Don

My take is that Paul was an apostle (or missionary) that helped start these churches.  As such his influence would be huge, as they would naturally look to him for guidance.  Also, his credentials as an apostle (numerous beatings, etc.) gave him a credence that few others had.  If someone is willing to go thru those kinds of things for you, it behoves you to listen to their guidance.

Also, Adam means human or groundling, or earthperson, etc. with a wordplay as Adam is derived from Adamah, dirt or ground.

Adam is the name for both the man and the woman, Gen 5:2.
The word indicating a male man is not used until the woman is formed.

I just found an article that discusses where women lead men…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_sc/sci_dirty_hands

“This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine.” must be the song you are singing.

All translation, even word-for-word or  interlinear, involves interpretation, as it involves word choices, so interpretation cannot be helped.  Some are more interpretive and some less, but all are interpretive.  This is one reason why some denominations create their own translations, so they are in control of the interpretation choices.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/ETS%202006%20Paper%20Sons%20Authority.pdf

is a good article by Giles showing how orthodox understanding of the Trinity denied differing authority among the members of the Godhead.

Authoritarian type churches quote this verse, so one needs to know what it means in the Greek, to allow oneself to be persuaded (if possible).

This means letting the leader explain his teaching and see if it persuades you, hopefully also allowing for asking of questions.  But if it does not persuade you, then it does not.

Translation is an art, the translator(s) that used “authority” thought that was what was meant, for whatever reason.

is Richie’s Freedom

is Jimi’s Freedom

From m-w.com

ex cathedra
Pronunciation: eks-k-th-dr Function: adverb or adjective Etymology: New Latin, literally, from the chair Date: 1693
: by virtue of or in the exercise of one’s office or position <ex cathedra pronouncements>

As Roman Catholics (or more properly the pope) claimed the authority of the pope to speak authoritatively ex cathedra (from the chair or their claimed seat of authority), so the protestants in reaction claimed the authority to speak from the pulpit or their claimed place to proclaim.

The Reformation needs to continue to reform.

One you see all of us have a (God-given) filter, then and only then can you decide what to put in your own filter and take into acccount other’s filters.  I want 2 things:

1. That my speech may be seasoned with salt, so that more will accept the truth in it than otherwise.
2. That I can hear God’s voice even if given through my enemy.

My take is that God has given them what they seek, they get the fruits of their doctrine when doing the opposite could save them from it.  It is not about who can teach, for Paul says ANY can.

It is about whom they choose to listen to.  We all have filters, as we do not have unlimited time.  Theirs includes gender, to their shame.

I like that image, they gave themselves a time out!
It makes something that they intended to shame the speaker into something that they did to themselves, by revealing their immaturity.

Yes, the men that turned their chairs around were just being rude.

When I heard about this story, my respect for Anne went WAY up.

It is one thing to get this kind of stuff from pagans, but quite another to get it from believers.  BY THEIR ACTIONS, they were disorderly, which a believer is not to be, especially in a church setting.

The question is not who might teach, for Paul says anyone might.

The question is who will listen to any particular teaching.  And if for some reason one feels they should not be listening, then to leave without commotion.  You can discuss any concerns later with the elders in oversight.  I am assuming a crowd and not a small group teaching where a question might be appropriate.

I personally have left some teachings when they used what I deemed to be manipulative tricks on the audience.  I have also expressed my concerns to the leadership afterwards in other cases where I thought the teaching was flawed enough to cause harm.

males on top of females, fathers on top of sons = patriarchy.

This whole continuing exercise of CBMW and similar to justify their authority hierarchy stance shows the lengths they are willing to go in their declining to repent.  If they are not wrong, then they do not need to repent, but if they are wrong, they do.  Let this be a lesson for us when WE need to repent.

Congrats on seeing this off.  May the viewers be enlightended.

Frank, I clicked on your name, but I got yahoo360 which does not exist, so I have no idea how to contact you and am not sure who you are.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/

Frank’s link did not work for me, I had to back up and use the above and then click on “Anathemas all around” article.

1 Cor 7 is certainly mutual submission in the marriage bed.

1Co 7:3

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

1Co 7:4

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

I think they believe they are “so not” like pagans.  We need to see the pagan in ourselves, the potential for ANY sin.

Yes, the comp system of males on top means it is very important for the male to be mature and not insist on his way.  I do not know why any would want to take this risk, as we all sin.

1 Cor 14:38 means it is ESSENTIAL to get this pericope correct.  So it is worth the extra work it takes to have as great an assurance of correctness as possible.

I think one aspect is that the whole teaching hangs together in a coherent way when 1 Cor 14:34-35 is seen as from Corinth.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/free_articles.shtml

is the CBE website for some great free articles.

Here are some ideas.

See Bilizekian’s essay on husband being a head, free at CBE.  He goes into Eph 5.  The main point is that Christ as head SERVES the church, the metaphor (and we KNOW head/kephale HAS to be a metaphor) is one of service and there is no Scriptural warrant to turn that into a leading function.  See all the verbs in that section of Eph 5.

1 Pet is about unsaved husbands (and later unsaved wifes).  In that case in 1st century it was just assumed that the wife obeys her husband, but Peter carefully never says that.

Of the verses where it can be discerned, the LXX is used more than the Hebrew text, much more.  However, it is not sure why for the gospels in some cases, it might be Jesus or the author choosing to use the LXX.  There is a website that gives the info, seach on LXX new testament.

In Judea and the Galil they used Hebrew text, but in the diaspora they used LXX.  Jesus was clearly familiar with both and seems to have chosen the one that most clearly agreed with his point.  Recall that ANY translation involves interpretation so the LXX includes interpretation in its translation choices.

On Deborah and Barak, I see things SLIGHTLY different, altho mostly like you.

Barak was a man of faith, but not perfect faith.  His problem was not too much obedience to a woman but insufficient obedience to God’s chosen leader, who happened to be a woman.

He believed her, but wanted a little more assistance, a little more assurance.  However, he has enough trust/faith to be successful.  This is encouraging for us, God does not demand perfect faith but asks for enough faith/trust and understands our weaknesses.

Good point, some are violating a EXPLICIT GENERAL COMMAND to learn (albeit to a specific woman, but the principle still applies).  Jesus discussed the possibility of faulty exegesis leading to breaking of the Torah (God’s instruction) and we see an example right here.

That was incredibly perceptive by Wade’s wife.  It is also incredibly scary what is going on.