justa berean

Just finished reading where a young woman actually believes that only men are created in God’s image, and women are created in man’s image. She has to be pretty young since her basis is the English “man” and “him”. She completely does not understand that in English Bibles when the word “man” is used to translate the Hebrew “adham” it mean human, not male person. In the case of Genesis, it means humanity. How much easier and less confusing it would be for todays young people if modern translators dropped off the old English and used the modern terms. Even Gen. 5 would be more understandable if it properly read that God called them both “human”, instead of using the transliteration of adham. Their name was “Human”. The man’s name was Human. When God called out in the garden, He called “Human”. These things need to be properly translated.

It’s no wonder our young people are so confused.

post 46, Teknomom,
I completely agree. And that is precisely why Matt wants a “formal” debate. It’s not about finding truth or even agreement. It’s about him winning at his game and looking good.

Cheryl you said to David: “I think you are right. Matt knows how to understand complicated arguments from Atheists but he refuses to try to understand where I am coming from.”

OK now I’m trying to figure out who is just being kind – the one who thinks he doesn’t understand complicated reasoning or the one who says he can but doesn’t want to go there.

LOL 🙂 🙂

I think I understand why Matt get’s so mad at Cheryl, claiming she is verbose and confusing. He got angry with one of her answers on CARM (titled: this is perfect example) claiming it was long and confusing. Problem is that it was a short answer. Other problem is that he does not understand her answers. I don’t think he is used to laying foundations of reasoning and building on them. He’s more a one or two level kind of guy. He’s not a scholar. And from what I can tell he doesn’t want to or know how to dig.

That makes it difficult for one to reason with him. He really does need answers that are one step at a time. Matt has claimed himself to be something that he is not. Thus when we think he “should” know something because of his claims, we are mistaken because his claims are not clear. Thus, we cannot assume that he “should” know anything and start from a different perspective.

Make any sense?

Sad thing that too much power always corrupts. I see that lead in sentences like the following are common on CARM by gender hierarchalists.

“you convinced me that you do injustice to the word of God. You also have convinced me that further error will follow.”

Instead of just discussing the subject at hand, those who fear must throw out attempts to malign the character of those they disagree with.

Thank you Greg. Didn’t know those details. Horrible things we’ve done in the name of religion, the rules of which humans have created.

“These are the very ideas Anne Hutchinson was put on trial by John Winthrop and declared heretic for. ”

What years was this?

This was very well done Cheryl. Not only sticking to Scripture and proper hermeneutics, but using the noggin God gave you as well. I’d like to add some thoughts when I have time.

I’d also like your permission to print this out and save it to my computer for further study. And perhaps I could have your permission to use parts of your research and conclusions when I do Bible studies on relevant areas…. always with honor to the author.

Right at the moment I’m in the middle of doing some writing…. which means praying for inspiration …. and putting together research and a study outline on the epistle to the Romans. So any prayers would be very helpful.

OH, sorry. 🙁 forgot where I was. happens now and then.

”The new guard of baby boomer aged leaders within the Reformed traditions (predominantly) embrace an authoritarian outlook and seem to look to the writings of Robert Louis Dabney (presbyterian minister/seminiary teacher and Confederate, author of “Defense of Virginia and the South”) as some kind of prophetic literature tantamount to the Bible. Dabney argued and defended slavery as well as opposed both minority and women’s suffrage and public education.”

Not all. I’m a babyboomer and I never went in that direction. The first thing the Lord did in my life was set me free and I felt it in every fiber of my being. I never again wanted to be entangled in a yoke of worldly bondage. Remember that most or many of the egalitarian equality thinkers are also babyboomers. Maybe we are just a prolific noisy group. 🙂

”Ken Giles (”The Trinity and Subordinationism,” “Jesus and the Father” and articles on CBE) explains that the slavery issues support the ontological subordination of women throught the heresy of the subordinationism of Christ within the Trinity.”

I’ve both of Giles books. Jesus and the Father is an easier read. Giles was predated by Jewel. Jewel’s book “Man as Male and Female” was the first book God brought to me about equality at a time when I thought I might be the lone prophet in a wicked world. Giles nails it and screws it in solid IMO.

Before I was aware of Giles there was some professor teaching about inherent design to the tune that one can NOT say that woman must take a submissive role as a life calling because she is woman. To say that says that a woman is inferior in her inherent being. This was when the gender hierarchalists were teaching that woman is equal to man, but it is woman’s inherent design to be submissive to men. The professor essentially taught that submission by inherent design cancelled out any concept of equality.

Good thoughts UnderMuchGrace. Maybe I’ll have to find Mark Nolls book. 🙂

Good one Dusman. 🙂

We are after all children of God.

Did anyone ever consider that we are the really young ones. We rarely live beyond 90 anymore. Adam and Eve lived …what? 800+ years. How little can one learn in 90 years?

I noticed that about the Trinity also. Poor guy. Who knows what happened to trip him up so. In the end all so called “hate mail” is not the way to go.

Problem IS the above person is indeed angry and in “hate mode”. But not all mail that Matt calls hate mail is hate mail. A good portion of it is heated disagreement, or just plain disagreement.

The world doesn’t disagree well. As Christians we should be giving a better example. Christian debaters need not follow the collegiate example of tricks, baits, mockings, cutting off, etc. when discussing differences. As Christians our goals should be to research, analyze and discover truths. Most debaters goal is simply to win at whatever means.

That is why it was so refreshing to see Cheryls honest attempts to be forthright yet polite. I chuckled when Matt said you weren’t polite, Cheryl. And then you repeated to him that statement asking if that was the problem, that you weren’t polite. But it was too late, he’d already committed himself.

I think we should ask God if it might be His Will to raise up an army of Christian debaters that was polite, yet firm and pointed; Christians that were not prone to anger, self promotion, or running from an argument.

Don, do you preach? If so where? 🙂

Don wrote: Reposting from previous thread where it may have been missed

Good news. I am taking a Greek class from the Greek scholar Dr. Bill Wagner. I asked him if in 1 Tim 2:15 whether the “she” (implied in the verb sothesetai) was theoretical or actual and he said he believed it was an actual person. He said Paul is very direct in his letters and Paul would not have written it this way to Timothy if Paul had wanted it to be theoretical. Bill is the author of “First Reader in New Testament Greek” which is the textbook for the class I am takingm he personally knows all the famous names associated with the Greek NT.

Excellent, excellent word. Thank you for posting this. Can he be quoted? I’d like to keep this handy?

pinklight, I owe you an apology. I called you pinknight by accident. And I was thinking pink knight…. 🙁 I’ll remember now.

Perfect word Don.

Now for a bit of rambling about the debate…..

Interesting Matt interrupted Cheryl from answering an important point. Matt claims that the whole reason of the epistle is in 1 Tim. 3:15. When Cheryl attempted go to Scripture to point out that was in direct reference to chapter one, he only let her get out two or three sentences before he started complaining that she was taking too long to answer. He went on to pontificate that if a person couldn’t answer a question in two or three sentences then they didn’t know what they are talking about. Then a little further he states that her logic just isn’t that good. Notice that he never came back to ask again the question he didn’t allow Cheryl to finish answering…. Which really she did answer.

And BTW that answer, that 3:16 is about church meetings is an old argument trying to cause 2:12 to refer to “the pulpit” in Sunday worship. Problem is that “the house of God” is not a church building or meeting place, but it represents the whole body of Christ in every day living, not just in assemblies.

Then this is where Matt clearly says he does not want to ask Cheryl why she believes what she believes, because it is his show and he is afraid she will take up the rest of the time with her answer.

After that he goes on to call Cheryl very deceived. He says that if a woman spoke in his church, he would get up and leave. Continually interrupting Cheryl, agrees she is a heretic, pretty clearly mocking, saying he cannot get anywhere with her. Saying he doesn’t want to sound mean BUT…. Mocks her ability to rattle off Greek words, more and more criticism of long answers. Yet in reality Cheryl never got to give a long answer because Matt kept interrupting her. And then he claims he cannot get a word in edgewise. Sounds like distractions and stalling to me.

Matts claim that ALL teaching (I’m assuming prophecies) is done by man does not equate to a rule that only men are qualified to write prophesies or speak them. Actually, there are several prophesies, teachings in Scripture that are from women. In fact there were schools of prophets (both male and female) in the OT. Not every prophesy or teaching was written down. The fact that they were copied/quoted in books likely by men does not create an unwritten rule that women cannot write, speak, teach.

Dusman = The complementarian (or hierarchical or traditional) position on women in ministry is filled with contradiction because it is based on widely-varying, almost-arbitrary application of 1 verse: 1 Timothy 2:12.

The CBMW book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has a section where they instruct women on how they should speak to men so that they are not “teaching” them. It goes to the bazaar point that if a woman is giving directions to a man she must be very careful not to offend his manly rights of leadership – or something to that effect.

In reality, they were following their premise to it’s logical end. If one believes that the one statement (taken completely out of context) that a woman is not to teach a man, which has absolutely no stated borders, then it must extend to every area of life. This only becomes absurd when one rightly realizes that God has never done that in all of history. In fact God has violated that idea many times.

Teknomom = ”If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.”

Also, responsible reading of God’s Word does not insert principles where God does not. I am not aware of anywhere where God assigns leadership, superiority, or privilege according to birth order. That is something that came later, established by humans. Likely it was in response to waiting for the promised Messiah. And when God chooses leaders He often goes for the unlikely and even the last born. Moses, the first primary leader of Israel, was the last born.

”He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply.”

Here is a typical usage of ezer:
Exodus 18:4
And the other was named Eliezer, for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.”

Ezer mean strong help, succour, aid. The prime root azar carries meanings of : to surround, ie, protect or aid, help, succour. Hebrew scholar Gesenius adds that the primary idea lies in girding, surrounding, hence defending

”So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.”

This is the type of disrespect commonly given by gender hierarchalists. It galls them that a woman (whom they hold to be beneath them) would dare to instruct them or reveal them to be in error. It’s a tough one to overcome. I think we have to give him some credit for being willing to engage Cheryl given his opinions.

The authority factor that is missing in creation is a huge point. God said that THEY would hold sway over not each other or the man over the woman, but over the whole of creation. The authority given to them is a joint responsibility.

It is of some importance to note that the authority God prophesies the man will exhibit toward Eve (Ge. 3:16) , now that they have sinned, is not ordered by God. He warns the woman. He does not command the man.

pinknight..
you wrote: “I just read some comments over at the carmpodcasting blogspot about someone saying that they did not hear anything yet from Cheryl that supports women to be ‘elders/pastors.’”

where? got a link. I’d like to check it out.

I would imagine you would be “spinning” a bit after that debate. 🙂 You did fine. It was not an easy discussion.

And actually Matt did OK also considering that he has such a strong distaste for women who disagree with gender hierarchy.

wish I could help more.

Agent Starling,

In one of the other “threads” we had quite a discussion about the phrase “one woman man”. It is actually a colloquial phrase that was quite common in Pauls era. The phrase was used of both men and women and meant faithful. We have a similar phrase in English that means the same thing. When we say “he is a one woman kind of guy”, we don’t mean he has to be married but that he is faithful in relationships.

You can find more information on it in “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered” by Rev. Bruce Fleming. I believe it is also discussed in “Discovering Biblical Equality”.

copied this over for you…..

Matt seemed to get stuck on hesuchios which means quiet or peaceable. It has been my understanding that the phrase “to LEARN in quietness with all submission” was a common phrase applied to those who were students. Don’t know where he got the idea that it said she should be quiet. It says that the woman is to LEARN! in quietness. It’s a demeanor that a student needs to have while being instructed.

Matt makes a fair mistake when he tries to say that didasco in 2:12 has to be in reference to sound teaching because it was used that way in 3 other verses. Whatever the context in other verses, it cannot change the meaning of the word. The word itself does not define the kind of teaching. That must be gleaned from the context. In the case of 2:12, the context is one of false teaching. The reason the woman needs to learn is because she was ignorantly teaching false doctrine. The purpose of learning is so that one would not teach wrong doctrine, but would learn right doctrine and then be able to teach right doctrine.

He also has not researched the word he translated “exercise authority”. It is authentein, used only once in the whole of the NT and was always translated “usurp authority” until recently. Actually, research has shown that the word is even more negative then that.

Remembering that the primary point was “let a woman LEARN” in the quiet and submissive demeanor of a student, then not teaching or usurping authority are subject to the main point of Let Learn. Students need not to try to teach, but must stay attentive to learn. Students must not try to usurp the authority of their teacher, but must tend to learning. No one stays a student forever. When one has learned, then they can proceed to teach what they have learned.

Over all he was a bit loftily rude. He says on the one hand that the two of you were “just talking”. And then he lectures you on how you need to be succinct. Thus he can just sit back and critique, nit pick, and analyze the manner in which you present yourself instead of actually considering your words.

Interestingly, he was afraid to ask you why you believe what you do. Thus, he revealed an intent to pretend a willingness to talk, but really just wanted to put forth his own opinions about you. Now he talks time and time again with atheist Bob, but a Christian woman he is afraid to have a real conversation with. 🙂

I had to laugh out loud when he said you are not polite. You were extremely polite. 🙂 It is disappointing that he could not have been more respecful.

Matt makes a fair mistake when he tries to say that didasco in 2:12 has to be in reference to sound teaching because it was used that way in 3 other verses. Whatever the context in other verses, it cannot change the meaning of the word. The word itself does not define the kind of teaching. That must be gleaned from the context. In the case of 2:12, the context is one of false teaching. The reason the woman needs to learn is because she was ignorantly teaching false doctrine. The purpose of learning is so that one would not teach wrong doctrine, but would learn right doctrine and then be able to teach right doctrine.

He also has not researched the word he translated “exercise authority”. It is authentein, used only once in the whole of the NT and was always translated “usurp authority” until recently. Actually, research has shown that the word is even more negative then that.

Remembering that the primary point was “let a woman LEARN” in the quiet and submissive demeanor of a student, then not teaching or usurping authority are subject to the main point of Let Learn. Students need not to try to teach, but must stay attentive to learn. Students must not try to usurp the authority of their teacher, but must tend to learning. No one stays a student forever. When one has learned, then they can proceed to teach what they have learned.

Over all he was a bit loftily rude. He says on the one hand that the two of you were “just talking”. And then he lectures you on how you need to be succinct. Thus he can just sit back and critique, nit pick, and analyze the manner in which you present yourself instead of actually considering your words.

Interestingly, he was afraid to ask you why you believe what you do. Thus, he revealed an intent to pretend a willingness to talk, but really just wanted to put forth his own opinions about you. Now he talks time and time again with atheist Bob, but a Christian woman he is afraid to have a real conversation with. 🙂

I had to laugh out loud when he said you are not polite. You were extremely polite. 🙂 It is disappointing that he could not have been more respecful.

A thought or two about the debate. Matt seemed to get stuck on hesuchios which means quiet or peaceable. It has been my understanding that the phrase “to LEARN in quietness with all submission” was a common phrase applied to those who were students. Don’t know where he got the idea that it said she should be quiet. It says that the woman is to LEARN! in quietness. It’s a demeanor that a student needs to have while being instructed.

is the debate available for listening. Or do I have to wait til tomorrow?

ooops. lost the rest of the post…

meant to say the closest probably IS pffft!

The closest probably IS

Agreed Don. Missing the double “Bunk” does make a difference. Although, I rather like “rubbish” as The Source has it translated.

🙂

Agree also regarding translating ekklesia as “assembly” rather than church. For the same reasons I prefer “minister/servant” and “ministering/serving” for the forms of diakonos rather that the transliteration “deacon” in some places, “servant” in other places and “helper” in another place. Too much interpretive translating on some words, not enough on others. Regarding the phrase “one wife husband” I think it would be more appropriate to do an interpretive translation as The Source has it, and a big footnote about the fact of it being a colloquial phrase that doesn’t translate well into English. In fact we should have such notes on all places where there are colloquial phrases.

Don, on 1 Cor. 14:33b….. I guess it really could go either way. I see your point.

However, there is a way to check it out. Verses 34-35 have been placed in different places in some manuscripts. Epp discusses this in his book “Junia, the First Woman Apostle”, pages 14-20. It seems that some manuscripts had placed it after verse 40, and some had them in the margin. Gordon Fee also has written about his research on it, not sure if he included his findings in his 1 Cor. book or not. So, all we’d need to do is find out if they included 33b or not in the different places it was found in the manuscripts.

🙂 It’s not a point I worry on though. Sometimes I get too analytical and nit picky. LOL

Blessings. I’m really really appreciating all the input here.