TL

I’ve been watching. A couple times almost posted something and then one of you said what I was thinking, so I just kept reading as I’ve had time.

🙂

I would agree that those two points are the clinchers. It doesn’t hurt though to have an abundance of reasons why their thesis is in error.

It was also God that named human gender ish and ishah. God did this when He presented the ishah to the human. He did not present an ‘it’ and wait for the human to call her an ishah. God presented her to the man as an ishah

AND BTW the man named pairs as they all came in pairs. This shows that he was giving species names, not individual names. In the same way God named the species of human or mankind or humanity (whichever you like) adham. It shows this in Gen. 5.

2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[adham] when they were created.

I recollect that Jareth thought that Adam’s naming of the animals showed he had authority, and since Eve didn’t name the animals then she didn’t have that authority. And somehow this all translated into Adam having authority over Eve (as if she were one of the animals), which gave him the right to name her. A bit confusing thinking. But these guys want authority so much they will grasp at anything and cling to it with gusto.

“They see the fall related to the reversal of the creation order. “

oh, they may mean to think that the sin was not eating of the fruit but the woman not deferring to the man. Problem with all that is that God didn’t tell them that she should do that. Thus, not deferring would not be a sin. Only the eating of the fruit was sin.

“They don’t seem to have any reason for thinking that being created first gives one authority, apart from “God says it does, in 1 Tim 2:13?. “

Well, Paul does not say that God says it does. Paul says the he, Paul, is not now permitting something. This is not how God institutes a divine new (NEW, not used before, never before stated anywhere in the OT) law.

“They see the fall related to the reversal of the creation order. “

I don’t understand this. If they believe that God made the male to rule over the female in the ‘creation order’, then a reversal would be God making the female to rule over the male. If they don’t believe that there was any ruling over one another in the creation order, then a reversal would be both trying to rule over the other, which might make more sense. However, that does nothing for their case as it does not institute a male over female order. In reality, there is no rule in the OT for men to rule over women. There is only the law of ungodly desires for the powerful to control the weaker.

The irony about the comp claim that Genesis shows firstborn preference, is that in the whole book of Genesis not one first born was preferred by God over the second born.

So a question one might ask is, where DID the concept of firstborn preference arise from. I suspect they were looking for the Savior. And it arose from there to give special attention to the firstborn male just in case he might be ‘the one’. After all they did not know exactly how God was going to do this.

Cheryl,
I hope your partner recooperates completely and is whole again soon. In the meantime perhaps God might find you some help. 🙂

”2.Wasn’t primogeniture to do with the first born male in the family, and not really to do with males and females? So would Timothy have really thought of primogeniture relating to Adam and Eve?”

This is true. Also, God did not practice preference of the firstborn.

1. Cain and Able. God preferred Able because of his good heart.
2. I don’t think Abraham was a firstborn
3. Ishmael and Isaac, God choose Isaac before Ishmael was born
4. Esau and Jacob, God choose Jacob in prophecy at his birth
5. Of Jacobs children, Reuben was firstborn, but God choose Joseph and Judah.

And so forth. In God’s economy it’s not about who is born first at all. It’s about who has godly character and is able to formed into the person that God can use.

The only reason that comps get away with promoting that idea is because so many Christians don’t read the Bible.

We’ve missed you Cheryl. But I certainly understand about needing quietness in one’s soul. Praying for God to refresh your spirit. 🙂

thank you all very much. When I get a chance today I’ll need to compose a response for the Sola Panel regarding something I said about Ware. It’s regarding the ninth post on compism and egalism.

http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_9/

Cheryl, where is your post where you quote some statements by Ware claiming that believers should not pray to Jesus but to the Father.

and Merry Merry Christmas everyone. 🙂

“The thing that puts a damper on that idea that Paul is talking about our own spirituality is that Paul didn’t use the word for spiritual but he used the word for “saved”. “

The sense I’m thinking of is not that Paul is directly addressing the idea of gnostic spirituality but that he is hinting at it while directly addressing the true spiritual miracle that heals and saves us all. IOW it’s an underlying message, only likely because of the fact of the woman’s deception and that her deception may well have been gnostic misinformation among other things.

Marg, that does make Eve the comparison for ‘the woman’ and as a woman who has been deceived. Putting the whole section into place, then the deceived woman needs to learn in the manner of a student, and live a holy life with her husband who may not have been deceived.

I still think the reference to bearing children has something to do with the false gnostic idea that for a woman to be spiritual she needs to live like a man and not bear children. That may have been one of the things the woman was deceived in. Verse 15 may even be a double intention of referring both to ‘the child’ who was certainly a spiritual happening and that the woman can be spiritual while bearing children.

awww. I’m sorry. it probably is your computer, as it shows them fine on my computer at the website. 🙁

OK, sorry. it didn’t work. but you can go to

http://betterexegesis.blogspot.com/

and see it.. 🙂

I don’t know if this will work, but hope you don’t mind my trying……

This free digital slideshow personalized with Smilebox

Craig, that is where we are faced with a curious fact. Paul switched deliberately from speaking in the plural to speaking of a woman and a man. Then he continues to speak of a woman on through vs. 15, where he culminates it with “them”. Whoever the ‘them’ is, they need to continue on in holiness so that she (whoever the ‘she’ is) will be preserved in the childbearing.

It seems to me we cannot escape this. She needed to stop teaching and domineering a particular man, whether her teacher or her husband, we don’t know.

Part of what English speakers consider an office of ministry is the recognition of calling and skill. Being recognized as having a true calling encourages people to look to you for direction, giving you more opportunity to teach. It also encourages people to ask you to teach in various settings.

That is really the only part of considering a ministry an office and having an authority to teach that is viable or acceptable IMO.

As far as I know, Craig, saying egals are liberal or have a liberal approach to interpretation is just a strawman. It’s not accurate or real. It’s just something to paint egals in a bad light so that others will be hesitant to listen to what Christian egals have to say. Its a tad bit of fear mongering.

“Paul meant his words to be time/place specific, but they are actually applicable universally. So the men in the church at Ephesus had a particular problem with anger during prayer, and Paul was addressing this, but it is always applicable that men should pray without anger. I was including this third alternative as universal where as I think you would see it as still time/place specific.”

A little confusing. Anything that replicates a specific situation can read into the same admonition to correct it. But we cannot thus change the admonition to be universal. The admonition was event and possibly person specific. If some other person did the same things (which unfortunately we don’t know the exact and full mistakes) then it would seem reasonable that Paul’s suggestion that this woman(women) learn and stop teaching with authentein would apply. But there are other alternatives as well. There is not only one way to handle individuals female or male when they dominate others in their teaching. We see that in chapter one. Certain men were turned over to Satan to learn.

This was a personal letter. Yes we can learn a great deal from it. Christians really need to get off the legalistic bandwagon. We cannot make everything into a law. There are many ways to handle a situation of offense. Paul gave some examples. But there are other examples. Jesus mentioned some. The OT mentioned some.

prayers that you will return fully refreshed and full of God’s insight. As well I hope that your home and office is near done. That took a lot of energy to put together.

blessings in Christ…..

Thanks Cheryl. Not just for me but for all the many people who visit our forums. 🙂

Cheryl, don’t mean to hijack the thread…..but

I’m putting out a desperate plea to the internet world of Christians. We are desperate at our forums for tech help. I’m a retired slightly disabled senior who is completely non techie. I even have to get people to hook up stereo stuff and don’t use half the buttons cause I’m not sure what they do.

If anyone knows of someone who would be willing, able and is trustworthy, to work on our forums, please either let Cheryl know and she’ll contact me or join the forums and contact me there.

We’ve put out a plea in the past and everyone seemed to think I could figure it out. I’m telling you plainly I cannot figure this stuff out. Boohoo 🙁

It would be great to have Jereth come over here and dialogue. 🙂

Craig, let us know how it goes with your friend. I’d be interested. Praying for him to come to a better view of women as equal members of the Body of Christ who God is equally able to use any way He desires.

IMO we must give Paul the option to NOT name or describe a particular woman that he wants to exercise grace toward. It seems likely that Paul expected his letter to Timothy to be read aloud. This was good in that it showed exactly what Paul wanted done. It could have been bad for the woman had she been named. Thus the only other choice was to describe loosely someone that Timothy and those involved would know exactly who was being described, but loosely enough that no one else would know. If she were described too accurately then she would carry a stigma around with her that she didn’t deserve. Unlike Hymenaeus and Alexander who were apparently unteachable, this woman was able to learn in Paul’s estimation.

the blog is still not working, but here is the link:

http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/

As to your question:”how does Eve’s giving fruit to Adam come to be viewed as an act of leading? Or what was it she did or said when she gave fruit to Adam that placed her into a leadership role?”

J. arguing the comp position believes that because God says to the man, ““Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten…., that this indicates that the woman was leading the man to sin or some such. If that were true, then it would indicate that the man was deceived or compelled into sinning. But according to Scripture the man was neither compelled or deceived but moved of his own accord to disobey God.

yes, where are you?? Hope things are OK.