you believe that the Bible contradicts itself.

Ignore your comment about Eve and deal with this.

You are evading the questions. Why? Is it a good thing to say that God put words into Eve’s mouth to make it seem like she knew Him by name when this was a lie that she indeed either didn’t know Him by His name or she refused to honor Him before she sinned but after her death things were “corrected”? How is that honoring God? Do you really think that He is that kind of sneaky person who changes the past to “correct” it? If I had this view of the Scriptures, I would just give up and go do something else. I would say that reading and trying to understand Scripture would be a waste of time because I would not know what was real truth and what was in need of correction, changed truth, etc. Sheesh!

Did God reveal his name to these men or not? If he did how coulde he say what he said to Moses? If he didn’t how if we read what they say as literally there words, can they be calling God LORD. There is a mistake here in your view Cheryl and it makes God a liar.

Show me. Expose the errors you say are in the bible and I will look at it.

That is an english dictionary, not a proper tanslation of how ‘kephale’ is used in it’s various formats, ie in relation to people, metaphorically, literally. So perhaps you are the one not interested in the truth. If you can show me one instance where ‘kephale’ is used between people and it is not understood authoritatively i would be most intereseted, then perhaps my view would change. At the momont i’m just going with the evidence that is there.

You said that origin and source are not synonyms. And you won’t accept a dictionary to prove they are synonyms?

All you need to do to end the conflict is to show us how “authority over” works in 1 Cor. 11. Are you willing to do that or are you going to admit that it doesn’t fit? I don’t think it fits but I am not infallible. I am willing to look at the evidence. Please provide your exegesis as evidence.

Why would you say that I am not interested in truth? Are you just wanting to hurt me? Or are you willing to argue passionately without attacking the person? Personal attacks do not qualify as valid arguments. At least not on this blog.

Mark,

Also in what way is Christ the ‘source’ of man? Is this identical with woman being the ‘source’ of man?

Christ is the originator of the man. The man is the source or origin of the flesh that became woman. God is the source or originator of the humanity of Christ. Woman is now the source or origin of the man. God is ultimately the origin of all.

You see source doesnt fit the context because it actually means different things depending on the relationship, do you really think Paul would use ‘kephale’ in quick succession like that and actually have it mean different things?

Yes, of course. The woman came from the man. How? A piece of his side was taken out and that was formed into a woman. Now the man comes out of the woman. How? Is it the exact same way that she was formed out of the man? No. But it is still the point of origin.

Please explain how authority over or superiority fits in this passage. I have answered all of your questions. It is time for you to answer mine.

Please exegete 1 Cor. 11 for us so that we can see how neatly “authority over” or “superiority” fits the context.

Mark,

is it source or origin…which one? These are different translations remember. I know some might say they are synonomous but i disagree.

The source of the river is its origin.
Dictionary:

Origin
–noun
1. something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.

When you deny these things, it doesn’t seem to me that you really care about truth, but about defending your position. I am only giving my perception.

Mark,

Let me say i see all words s scripture as accurate because they are a God’s words. THis doesn’t mean though that the gospels are jesus exact words nor are the speeches in acts the exact words etc. What is recorded is what god wants us to have…therefore with eve we have what God wants us to have but we don’t have to see them as eve’s exact words.

So God feels like making things up and claiming that Jesus said these things or Eve said these things? That sounds like deception to me. If I quoted you and said what you had not said, you would charge me with deceit, misrepresentation, etc.

Mark,

Cheryl, nice attempt to dodge my question. Can you please answer whether God DID reveal his name to EVe and the others and thus God was a liar in Exodus 6:3 or is there something else going on here?

God did reveal His name to Eve. He did not reveal His name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What other problems do you have with that? Is it okay for God to reveal His name to a woman and decide not to reveal His name to Abraham? Does this mean there is an error? Is the Word of God subject to what you think is right? I cannot do that. I do not have the godlike qualities to judge the Bible. By the way the only time I have heard arguments like this is from those who accept the term liberal. I am actually quite shocked at how you don’t accept what the Bible literally says.

Mark,

You asked:

Kay and CHeryl answer this…did God lie in Exodus 6:3- your view said he did…thats a big problem. If we cant get this right how do we expect to get Gen 1-3 right?

Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

I already dealt with this, but since you don’t appear to understand me I will try again. I admitted my error in thinking that Eve could not have known God’s name or else Abraham would have known it. It was my error not God’s. Moses came after Abraham so his inspired writing about Eve’s knowledge of YHWH was done after Abraham.

Exodus 6:3 then shows that indeed God did not reveal to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob His own name – not by word of by His written word.

Genesis 1 – 3 is accurate as well. Anything that we do not understand completely is not God’s error but ours. God did not add His own name into Eve’s quote just as He did not add it into Genesis 1. It is a moot point. God is just fine with us calling Him God, LORD God, LORD of Hosts, etc. He did not discipline Moses for getting it wrong by not putting LORD in chapter 1 of Genesis. This does not prove an error in Genesis. It proves your theory wrong.

Mark,

You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.

There cannot be an case-closed until it is shown to us how the meaning of “authority over” or “superiority” fits the context of the passage. It is very understandable to us in the context how “source” or “point of origin” fits and the passage is talking about the origin of the man and the woman. But if we are wrong in “superiority” fits better, I would like to see it exegeted from the context.

Remember that a possible meaning of a word will never do until the context fits that meaning to show that this is indeed the author’s intention.

Mark,
You said:

If we only focus on one samll word or phrase without understanding in realtion to the rest of the bible we get in trouble, ie the egalitarian view.

Who is only focusing on one small word or phrase? We are paying attention to each word and each phrase so that we can be sure that we are accurately handling the Word of God and so that the big picture we see is not distorted by inaccurate smaller pictures.

I am very certain that if we refused to look at one word or one piece of grammar that gave the comp view, you would be saying the same thing to us and rightfully so.

Mark,
You said:

Nor do i appreciate being acused of ignoring things. UNlike some i simply look at the bigger picutre to understand the smaller picture…its called reading the bible properly.

So do you agree then that 1 Timothy 2:12 can be disregarded because egalitarians want to look at the bigger picture that allows men and women to use their gifts without restriction? The big picture is never one of restriction for women so taking those who do not explain 1 Tim. 2:12 but who choose to only take it within the big picture, do you consider them reading the Bible properly?

Mark,
You said:

I am not given Moses leeway. THe fact is simple, he writes after he knows YAHWEH so he uses that name for GOd all thorugh Genesis. So when it is not there with the serpent and Eve we need to think why not?

If Moses has to “correct” Eve and add LORD (YHWH) to the word God, then can you please tell me why he did not correct himself in Genesis 1? Why did Moses only write “God”? Is he into correcting only a woman and not seeing that he failed to called God by the term LORD even though he knew it?

Mark,
You said:

They are not identical so which one is TRULY Jesus words. I too agree that the spirit helped them remember, but i also relaise that the nitended audience of Matthew is not the intended audience of Mark. THe emphasis of MAtthew is not the same emphasis as Mark.

You said it quite well. The Holy Spirit brought Jesus’ words to their remembrance. It was His own words with no additions at all. Fully accurate. Yet each one brought out what was necessary for their own intended audience by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. This means that there is no contradiction at all in the accounts. They are all fully inspired and they are all accurate. It is the same as the accounts of the miracles of Jesus. Were there two demoniacs or only one when Jesus crossed over into the country of the Gadarenes? Matthew says there were two (Matt 8:28) while Mark and Luke only mention one. Which accounts are inaccurate and thus uninspired? None of them. They are all fully accurate and fully inspired. Mark and Luke do not say that only one demoniac was there. However there focus was not on the one who is not recorded as getting healed but on the one who was healed and sent back to his people as a testimony.

If we take the view that the words are not necessarily accurate, then we are left to our own interpretation and our own decision to know what to keep and what to throw out. We become the test for truth instead of believing that God’s testimony will never be inaccurate. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that the Word is wrong. It is rather our own understanding that is wrong.

Yesterday I talked to someone who believes that Jesus suffering didn’t end at the cross that Jesus had to be tortured for three days and three nights before “it is finished”. They have accept a world view that teaches them that all the English words translated “hell” mean a place of punishment instead of understanding that the Greek has several words with different meanings. The words “It is finished” then can be changed to this part is finished and there is another three days of torture in addition to the several hours of torture that He already endured. If the Word cannot be trusted to correct them, then we are all left to our interpretations.

Bottom line, I believe that the words are completely accurate without additions that would add to what Jesus said. They are completely accurate and completely inspired because the Holy Spirit does a perfect job. If you believe that Jesus’ words that were recorded are not accurate and that the Holy Spirit inspired the disciples to add words that Jesus never said, then I guess we have a different view of inspiration.

Kay,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to me also that Mark sees the big picture as inspired, but the individual words are not really necessary or necessarily meaningful. So in place of authenteo in 1 Tim. 2:12 a switch to exousia is not a big deal. At a word here and there, who cares? If it changes the meaning, oh well, at least it keeps within the big picture.

But I believe that the big picture is made up of of accurate smaller pictures. If the smaller pictures are distorted then how can we trust that the big picture that demands male hierarchy is accurate? Honestly, this seems to look like what egalitarians are always charged with – a bait and switch.

Accurate handling of the Word of God will not disregard the inspired words. For if the exact words are not necessarily inspired or necessarily accurate and the grammar is not necessarily accurate then it will be left to each one to decide for oneself what feels best. I don’t operate that way. My emotions are not to be a part of the truth. All of God’s word needs to fit together without contradiction and then we will know that we have understood God’s truth accurately.

Frank,
Well done!

The unselfish nature of God is something that not many have dwelt on, however when we are indwelt by His Spirit it should become our natural expression of our new nature to become like Him in serving others.

Thanks!

gengwall,
LOL!

gengwall,
In that case you are excused. Fruit trees? With seeds?

gengwall,
What on earth were you doing raking leaves when you could have been helping out here on my blog? 😉

I know that it can be overwhelming to catch up.

One thing that Mark commented on that was surprising to me. He said that there wasn’t anything new in the clips that he hadn’t heard before except for the last clip on the two or three witnesses. In my own experience I find that most people have not thought through or discussed the fact that it is impossible for Eve to have added to God’s Words (lied) before sin entered the world. Have any of you heard these things before you came here?

Kay,
I see that you are paying attention. You picked up on that great comment about the cultural influence!

Dave,
My new little trusty guide to Australian slang helps me to know that Bonza means excellent.

Here’s one for you.
Warmly from your “Bluey” sister in Christ,
Cheryl 🙂

Mark,

Cheryl, i agree 100% with the following…

“I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse.”

I am thankful today for two things…one that you called me a “cobba” (friend) and not a “drongo” or a “mug” 🙂 (I found a place online that helps out with understanding Aussie slang. http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/slang.html) I am also thrilled that God has been gracious in allowing me to read that you agreed with me 100% on one statement that I made. Oh, boy, it was like walking through a field of mud to get some agreement. But I am grateful for what I can get even if it is only one statement that we can completely agree on. Thanks!

BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc.

We cannot forget that God is the original author of Genesis and Moses merely the scribe. After all no human was there during the time of creation with the exception of Adam for a brief time after his creation and before he named the animals in Genesis 2. Moses could not know any of that without God’s direct revelation and God’s purpose was always that Genesis would be a record not just for the people of Moses’ time but an accurate account that will span all generations documenting the Sovereignty of God in creation and in His dealing with mankind from perfection to the fall and beyond. So when I read Genesis I remember that God wrote it also with our generation in view so that the writing was always meant to be timeless. Only our wonderful, amazing God is capable of that! No mere human could write in such a way that his writings could be understood throughout human history as the clear revelation of God to all generations. I do not believe that God was without knowledge of our time, our culture and our science when He inspired Genesis. So when I read Genesis, I see it as God’s revelation to me and I dig into it to understand the questions that people have today, knowing that God understood all that we needed to know and he left no important question unanswered in His Word. That doesn’t mean that I know all the answers, just that I truly believe in God’s ability to provide the answers ahead of time. If I have faith that the answer is there, I try hard to find it, and God has not failed me yet.

Let me give a quick example- it is interesting to see other ANE ‘creation’ accounts and compare them to the Hebrew account. It helps to show the backdrop of the culture and why certain things are said/emphasised which might otherwise be missed or mis-understood by alone looking at the passage.

While I agree that looking at the culture is highly important, Genesis is unique in that it was not written by a mere human. Neither was Genesis written by One who lacked information or who meant it to be understood by only one generation. Genesis is truly in a class of its own.

In terms of context and theology, covenant theology is the context of the OT writings. They are writing as God’s chosen people in a covenant with Him It is all about instruction about how to live properly in that covenant. That is why i see it as so important.

I also see covenants as extremely important in the Old Testament. I took a course in covenants from Kay Arthur and I will never sign a “covenant” again without understanding the importance that God places on our word. I was able to show our church pastor and deacons from that OT covenant material why I could not in all good conscience sign a covenant as it was written. As a result of the information I provided on covenants, the church board agreed to make needed adjustments.

I’m glad we agree on the inerrancy of the word. I’m glad you also see that to read the ‘red letters’ as literally Jesus exact words is not necessary.

I am not sure that you understand me yet. I believe that God inspired each word and each piece of grammar. I believe that each word is put there for a reason and because I pay attention and do not disregard any part of what is inspired, I have been able to see some things that others miss. Jesus said that it would be the work of the Holy Spirit to bring all things to “remembrance” that Jesus said to the apostles.

John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Remembrance means to bring back to one’s mind. I have complete faith that what the Holy Spirit did was bring back to their mind the words of Jesus. It was not necessary for the Holy Spirit to change what Jesus said, because Jesus’ words were perfect and didn’t need revision. While I can understand those who do not share my faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to bring accurate remembrance to their minds, I just take this at face value and believe it. While every word that Jesus spoke is not recorded in the Bible, what is recorded is accurate as it was superintended by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that a mere man’s ability to recall would be accurate, however I believe that scripture does not originate from the will of man and I accept that the Holy Spirit’s power and His work is just as supernatural as the works of Jesus.

Thus you can see why i don’t necessarily have to see Eve’s words as the ‘exact’ words that she spoke. Both Moses and the gospel writers are recording history after the events.

I hope that you can now understand why I do believe that they are “exact” words. In Genesis no one can tell us for sure exactly what Eve said but God Himself. Was He accurate? I believe He was. And because the Holy Spirit’s work was needed in the New Testament with Jesus’ words, I believe that these words are also accurate. If the words are not accurate, then it is easy to dismiss God’s account as subject to man’s interpretation. But I believe strongly in the Sovereignty of God so I don’t feel any need to figure out what God could have said if He had known our questions. God is all-knowing and He is accurate. I have no fear in believing that every word is inspired accurately. The inspiration for those recorded words come from the God that I have grown to trust. I have not yet found any reason to doubt Him and it has always been my intention to teach others to trust God too.

It is still under the inspiration of the Spirit and the word is still authoritative and inerrant. God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word, and i hope you can see that i am no means a liberal for seeing it this way- i have a very strong view of scripture.

I am not sure how you see God’s Word as accurate yet with a record of the conversation provided by the Holy Spirit as open to correction and reinterpretation. I know that some do not agree with me because taking the Word at face value may conflict with some of their doctrines and that is too high a price to pay. I just don’t care about my own faulty presuppositions. If the accurate, authoritative and inerrant Word of God conflicts with my understanding, then it is my understanding that must give way, not God’s Word. I call this being a “truth lover”. I also define this as a way to show that I fear God. I will bend and conform my own understanding and bow my knees before God and allow my misunderstanding to be shaped and corrected by His Word. I will never purposely bend His Word to fit my understanding. This is why I try hard to keep objective and not allow myself to be easily hurt, but it is also why any charge of deception can be offensive to me.

In my very first days as a fully committed Christian, God told me to confess my sin of hypocrisy in front of the entire church and in fear and trembling I obeyed. That early example of laying aside my own ego makes it far easier today to admit when I am wrong. To me there is no shame in freely admitting my error. There would only be shame in failing to humble myself and failing to admit that I was wrong when I see it.

Now in relation to your videos. I appreciated them very much. I found them very helpful in understanding your position on certain things.

I thank you for your kind words. I also praise God for helping me to present ideas in a way that people can understand the concept even if they don’t agree with me. God is so good!

Actually the last video i probably found the most helpful for me- running through the various ‘two witnesses’ stuff- i haven’t looked into that much so thanks for that one.

I appreciated hearing this. My years of work with the Jehovah’s Witnesses has helped me to understand why God’s confirmation and constant repetition is so important. Two or three witnesses is for our safety, not for God’s need to repeat Himself. In fact after that talk a man came up to me and reminded me that even with the ten commandments, God had repeated Himself giving one the commandments in verbal form, then one stone witness and then the second stone witness. Then the commandments are repeated throughout Scripture and this shows that God cares enough about us to make sure that we understand what sin is so that we can avoid it. It is God’s grace to us.

So i guess you want my jury verdict? Is Eve guilty of sinning before the fall- my answer is definately not.

You are a wise jury member who took into consideration all the facts. Thank you for your vote of confidence for Eve and for exonerating her of any unestablished sin.

Does your interpretation of Gen convince me- no it doesn’t. Does your interpretation of th priesthood amd 1 Tim convince, again no it doesn’t. But i still enjoyed listening to them.

My purpose is to show that there is a well thought out stand for allowing women to teach the Bible to the body of Christ. On the other side, I wanted to show that the view that sees women as being in sin for teaching correct biblical doctrine to men has major contradictions and holes in this view when compared to the straight edge of Scripture. Lastly I wanted people to be able to reason through this issue and use it as a springboard to check out what they may not have considered before. There are enough divisions in the body of Christ today and if I can be a help for brothers and sisters in Christ to come together in love instead of restricting the Holy Spirit when He is using a female vessel and thus accusing women of sin by their obedience to God, then I will feel satisfied that I have accomplished what I set forth to do. Test all things. Hold fast to what is true.

A quick side note- i like the way you Canadians say ‘about’. I noticed you say it the same as Don Carson-is he Canadian aswell?

I see that Dave has answered this question for me. Actually I had no idea that Don Carson is Canadian. It looks like he lives in the US now, but Dave is right, he was born and raised in Canada.

pinklight,
When I see your writing about the situation between Adam and Eve and the serpent, it is easy for me to see the depth in you the way you always try to analyize everything that is being said from each and every angle. When we think about Adam’s silence while his wife was defending God’s words, knowing that he had the knowledge that kept him safe from deception yet he kept silent, it is no wonder that God describes Adam’s sin in the book of Hosea as treacherous. Keep up the good work!

Mark,
You got the last comment in while I was still typing. I will help you out with this one before heading off to bed.

Noodling or to noodle:

a. to manipulate or tamper with: She denied that she had noodled the statistics to get a favorable result.

My dictionary doesn’t find cobba. Care to enlighten us?

Cheers,
Cheryl

Mark,

your obviously misunderstanding me from your comments. In terms of covenantal theology it is extremely important, particular if one is going to argue from texts based upon such theology i.e priesthood.

I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse. After that one can attach it to whatever theology that you subscribe to. I find that too many people bypass the context to jump to their theology. I believe that without a clear explanation within the passage first, a system of theology can deceive our minds. I have seen it happen too many times. And I do not want to be one who is misled because I failed to consider the context.

As far as the inspiration of God’s Word and the quotation of what Jesus said that had not been written down, I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers and that Jesus’ prophecy was true when He said:

Joh 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

I have no need to doubt Jesus’ words or to doubt the actual autographs. I am just a simple person. I just believe that God did not inspire any error nor do I think that God put His own name in the mouth of Eve after she was dead.

Now maybe I can ask you a question. Is there anything on the video clips that made sense to you that you had not thought through before? Did you see any value at all in my paying attention to the actual words in the Scriptures and the inspired grammar?

I will likely see your response tomorrow as I am going to bed now.

Good night all and thanks to all for participating in such a lively discussion. I hope that any who are reading this and not commenting are being blessed by the respect that we hold to God’s word.