gengwall,
Good sense of humor! I also fail to see how Neopatriarch has so boldly proclaimed that he has refuted me. He hasn’t even presented a viable explanation for verse 15 let alone refuted my position on verses 11 to 15. It would have been wiser for him to say that he doesn’t believe my exegesis rather than he has refuted it. That was really stepping out on a limb and me with the saw in my hand to cut off his “refutation”!

I was actually quite interested in his “refutation” since I have been waiting so long to see anyone bring up any evidence to show me where I went wrong in understanding the passage. My favorite “let-me-try-to-refute-you” explanation is found here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/06/09/noodling-with-the-greek-grammar/ when Matt Slick, in an effort to try to refute me, said that the Holy Spirit made a grammar error in verse 15 but He is allowed to do that because apparently verse 15 is like poetry and the grammar doesn’t have to be correct. Honestly I about swallowed my gum when I heard that one. Make me snorkle right out loud. When one has to go to this extent to try to refute me, then it says to me that my exegesis is solid and bullet proof.

gengwall,
Excellent thoughts about how can “she” save herself through childbearing or how can she remain in with with ALL her sisters if she has fallen out of faith. This is looking at it from all angles and it really doesn’t make sense with the patriarchal understanding. At least these men can admit is that their understanding has caused them to admit that verse 15 has been an extremely difficult (if not impossible) verse to understand within their mindset.

Thanks for all your good comments.

It is an interesting thing that Neopatriarch posts on the CCC forum under the name “statisticallyodd”. That forum has decided that I need the gospel preached to me (since they apparently do not believe that I am saved) yet no one comes over to preach the gospel to me. Why not? Perhaps it is because it would then become apparent that they have added to the gospel. One cannot possibly be saved in their mindset unless one believes and follows the patriarchal system. It is very sad that they cannot see how they have changed the gospel from a simple 1 Cor. 15:1-4 teaching all about Jesus and his death and resurrection to a man-made addition that requires a male hierarchy.

Anyways “statisticallyodd” has posted some thoughts on the CCC forum that deserve an answer. He said:

1. Paul says, “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6:3).
   So, Hymenaeus and Alexander must have been ignorant too.

2. Does this mean they lacked the intent to deceive which Cheryl
   ascribes to them? How do we know that the “certain persons”
   weren’t liars as well? A man could, for example, be quite ignorant
   about what goes on around the North Star, but this doesn’t
   necessarily prevent him from lying about it. Indeed, he could dream up amazing stories about the polka dot bunnies which inhabit the star’s fourth planet and start a cult of the North Star which worships polka dot bunnies. Similarly, I don’t see how ignorance of the gospel would necessarily prevent the “certain persons” from lying about it.

Some people were just “ignorant” and others went beyond that and add lying and deceiving to their ignorance. Hymenaeus and Alexander were more than just ignorant and Paul revealed their names because they were deceivers.

He continues:

3. I’m not sure in what sense the particular woman was ignorant, but if this particular woman is analogous to Eve, it doesn’t seem that it would be ignorance of God’s word because we know that Eve knew what God’s word was from her conversation with the serpent. So, do we put the particular woman in the same class as Hymenaeus and Alexander or not?

The woman is ignorant because she has been pulled away from the truth and into error. This is exactly what happened to Eve. Eve knew the truth about God but she was lied to and she was led away from the truth into deception. The scripture says that Eve was fully deceived and in this deception, she truly believed that the lie was the truth and she was ignorant. I believe that had Eve seen the Creator in action as Adam had, she would have understood that He is unique and that she, a mere creature, could not become God.

Neopatriarch ends his comments with:

Suffice it to say Schatz has a very inchoate argument which she will probably never be able to fully explain to anyone (except her back-slapping egalitarian buddies).

If Neopatriarch would have stayed around this blog and asked questions, I would have been happy to answer his questions for him. His statement that I would not be able to explain to anyone except “back-slapping egalitarian buddies” is incorrect. God has blessed me with many people who were not egalitarians (including pastors) who came to repentance regarding the way that they had treated women because of the way that the verses were carefully explained in my DVDs. In fact the verse first person who wrote me about how much my DVDs had touched him and changed his life was a Southern Baptist Pastor. So Neopatriarch is wrong and I would encourage him if he is reading this to work a bit harder to remove the additions that he had to put into the text in order to come up with a patriarchal explanation. He is also welcome back here to comment as long as he can keep a Christ-like attitude and refrain from attacking his brothers and sisters in Christ.

Don said in #178:

And yet many believers believe differently, so I encourage believers to study all sides of this.

I take this statement as poetry and as a hymn. What I take this to mean is that those who love God should put their thumb and forefinger together, cross their legs and say “ohmmmmmmm” in a meditative thought about the differences of the creation of the unicorn and the cosmic force. That is what I get out of it.

Am I wrong? Am I allowed to take words and make them mean anything I feel like? Should I be affirmed that what I think Don is saying is POSSIBLE? Let’s all just accept my take as one of the hundred’s of thousands of different “feelings” that we can get by what Don says.

Or should we accept that words have meanings within their context? It is time that we accept what God said. God said that there was a beginning. It is one thing to say that the “days” of creation may be more than our 24 hour earth days, than it is to say that there are different creation accounts which are, well just different and they cannot be put together and who knows when they happened and who knows what is true and who knows anything???

I am weary of the jello on the wall. Jello cannot be nailed to the wall. It slips and slides and makes a mess of my “Women in Ministry” wall. It is so frustrating to ask for definitions and get none and ask for meanings and get none and ask for a way of defining the difference between truth and myth and get no real answer.

Please just STOP.

171 truthseeker,

As an outsider, I think it could be helpful for Don and Cheryl, at the least, (others are welcome, too) to give a simple explanation on how one determines what is allegory, poem, fact, expression, etc. as a way of defining the basic ’playing field’ or parameters.

I think that Paula has given a very good answer to this question, but I would like to add my 2 cents worth. The books of the bible are named for the material that is in them. For example the books of Psalms means “A sacred song; a poetical composition for use in the praise or worship of God”. The book of Proverbs is a collection of wise sayings or precepts.

So when we read this:

Psa 91:4 He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge;…

we can understand that it is a poetic way of saying that God is the one who gives us protection. We do not make this poetry prove that God has feathers and wings.

When we come to the book of Kings and read this:

1Ki 1:1 Now King David was old, advanced in age; and they covered him with clothes, but he could not keep warm.

we can understand that this is a historical fact and the “clothes” that David was covered with were literal clothes and the fact that “he could not keep warm” is not poetry or a song to be song, but a historical fact. We can also understand that the people and places that the book of Kings documents are real people and real places. Zadok the priest and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada are not abstract toledots in a mass of words that have no set meaning. The book is a historical writing that we are to take as fact. This is the way that we would classify any book whether it is the bible or not. Otherwise we have writings that have no meaning and every man will see something different in the writings as if the author had no care that people would understand him.

Genesis is the book of beginnings. The very word Genesis means origin, creation, beginning. It is a history book that starts with the historical account that is beyond what humans could know without God’s revelation. As it progresses it gives the names Adam and Eve’s descendants and the ages when they died. This is history. There is nothing here that would prompt us to see it as anything other than history. We can ask ourselves, if God wanted to write actual history how would he do it? He would do it exactly as he wrote the creation account in Genesis. When God wrote Genesis 1 he used specific words to express the historical account.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The term “in the beginning” means :

the beginning, first of time, i.e., a point of time which is the beginning (non prior) in a duration (Ge 1:1) Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew

The very first Hebrew word expresses a point of time. It is not an abstract “song” that has no historical meaning in actual fact. It is what we use to define the origin of man, the origin of sin, the origin or death and the origin of our salvation. If we look at the book of Genesis as if he was written to mean something other than the ordinary meaning of the words that were used, then we can easily do away with many key doctrines in the Christian faith. If we do away with the promise the the “seed of the woman” would bruise the serpent’s head, then we can easily do away with the virgin birth. And those who create a myth out of Genesis by calling it something other than a historical writing do not agree on the meaning of the words. It may as well be cut out of the bible if we cut out the history and replace it with a “creation myth” or a “creation hymn”.

One thing that I regularly do when I am looking deeply to study scripture is that I do not look just at one chapter. I start by going back a chapter and going ahead one chapter. I also methodically look back chapter after chapter until I get the big picture. Genesis is one big picture of the historical creation of the universe, the world, the plants and animals and man and from there man takes precedence and the generations of man are documented. Those who wish to remove the documentation have no foundation whatsoever to do this. And none of them can agree on the meaning of the book and all its words if it isn’t historical. That should say volumes. If God wanted to show us our history but gave us nothing concrete about the past and creation how can we trust him to be accurate about our future? Perhaps the new heavens and the new earth is mere poetry and a post-creation myth. Maybe all just a song to be sung as we die and become non-existent.

My point is that we start with the purpose of the book and we read the content with that purpose. We take historical accounts as literal in the standard of literal (i.e. it is considered historical and literal to say that there were 3,000 men when there were actually 3,027 men because rounding is not outside of the standard of literal).

Martin #26,

I’m just wondering why Paul didn’t mention women in particular in verses 1-7.

The question then is why would Paul mention women in verse 11 but not in verses 1 – 7? I don’t know why Paul waited to put women into verse 11, but I do know that women were to be “likewise” which means that the qualities of these women were to be the same as what was listed previously under overseer. Paul could have left the mention of women out altogether and it would not have changed the fact that “anyone” may desire the work of overseer. Apparently Paul made some distinction between the men (who were the only ones who were forbidden to be polygamists since a woman could not be married to more than one man) and the women (who were told not to be malicious gossips – apparently a special problem for the women). The placement of women in verse 11 does not exempt women from being an overseer or a deacon. It truly is amazing that Paul even mentioned women here in the context of leadership since the Jewish standard held by much of the nation in their oral tradition did not offer women places of leadership nor have I ever seen in any of their oral traditions a list for characteristics of godly women leaders.

Another thing to note is that there is nothing in the Greek that would render verse 11 as “the wives of the deacons” as the possessive form of women is not there. Also these women are not told to be “respectful” as if they are to be under another, but the term is dignified which means worthy of respect.

of persons, that which in a human being calls forth veneration and respect from others honorable, of good character, worthy of respect (1T 3.8); (Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (347). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.)

transcendent beings worthy of reverence, august, sublime, holy
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000).

In the Shepherd of Hermas, the same term is translated “reverend” and is used for divine beings.

The very use of this term (one that is only used four times in the NT) shows that these women are to be respected and worthy of being looked up to just as the men. The placement of women in verse 11 does not stop women from being overseers. Does this make sense?

24 Frank,

Sorry that I am so slow at getting to some of these comments.

Years ago, when I studied both prophecy and prophetic ministry in the NT, it became apparent to me, as I made a comparative study of their functions and gifts, that while “elders” was a designation of the leaders’ maturity and seniority, “overseer” and “minister” described their primary functions as those who discipled and trained the rest of the congregation. And the various spiritual gifts, as they pertained to those who were leaders, indicated how they fulfilled their leadership functions as “overseer” and “ministers”.

This seems to be a very good way to put it although the term overseer must have enough maturity to protect the flock since there is an additional focus on protecting. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “Overseer” in non-biblical Greek means “onlooker”, “watcher”, “protector”, “patron”.

Furthermore, in Philippians 1:1, where the NIV and other English translations have “together with the overseers and deacons [ministers],” according to Greek grammar and syntax, this phrase would better be translated something like “together with the elders who minister [there among you].”

I am not sure where you are getting this from. Perhaps you are seeing something that I am not. “Minister” used in this way would have to be a verb would it not? Yet all the terms for deacon that I could find in the New Testament are nouns. I checked the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition and found deacon listed 29 times and each of these occurrences as a noun. Phil. 1:1 is listed as a noun, dative. The dative refers to the person or thing to which something is given or for whom something is done, thus Paul opening remarks that he is writing to the saints at Philippi including the overseers and deacons.

It was because of clues like these in the NT that I came to see that leadership in the Earliest Church was less hierarchical and rigid as it was by the third and fourth centuries, when the Church was no longer a body of believers but a highly organized institution.

Amen! I completely agree with you here!

And along the same lines, Kenneth E. Bailey’s article in Theology Matters, “Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” by the consistent use of what is called rhetorical criticism, demonstrates that 1 Timothy 4:6-5:22 and Titus 1:5-2:5 apply to the requirements and responsibilities of both men and women who served as elders and ministers. I strongly recommend you read Bailey’s article, if you have not done so.

I do not think I have read that article. Thanks for the suggestion. I do have a DVD by Kenneth Bailey that I haven’t watched in a long time. I thought it very good in giving historical background to this issue. I will have to pull it out again when I have more time.

Dr. Willingham,
The prophesy of Jonah is very familiar to me as it came up often when I was witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses. They used to say that Jonah gave a false prophesy and therefore their organization could also give false prophesies without being called a false prophet.

However I used to take them to Jeremiah 18:7, 8

Jer 18:7 “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

The prophesies that God gives regarding either good or evil are provisional so Jonah’s prophesy was not a false prophesy as many would like to claim, but a prophecy that had a condition on it.

You are right in that Jonah wanted the Ninevites destroyed but he also knew how gracious God is. ” for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity. ” Jonah 4:2

I fully agree with you about God being Sovereign and that God can make exceptions to a general rule if he would like to. The exceptions always seem to show the righteousness of God and his gracious kindness. Allowing a woman to serve in the gift that He gave her would certainly fall into the category of kindness, graciousness, compassion and God’s Sovereignty.

Good words!

It took me two years of research, writing and editing to bring my WIM DVDs to life and I have put on this blog a lot of that teaching so I know that one can take complex ideas and make them simple enough in this forum. My interviews with Paul show that, I think.

Anyway I just want to put a period on this discussion at this point. If we were to discuss anything further I would want you to answer Paula’s questions first before I entertained anything more. Paula’s questions are very good and I think they deserve to be answered. I especially believe this because my own speciality is in the area of the cults.

Don,
I have already asked you previously what ordering of the items are not sequential and why you cannot put them into a single sequential narrative. It seems to me that your paradigm doesn’t allow you to accept the sequential of both inspired accounts that can easily be put together. Without giving a reason for why the accounts do not fit together other than it doesn’t fit your preconceived view, seems to me to be a weak view. I could be wrong of course, but to know I am wrong would necessitate facts that I can review and test. I have shown how it is logical and quite natural to keep the sequential order and put Genesis 1 & 2 into a single narrative. I have no way to measure your problems since you haven’t listed them.

I am not about to read a book to understand your way of reasoning. Honestly right now I am over loaded as I am working on the issue of the Sovereignty of God for a new DVD I am authoring plus I am also editing a video project for another author. There are quite a number of books that I need to research for my next script and I am also looking at the different avenues to get a book published on the issue of women in ministry. It is an exciting time for me yet very stressful so I do need to limit the paths that I can personally travel down. Unfortunately if you cannot list your division between literal, non-literal, poetic, myth, etc, there won’t be anything to discuss here because I do not have the time to read another book.

I would encourage you to try to answer questions on your view in an clear fashion. Just giving links to manuscripts and books really doesn’t work well in an interactive forum where views are explained and discussed. Perhaps you just haven’t thought through your own view yet. That is understandable. However if you want to present that view here, you may need to take the time first to put you view down in writing so that your view can be questioned and tested. I think this is reasonable and is something that I try hard to follow myself. Does this make sense?

I should add, I think it is time to move on since we have been around this bush before and there is no further explanation on what you use to determine the division between literal, figurative, poetic, myth, etc. Without a basis for interpretation, all that is left is subjective feelings which cannot be tested.

Don,
I don’t know what your beliefs are since you don’t appear to be able to explain what you believe or why you believe as you do. Because of this I must repeat what I said in comment #157

it seems like you are really wanting me to affirm that what you believe about Genesis 1-3 is a valid interpretation. This I cannot do. The reason, I had hoped you would see, is that I cannot get a handle on what you believe. I cannot figure out what parts you believe are literal and what parts you believe are “poetic” and therefore a story, or myth or hymn, etc. You have not given me any solid explanation for the “story” (that isn’t literal) or which verses in the Bible explains your interpretation of the “hymn, fictitious tale, etc”. I have absolutely nothing to work with that would allow me to give your view my affirmative nod as something that is indeed valid.

My point is that anyone is allowed to aspire to the work of overseer. We see nothing in scripture that tells us who has the “title” of overseer and scripture is silent on naming any particular “pastor”. We recognize these leaders by the work we see them do as they exercise their gifts. Leadership is recognized in the congregation by the work that the person already is doing. Once who aspires to the work of overseer will already be doing the work even before the congregation recognizes him/her.

Martin,
In 1 Timothy 3:1 “anyone” can aspire to the work of an overseer. Anyone means anyone.

Why is there no mention of a Gentile overseer? Why is there no mention of a slave having the work of an overseer? Does the fact that the scriptures have no mention of these kinds of overseers mean that they are not part of the “anyone” from verse 1?

The fact is that unless God specifically forbids a person or a group from having a certain place in the body of Christ, then we should understand that God gifts and all are allowed to excel at their gift even Gentiles, slaves and women!

An overseer is to protect the body of Christ from error and will identify and expose the wolves. Apologetics is a ministry that does this kind of work and apologists can be looked on as a global overseer protecting the entire church, not just one small local body. There are not very many women apologists. I am not sure why. Perhaps because women are not often encouraged to protect the flock this way. I am an apologist and I have met very few women doing this kind of work but the work we do is certainly blessed by God just as the work of the defense of the faith by men is also blessed.

Lin,
I very much agree with you that the passage has much more than the woman question. The body of Christ desperately needs body ministry and when this ministry is squelched by pastors who believe that only the seminary educated person is allowed to serve, or by teaching that keeps Christians as pew sitters, the church needs a real change so that ministry becomes a thing that fits every Christian not just an elite group.

Thanks for catching the typo, Don!

16 Dr. Willingham,

I am still looking, however, for your comment on the husband of one wife. Did I miss it somewhere.

Regarding “husband of one wife” and “keeping his children under control”, these are conditions that are principle based. They are “IF” statements. So it would be interpreted as IF one is married, that one is to be faithful to their one-flesh spouse (so that the person is not to be a polygamist) and IF the person has children, that one is to keep his children under control.

The principle that underlies the qualifications for an overseer is faithfulness in sexual matters so that the church is overseen by those who will live by a high standard. The principle is also faithfulness and ability in managing those under our care. IF one has children, we would look to how their children are cared for and managed.

If we can see that the clauses are principle based, then we can understand that the principle does not keep out unmarried men nor does it keep out married men without children and lastly it does not keep out women. All of these groups are able to be faithful managers of their territory of influence. The principle however does rule out polygamists since the ideal of one man and one woman is broken with polygamy and the principle also rules out those who are unfaithful in the area of sexual purity no matter what the marital status is. The fact that this passage is looked on as a principle whenever single men are concerned and whenever married men who do not have children are concerned proves that we must also keep it at the level of principle when women are concerned. If the women are faithful spouses IF they are married and if they are faithful managers in their sphere of influence, and they are faithful in the other issues mentioned, then they also are qualify to be what they are allowed to desire in 1 Timothy 3:1.

As far as what I believe about the fall of man, I have listed the view along with diagrams on this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

It is because there was one man who violated God’s law in a rebellious and treacherous way that we needed another sinless man to provide for the payment for our sin and to provide the way to live our lives through his holiness. There is the first Adam and the last Adam (the Lord from Heaven).

As far as the “can” issue, I believe that God is necessary for our salvation and he warns us that now is the day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2) and that we must not harden our hearts against his voice. Isaiah 55:6 says that we are to “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.” Those who believe that they can reject God all their lives and then choose Him at the moment before their death have forgotten that there is no salvation without God’s call because it is His work. We cannot save ourselves.

I am at the stage of research for my next DVD project which will be a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God. I would be honored to have you test my work as I prepare it because I do believe that the God’s Word does not contradict itself and a correct view of the Sovereignty of God will not ignore any of the hard passages of scripture. It just seems like God has called me and placed me in the very midst of the hard passages of scripture – the very ones that others choose to ignore. So while I won’t answer more here, I certainly will be working on what God has given me in this next difficult area of theology. Thanks for your encouragement!

Lin,
Dr. Willingham sent me this email and I think he meant to post it online for you to see:

“The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses” is not online anywhere. It is however an address that was recorded on VCR by the Baptist State Convention of NC in 1985, when I was chairman of the historical committee of the State Convention. You might try contacting the Communications Dept. of the State Convention to see, if they have any policy for securing copies of the 2 VCRs on which the Jersey Church Celebration was recorded. In addition to my address, there is a play which I wrote for the church, “The Mirror of Our Past,” and other addresses by leadng individuals in the State Convention at that time.

I had the same question at first. I had to reread all the comments because I was unsure of whether Jack was replying to a commenter or to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. and his “ability” to know that God created the woman to be defined by the man. I think Jack was expressing exasperation at Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.’s writings where he is adding to the scriptures and thus implying that he knows more about creation that what God revealed in the Bible.

Dr. Willingham,

I LOVED your prediction. May the chickens certainly come home to roost one of these days!

Jay,
Welcome to my blog!

I think this post brought out some intense feelings because it was about attitudes and judgments made against part of the body of Christ.

Although I try hard not to edit out material by posters here, I do agree that as much as possible we all try to deal with the scriptural issues. But I do understand the emotions that come out from those who have been abused.

I also agree that there are many, many Christians who are complementarians who are lovely people who would not harm a flee and who and trying as best they can to be faithful to the scripture. Part of the purpose of this blog is to help such ones to have a place to research the other side knowing that my first priority is faithfulness to the scriptures.

I do appreciate your comments and I hope that you will find yourself at home here.

Thanks TG for that comment. We are definitely all supposed to “test all things” and not just “trust” the elders. Without checking things by scripture, many people have fallen prey to false doctrine and many have followed a church as it developed into a cult. It makes me shudder when I hear pastor/elders say that we should just “trust” them.

Don,
You said:

all I wished was affirmation that faithful people can interpret these passages differently and that remains my wish.

It comes to mind that I may not have affirmed you as a person lately. If so, please forgive me. I affirm you as a brother in Christ. I do not say that a person who believes as you do is not a brother. It is not a salvation issue.

At the same time, it seems like you are really wanting me to affirm that what you believe about Genesis 1-3 is a valid interpretation. This I cannot do. The reason, I had hoped you would see, is that I cannot get a handle on what you believe. I cannot figure out what parts you believe are literal and what parts you believe are “poetic” and therefore a story, or myth or hymn, etc. You have not given me any solid explanation for the “story” (that isn’t literal) or which verses in the Bible explains your interpretation of the “hymn, fictitious tale, etc”. I have absolutely nothing to work with that would allow me to give your view my affirmative nod as something that is indeed valid. However once again, this does not mean that I hold you at arm’s length as if you are not a brother in Christ. Until there is something more to grasp at than subjective poetry that cannot be explained so that someone else can understand your view, intellectually or morally grasp it and then affirm it as a possibility, I cannot grant you what you are looking for. This is how I want to be treated – as a sister in Christ who has a view that is worthy of asking questions about, digging into to separate truth from error and giving valid and biblical feedback. I think this is how we should treat all of the foundational views of Christianity. Genesis is the lowest point of the foundation as it gives us the literal reason for the creation of man, the cause of sin, the struggle between men and women and the promise of the Savior who fulfills all that God originally gave to us in the Garden of Eden which will be fulfilled at the end of the ages which is shown to us in the book of Revelation.

155 Don,

You said:

I agree that each account is given in a sequential order, but the items in each account are in a different order.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please be specific. What is it that I have not explained?

all I wished was affirmation that faithful people can interpret these passages differently and that remains my wish.

I am not questioning whether “people” are faithful. I am just doing what scripture requires of me and I am testing the interpretations and trying to get a handle on why one believes as they do. I then take each alternative on its own merit and see it there is any validity. It is unreasonable to say that each account is “sequential” and then reject that accounts as not the same. This would leave Adam as being created more than once. Your contention that “formed” is not “created” is not valid. I have already shown you that “formed” is a subset of “created” and you have not shown an refutation of this.

If there are others who see the sequential events of the accounts as long periods of time but without seeing them as “poetry” and contradictions between the accounts, then I can give them credit for trying hard to be faithful to the word as it is written. The issue is still were animals created after Adam and how does one deal with this with the view of an extended period of time between the creation of the first animals and the creation of their complements?

However I have a great deal of trouble with dismissing history and calling it “poetry” as if the term means you can make the passage mean whatever one “feels”. I have seen this in too many people who have left Christianity to follow their “feelings”. When we set our interpretation up as valid without any second witness to verify the validity it becomes a problem. This is not the way that God does things. He has given words to us that have meaning. He has given a second or third witness to everything command and he has repeated important matters and made a big deal about history and genealogies to merely dismiss them. I can only speak for myself, but I have no agenda that would cause me to dismiss the text as it is written. I see not even one contradiction and if there is one, I would like to be informed of the contradiction. I think that is a fair request.

Don #7,
It is a “tradition” because it is proper word usage within the text. If this “tradition” is not correct, then it must be shown why it is not correct. Just saying that it is incorrect and that it is a wordplay without showing how the wordplay works within the inspired context just doesn’t cut it.

Some might think that I am an egalitarian because it suits the way I feel. This is incorrect. I have freedom to test everything by God’s Word and not by my emotion or any agenda that I may or may not have. I can reject things that other egalitarians say because I trust that the scriptures are clear when one looks deeply at the inspired words, inspired grammar and the inspired context. Any explanation that does not fit within these parameters can be rejected if it is not supported. I am one egalitarian who is very sure that I have the freedom to reject even egalitarian arguments if they do not fit. I also have freedom to show why the explanation doesn’t fit hower I do not reject the people who hold to the view. But for me I would rather have truth than anything. I am sorry if that makes anyone feel like I am not towing the party line. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as a party line. We do not stick together because we have a common agenda. We should be sticking together because we have a common desire for truth and a common love for Jesus. What isn’t valid as truth should be able to be freely rejected no matter who says it. If a complementarian is faithful to the scriptures and shows how the teaching is valid in the context with the words, grammar, context and the historical meaning, I am okay with that. Unfortunately the complementarian argument falls flat because there are so many contradictions between their argument and the text itself. My bottom line is now and will always be to seek out the truth and to hold tightly to the Word of God while loving the people who do not see it the same way as I do and treating them as valued brothers and sisters in Christ.

Don,
I have read Bruce Fleming’s book. The inspired word usage and the inspired grammar do not support the theory that Paul is speaking about Jesus here. I heartily agree with Paula that the meaning is “this is something you can count on”. That is a great paraphrase.

Don,
You said:

2 “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency. Who are we to say that it is foolish? Since Emerson encouraged people to rely on their own judgment instead of the opinion of God’s word, I don’t think that his transcendentalism would be appropriate as a discussion on this blog.

In this case, the church that restricts all 3 is even more hobbled to advance the Kingdom.

Perhaps a church that restricts all 3 would have more of an opportunity to see that there is faulty reasoning when one sees the passage as a restriction of classes of people instead of the restriction of ungodly characters. Those who only remove women from the list seem to remain blinded.

When Judas disqualified himself, he was replaced, as there needed to be 12 for the mapping to succeed.

More important than mapping, I would think would be the specific prophesy in the OT that states that this one would be replaced with another. I think that God’s sovereignty outweighs anything else.

in 1 Tim 1:15, where it is BOTH a saying and a ref. to Jesus.

This verse does not work with making “word” to be a reference to Jesus because of the inspired words.

1 Timothy 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Here the “word” being trustworthy is connected to “deserving full acceptance” and “that”… The conjunction word “that” is:

used after verbs of thinking, judging, believing to introduce the content of the thought processes
Friberg, Timothy ; Friberg, Barbara ; Miller, Neva F.: Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2000 (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library 4), S. 287

Therefore the word that is trustworthy and deserving full acceptance is the “saying”. It isn’t “who” is worthy all of acceptance which would have identifyied a person.

In 1 Timothy 3:1 it is once again a saying that is trustworthy and to be accepted and this is followed by the particle “if”. Paul is saying that no one should contradict the trustworthy saying that anyone (male, female, Jew, Gentile) who desires to have the responsibility of overseer would each one be desiring a good thing. This is the key verse that is attached to the fact that it is a trustworthy saying that cannot be contradicted which forces us to see the following verses as a reference to character and not about a restriction on classes of people.

1 Tim 4:9 is also not a saying, again just referring to Jesus.

This is also incorrect. 1 Timothy 4:9 is one case where Paul places the fact that it is a trustworthy saying, AFTER the trustworthy saying. Here is the context.:

1 Timothy 4:7 But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;
1 Timothy 4:8 for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
1 Timothy 4:9 It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.
1 Timothy 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Here we can see that the trustworthy statement is that “godliness is profitable for all things since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”

We can understand that Paul has just referenced this trustworthy statement because in verse 10 he says “For it is for this we labor and strive”. What is “this”? It is for godliness that we labor and strive. Why? Paul tells us “because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” Once again we see that this verse doesn’t say “for him we labor and strive”. The verse specifically says it is for godliness that we strive because we fix our hope on God.

So all of the examples without exception in 1 Timothy are for the “word” to be about a particular statement that is without contradiction as the statement is “trustworthy”. Again this places 1 Timothy 3:1 into the category of unqualified acceptance that “all” may aspire to the responsibility of lovingly overseeing the needs of the flock. There is nothing in the inspired words, the inspired grammar or the complete context that would make these passages not to be about a very important and trustworthy statement. Once again the consistency is amazing. Paul started a concept and carried it through the book of 1 Timothy in a consistent way.

Don,
You said:

The essential reason I read them thus is because I (and many others) cannot in good conscience join them into one account based on the information given in the text of each account. To be specific, if the days in Gen 1 are held to be literal and sequential and the order of events in Gen 2 is also held to be literal and sequential, I do not see how to harmonize the accounts; so this is a big clue for me (and many previous interpreters, I am far from alone on this) that one is to read these accounts in a non-literal (i.e., poetic) way.

I have already shown you how to harmonize the accounts so you have indeed seen how one in good conscience can join the accounts and see a literal view. What you have to do is show how my harmonization is impossible. I have already shown that the specific language is sequential and to take specific words with specific meanings and make them mean the exact opposite is subjecting the Word of God to man’s wims. I cannot in all good conscience see the accounts as non-literal – as non sequential events. I will one day stand before God and give an account of my belief and my teaching and I fear God enough to take Him at His word rather than subject his Word to my own interpretation that has no basis at all in the text or any other literature in the Bible that would give the meaning of the “poetry”.

My point on saying side and not rib is that MORE is involved

The best ribs have lots of flesh attached. I have no doubt that God took out the rib with flesh attached and I prefer not to add to or take away from the inspired words. It was flesh AND bone so a side bone (rib) and flesh is completely logical and adequate that one doesn’t need to seek a more complicated meaning.

Back to the issue of animals created AFTER Adam in sequential fashion. This is the topic. Sequential is the key. Unless one can deal with the inspired grammar, the subjective meanings are really just meaningless as everyone can add to the text whatever they “feel”.

Don,
In your #1, the “word” is indeed referring to a saying and not Jesus. The reasons are clear from the text itself. While Jesus is called the “Word”, in Timothy 3:1 there is no sense that Jesus is being referred to.

(Darby) The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.

What has the faithfulness of Jesus got to do with anyone aspiring to exercise oversight? It would be a disjunction to attach the two statements. However there is no disjunction at all to have a faithful saying attached to the saying that anyone can desire to be an overseer. Any play on words must match the context and the context does not match in this case.

2 IF there are churches who exclude all I put in the box then at least they are being consistent. The fact is that the modern church of today is not consistent and this is what I was addressing.

3 Your point doesn’t make sense to me. If there had to be twelve, then when James died he should also have been replaced. I think it would be better to say that the twelve were sovereignly picked to be the foundation of the church and the only reason that Judas was replaced was because he was the only one who was predicted would be replaced as he was the unfaithful one who betrayed Jesus.

Don,
It appears to me form what you are saying is that the solution would be that eiither one creation account is not true, or Adam was created twice or both accounts are not true. I see no contradiction and I do not see different creations or different accounts. Genesis 2 is merely the viewing of a different angle of the creation account – an account that focuses in on the details of the creation of man. Also the fact is that the word “formed” is not different than the word “created”. “Formed” is the way man was created so that as a subset of creation it is equal to the word creation.

The KJV term “rib” is not a myth as Adam said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. It is reasonable to see the rib as the portion of the side that was said to be the “bone” part. Whatever “side” included, it certainly included a bone.

As far as whether one sees “metaphor” or “literal” will have to be defended in the text itself. One cannot arbitrarily choose something to be a metaphor without good cause. Otherwise everyone who has a sin that they don’t like exposed by the bible would yell “metaphor” when their sin is identified. It works for many.