Pinklight

‘The text does not say the woman added to God’s words and it does not say she did not. This is where I see that the Bible is a mirror and whichever way you go shows something about you. This is why I prefer to just point out that we do not know what we do not know.’

Don said this above in the other post, ‘Was the man given authority to rule the woman’. I’m bringing it here because I would like to comment on it here.

There is not a speck of evidence that the woman knew the command that God gave the man, and I’m specificaly meaning exactly what God said word-for-word to him when he was alone, before she was formed, I’m talking about what he explicitly said, not a speck (and I challenge anyone to provide such evidence) therefore there is no place to even begin with saying ‘and it does not say she did not add to it.’ In other words, there’s no room for an argument saying, ‘and it does not say she did not add to it’, since there is no speck of evidence that she even knew it.

If the woman did not know the explicit command given to the man, then no one can argue that she added to it, or that the bible does not say that she did not add to it. The argument cannot even get off the ground.

That’s all for now!

One time when I was still ignorant on the teachings in Genesis about Adam, I said to a fellow male believer, without giving the particulars of the conversation nor the details…, something to the effect of  ‘…I get my own Adam… :).’ And I didn’t get much of a response, and now I know why. lol! Adam was no dream boy. Paula, your last comment scared me. Seriously. You know, looking at things in proper biblical perspective is a whole new and different light.

Wow, Charis! Thanks for that. I never knew!  And I have just been wondering on such a topic.

So who ends up making known the serpent’s nature? Not Adam, but Eve even though Adam was the one who was to guard the garden.

🙂

That should have been ‘great importance and relevence to the false comp interpretation of 1 Tim 2′.
Sorry

‘My take is we are to see that the woman’s reply to God is redemptive, she could only say she was deceived if she was NO LONGER deceived.  So there is hope for her.
The man’s reply to God on the other hand is anything but redemptive, blaming the deceived woman and then ultimately God.  Blaming God is not a redemptive reply, there will be more severe consequences.’

This has great relevence to the comp interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

‘The fact is that one cannot know unless one is no longer deceived.’

I think this fact is of great importance in relation to 1 Tim 2 as long as the woman of v.14 is interpreted to mean ‘Eve’ rather than the woman of v.11 who Paul has stopped from teaching.

bgk, ‘Pinklight, I take the phrase that Adam “was not deceived” to mean that his sin was willful.’

‘that his sin (action of eating) was willful’

bgk, you take the phrase which is a fact to mean an action (act of eating = sin) and descriptive of the action (willful)? bgk, I don’t see Paul tieing ‘Adam was not deceived’ into action of eating. That Adam was not deceived is just a simple fact (even if he connects it to another fact about Adam in the 1 Tim 2 passage). Paul did not say, ‘Adam was not deceived into eating’. And Gen 3, does say, ‘and he ate’. So his willful sin IS that he ate.

So I see in scripture that ‘Adam was not deceived’ (Paul) and ‘he ate’ (Gen 3) rather than the first meaning the second. Scripture then tells us two things therefore the one doesn’t mean the other. If ‘Adam was not deceived’ means ‘his sin (or that ‘he ate’) was willful’ then, there are no longer the two facts about Adam. So I think they have to be kept seperated.

‘We do know that the woman was deceived, the key part about being deceived is that one believes something true that is false or false that is true.’

Therefore, Adam who was not deceived, as Paul says, did not believe something to be true (the serpent’s word’s) that was false.

2 Cor 11:3:
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

When ‘he ate’ was Adam deceived? No.

Therefore that he ‘was not deceived’ (fact 1) when ‘he ate’ (fact 2) describes his state of mind rather than his action of eating itself, i.e., ‘he ate’.

Why was his state of mind not in deception when ‘he ate’? His wife’s was but his was not. He listened to the voice of his wife (Gen 3, God to Adam), but the only thing she said that we have recorded was what she said to the serpent. We cannot add that she repeated to Adam what the serpent said to her about them. We cannot add that she repeated the twisted serpent’s talk. After the woman tells the serpent what they may eat, and then what God said they could not eat, the serpent said that they would not die, (‘you’ is plural).
So he heard what his wife told the serpent. If he heard what she said to the serpent, then he heard what the serpent followed with. After the serpent follwed with ‘You (pl) shall not surely die’ (God told him though in Gen 2, ‘You will surley die’) then his wife saw the tree as desirable for gaining wisdom, then she ate and gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Now we are right back at the beginning, his being ‘not deceived’ and ‘he ate’.
‘There is no indication that he was apart from her and came later. The most direct way to read the passage is that Adam was there with her. The last evidence is that God gave Adam blame for listening to the voice of his wife and the conversation that he listened to is only given as the one where his wife talks to the serpent.’

‘Obviously he was either there or not there, but I do not agree that we can prove he was there when the serpent spoke to the woman.’

I think scripture proves that he was there.

How could Adam have not been deceived then as Paul says, if he wasn;t there? It wasn’t the woman who twisted the word’s God spoke to the man, it was the serpent. The woman did not repeate the serpent’s words for scripture does not say that. So how could he have not been deceived?

Here’s a ‘why’ question I have regarding Adam:

When the serpent asked the woman, ‘Did God really say, “(a)You must not eat from / (b)any tree in the garden’?”, why didn’t the man just say, no, God said, ‘You are free to eat from / (b)any tree in the garden; but /(a)you must not eat from…
Why didn’t the man just take the twist right out of the serpent’s words by quoting God, setting God’s words straight? The first thing the serpent did was obviously swapped God’s words around and turned them into a question.

God’s command of prohibition saying ‘you must not eat from’ was regarding the one tree not any tree in the garden as God commanded the man saying he was free to eat from.

For Adam to have untwisted what the serpent asked, would have been an easy thing for him to do…

At the same time I question ‘why’, I also think that Adam did know what was not in the fruit because of all that God told him.

‘I’m saying that there must be some reason why Adam stood silently by as he watched the serpent tempt Eve.’

I agree, Paula. Why did he stand there but do nothing? I would think that there must be a reason why?
Imagine an opposite scenario if the woman had just stood by and said nothing. Why would she have done so?

I just think that there must be a reason why.

When the serpent spoke the second time, the last part of his statement is not a lie. So he asked the woman a question and then continues to lie and twist what God said, but to top it all off, what he last said was not a lie. Obviously the serpent had knowledge that the humans did not have…’and you will be like God knowing good and evil.’ Compare that to Gen 3:21, ‘the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’ My point is that the serpent knew things, perhaps even about themselves (motives?) that the only other person who would know would have been God…I’ve not finished my studies so I’m just throwing this out there…so it is to be taken with a grain of salt…

There is so much good stuff here from everyone! I could go on for days, and I might just come back and to that!

‘It is distrusting Eve’s testimony that has caused us to disregard God’s equal treatment of both the man and the woman.’

That’s it! It’s summed up right there! For me, everything that surrounds the her testimony, what God commanded, and what the serpent said, and the rest of the fall which gives us more info is most important. Truley, if the woman’s testimony is taken as true as it should be, then everything changes…the whole doctrine of male leadership collapses. I’ve been studying everything I can on this lately and will continue to do so…

‘There are three options regarding why the woman had more information that what appeared to be given to Adam.  Since I will be discussing these things in the next post, I will leave my comments for my article.’
The last paragraph of your article above revealed alot.

Am looking forward to your next article. 🙂 Can’t wait!

‘Another thing that really bothers me about their stance is that they give the messenger the authority. It is the WORD that has the authority. The Holy Spirit. I have been studying Acts and boy, you cannot get away from the fact that everything they did was because of the Holy Spirit!
Too much credit and adoration is given to a human ‘authority’ in their scenerio.’

Yes, I can see that too Lin. The focus is on ‘who’ (the male as teacher) more than ‘what’ (the teaching itself).

‘Many hierarchists do not see 1 Timothy 2 as being only about a building. I know that CBMW does not see it this way because they restrict a woman from teaching men in a bible study in her own home.  In fact they say that a woman is restricted from teaching doctrine to many in any place at any time for any reason.  Also since there were no Christian church buildings at the time of the early church, anywhere that believers met was the assembly.  Lastly Paul’s appeal to the creation account takes this outside of being an application pertaining only to a church building.’

Then how does CBMW account for Pricsilla teaching Apollos? I’ve not read any of their material for the last few years and don’t remember the exact details of most of their arguments. According to CBMW, can women teach men as long they are with their husband, under their husband’s authority, their covering? (The case of Priscilla?)

But that would just be an addition to scripture, Don for the eye and the hand are connected, for they are members of the body, the church.

The eye and the hand cannot ‘go to’ the arm, head, ear as they are spiritualy connected at all times no matter where they are be it in a house, church building, park, online, etc. No one would want to argue for dismembered body parts being the church, Christ’s body?

Many see church as a ‘go to’ thing rather than a ‘we are’, or ‘us’ thing, or being about where it is rather than what it is.

If church is a ‘go to’ thing over and against an ‘us’ thing then the members would not truley be connected as one body, no matter where they gather.

And the eye would not sayto the hand, ‘where’ are you, or you are over there? Let us ‘go to’ the arm, the head, and the feet.

Hi, Ron

Welcome!

I enjoyed your post. 🙂

Hi Truthseeker,

Here’s how I’d go about it.

Going straight to the passage in question, which is 1 Co 11, in context there must be something that points to or defines what Paul is talking about regarding ‘head’. Therefore if the hierarchal belief is correct then contextual support is a must. No belief can be supported without contextual support. So what I’d do is ask for my opponent to provide for me the evidence in the passage that shows that ‘head’ means, boss, chief, ruler. So if their view is correct then there should be some mention, in the context, of God’s authority, the husband’s authority, or Christ’s. There would have to be something along those lines, just a small something. I’d ask questions like, is the passage about authority structure? Does it talk about it or does it talk about glory and head coverings? What’s the whole passage about? In context Paul mentions origins. Why? Why would he talk about origins if the message is about authority? Does not the context determine the meaning? One cannot give weight to some doctrine that is soley based on the english word ‘head’. Where’s the proof in the context?

That’s my 2 cents that is, can the gender hierachal view actualy be defended in context?  Answer: NOT at all. So I’m always up for those with this kind of belief to provide evidence and proof that their view is biblical. And I offer this kind of challenge all the time simply to show that it cannot be met. For me, that’s the route I take for now these days.