pinklight

‘To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God’s blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.”’

Paula, why don’t cha just say how it is?? lol! LOL! If you wanna cut to the chase, just read Paula…

John Piper and Wayne Grudem cause serious confusion when they write on the gender topic such as 1 Tim 2 is plain they say to understand and that the plain meaning should be accepted, yet they turn around and offer a reading that is the opposite of their ‘plain’ claim. The plain reading of both Gen 3 and 1 Tim 2, are in opposition to their interpretations. I say if one wants plain, let ’em have it! lol!

Yes, in some cases, but the laugh/cry effect is quite profound in reading their works, I need to limit myself or I go into a funk.
LOL! LOL! The way you said this, Don, hilarious!

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but somehow I don’t think so.

😉

*HUGS* to everyone!!! 🙂

‘How can Christians even want such a thing?’
Doesn’t make sense. Never has never will.

Yes, an egal scenario is that there was 1 woman that Paul was referring to.  However, Paul did not use the definite article, so we cannot be sure it was ONLY 1.

But it stops at 1 (the least) because there is no way to go further from 1 (the least) and this is reason why we can be sure that we cannot make the prohibiton for the least out to be a universal law for all (women).

What are we to do in this case, since one cannot be 100% sure?  Neither scenario can be proven wrong but this means neither can be proven correct.

What can we be 100% sure of?

At the very least Paul stopped only 1 woman, and since more cannot be proven meaning that he used the singular ‘woman’ genericaly for all women therefore we are left with what only can be proven at the very least which is that Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching, and not all women. Now this we can be 100% sure of that is, this scriptural boundary that we’ve no right crossing.

It can be proven that Paul stopped at least 1 woman, but it cannot be proven that he stopped more than 1. Therefore there is no way to get from the least being 1 woman to ‘women’, that’s the impossible. So there is a scenario that can be proven correct and it’s the only one given in the passage.

Eat the context. It tastes good! 🙂 But not to all…

I’d like to see any comp from the context alone of 1 Co 11 pull out ‘authority over’ without making any additions to the text itself. This I’ve never seen. For me the safest way to go is with the context. What in the context proves that kephale in 1 Co 11, means, ‘authority over’? There is nothing. What supports a meaning like ‘source or orgin’? The context itself. The context will always provide support and the question is for me, which of the various meanings does it support?  🙂

john,

Do you see women as your spiritual equals?

I don’t understand really why you are so up in the air over Paul having stopped Judaizers from silencing women, who thought there voices were filthy while not able to prove otherwise.

The different but equal mantra doesn’t work then if all are a son. There is no male and female. 🙂 Physical differences are out when it comes to those IN Christ.

Uh oh, for Paul to say that we are all sons, blurs the gender distinctions doesn’t it? I bet CBMW type comps couldn’t have none of it! Hum…
I wonder what the comps in general have written on the subject of our inheritance as, sons.

‘Gentiles inherit all of the promises of Abraham right alongside the Jews.  Women inherit all of the promises and rights of sons alongside the men. ‘

‘All sons may teach, all sons may serve, all sons may inherit every part of the kingdom together.  And women too are those sons!’

This is great!

I see ‘sense’, ‘notion’, ‘indication’, etc, alot. I think maybe I am notcing more often these words being used when the comp view is being defend.

‘The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: ‘

Hi,

I’ve only read up to there. But already I’m thinking there’s that escape word again, ‘sense’. terrible. How vague, and unsupportable.

Obviously because comps claim that the usage of ‘woman’ in v.14, is used to refer to a singular particular woman being Eve therefore it can be said that it’s usage elsewhere in the SAME passage was also for a singular particular woman (an unnamed woman at Ephesus who was teaching false things to her husband). But the comps will pick and choose it’s usage. Does it even make sense that the grammatical singular could have a two sided usage in the passage? How absurd.

I’ve been thinking on thispassage lately, obviously, so am giving my two cent thoughts.   🙂

Do we need to be consistent? Was paul’s usage consistent? Why would it have not been?

Can Matt pick and choose when ‘a woman’ is used to mean singular particular as in v.14, it is said that ‘a woman’ refers to ‘Eve’, but then in v.11 & 12, Matt will say that Paul’s usage of the singular is generic for all women.

Was tradition consistent? Did it interpret ‘a woman’ in v.11, 12 AND 14 to mean generic for all women and this is why all women were thought to be deceived, or easily deceived? Why do some pick and choose today in the passage when the grammaticaly singular is generic and also singular, particular?

‘The question that many have is whether God gave an innate ability for males to be spiritual in a way that reflects God and women to not have the same spiritual ability to reflect God.’

The answer is, no.

God gave roles to be fit into which are not determined by spiritual ability but rather by one’s sex.

While Paul said that the husband is the head of the wife (1 Cor. 11:3) with this metaphor implying that the wife is the body of the husband, scripture also tells us that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ and the believing wife is part of that body too.’

If then what Paul says implies that the wife is the body of the husband then does not what he says also imply that Christ is the body of God and males the body of Christ? (I’ve not been able to determine for myself whether or not aner in 1 Co 11 means male or is being used generic for person)

On what was said, ‘the tree in the middle of the garden’, did God say it or the woman? Was that part a quote of God or her own words describing the forbidden tree? I don’t read Hebrew, so I cannot say either way (so I see both at this point as possible untell decided) and translations differ so they confuse.

I’m left with this question, were there 2 trees or 1 at the time, when the woman spoke, in the middle of the garden? Surely the tree of life was able to reproduce, but not the tokogae because it had no seed (life) to do so.

Anyone read Hebrew? Is there more that than meets the eye in English?

Hello Lolly,

Welcome!

This is one of my favorite topics!

What I want to share is that it IS plausible indeed that Adam added to God’s word and then told Eve a wrong command, and it is equally plausible that neither God nor Adam told her anything at all therefore she knew nothing at all about what God said, but these ‘plausiblilities’ can only be plausible outside of what we are given in the text itself that is, a perspective outside of the bible. In other words, anything is plausible, and I mean anything, from Genesis to Revelations, but if what we think and believe is bound by the text itself with all that it does and does not give, then such ‘plausibilities’ become ‘impossiblities’ biblicaly speaking. Does that make sense? It’s plausible that Adam got it wrong and told Eve, but is it biblical? No, because the bible doesn’t tell us this nor even give a slight indication or hint of it. ‘Plausible’, yes, biblicaly plausible, no.

Also I see what the woman said as more than an indication that God spoke to her that is, I see it as her very testimony of what God said, because she said, ‘God said’. And I don’t see an indication that Adam told her what God said, since she did not say, ‘Adam said, God said.’ So at the very least, with what we have in Gen 3, what she said, IS indicative that Gid did speak to them both and that God himself added to the command he had given to the man when he was alone, before the woman was created. So we have indications of who said what and to whom, but they do not include the man telling the woman what God said.

Here is just some thoughts I have for right now, that I am sharing.

Don said:
‘I think it is important to see that what the woman says God said contains an ambiguous or partial truth.  There were 2 trees in the middle of the garden.  Which one is she referring to?  If she is quoting God, which one is God referring to?
And the important question is: Would God declare a sin of commission in an ambiguous way?’
The serpent did not ask about the 1 prohibited tree. So when the woman responded to the serpent saying ‘the tree in the middle of the garden’, how did the serpent know which one she was talking about, if there were 2 in the middle? Did the serpent think she was talking about the tree of life?

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of treeS grow out of the ground—treeS that were a) pleasing to the eye and b) good for food. c) In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is c) in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was b) good for food and a) pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Wish I could read Hebrew! Is there something I cannot see because I cannot rely on translation?

In 2:9, the order is a) pleasing to the eye then b) good for food and then c) in the middle, but in Gen 3, through the woman ‘the order’ is backwards. c) in the middle, then b) good for food and then a)pleasing to the eye.  BUT thing is, the fruit of the tokogae was NOT b) good for food (see 2:9) no matter how she eventualy saw it. We know this because God gave them both while together what was good for food in Gen 1, fruit with seed. God gave them that which was good.

Which trees grew out of the ground? Ones that were a) pleasing to the eye and b) good for food. What was truley pleasing to the eye and good for food? Trees that grew out of the ground, not the fruit of the tokogae.

1. She tells the serpent they have permission to eat. ‘We may eat’
       God gives them permission to have food in Gen 1. ‘I give you (pl).’

2. She tells the serpent what they may eat. ‘We may eat fruit’
       Gen 1 talks about fruit.

3. She tells the serpent they have permission to eat, fruit, from the 
       trees (pl).
       God gave them permission in Gen 1 to have for food fruit from 
       every tree on the entire planet. This then is her ‘interpretation’,
       but not a paraphrase.

4. She tells the serpent they have permission to eat fruit from the
       trees ‘in the garden’.
       The serpent specificaly asked about prohibition in ‘the garden’,
       so the woman simply answers the sepent’s specific question of
       location.

5. The woman’s words continue to speak surrounding location being
        ‘the garden’ (since the serpent asked), by saying, ‘But of the fruit
        of the tree which is in the midst of the garden’,

6. Then the woman quotes God.
      ‘God has said, “You (pl) shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it,
      lest you die.’

The woman then tells the serpent they have permission to eat, because God told her so in Gen 1, using the knowledge she was given by God on what she could eat, since God told her he gave them fruit for food, while placing her ‘interpretation’ of ‘every tree on the planet’ into the serpent’s question of location in ‘the garden’, which becomes, ‘trees of the garden’ which she contrasts with what ‘God has said’ thereby differientiating all of that from what God said.

I see that I missed in my list, a perspective, being her interpretation of what God said to them/alone man?

But I have to wonder, how would the perfect female fit in ‘nor touch it’ into the command that God gave to the man (assuming she knew what God said, word-for-word, to the alone man even though she was not alive to hear it and assuming that’s what she was adding to)when God did not speak those words from his mouth to him or use those words at all when he spoke to him, and in light of her having actualy distinguished the difference between what they could eat (first part of what she said) from what God said, hence, ‘BUT God did say…’ (2nd part of her response)?

I can see the first part of what she said to the serpent as her conclusion on what they could eat drawn from what she did know or the knowledge she had from what God said, which would be interpretation on what they could eat, but again, this interpretation on what they could eat is differientiated by her from what ‘God said’ because she makes the differientation.

For sure, if we say that it is a fact, or speak as if it were a fact, that she added to God’s prohibition, then we ourselves would be guity of adding to God’s word/the bible, since nothing proves that she added to God’s word. That’s all I have to share for the moment. And this is one of my favorite topics, so I’m sure there will be alot more later on! 🙂

One other thing, if she was ‘mistaken’, and this ‘mistaken’ was not a matter of memory or medical brain malfunction, then it could only have been a matter of self deception. Anyone, correct me if I am wrong here, please, but I cannot see what else ‘mistaken’ could mean.

List of possible perspectives
liar
medical brain malfunction
bad memory (‘mistaken’?)
self deception
she was correct

Did I miss any perspective in the list?

I have a question for, Don.

I’ve been thinking about how you’ve said that she could have been just ‘mistaken.’ And thinking upon it, I cannot see how in any way. I’ve tried. So can you explain or help me understand how she could have been mistaken? I’m asking because I want to be able to at least see the perspective. But I cannot see it, if I don’t know how she, a perfect creature, without the bombardment of today’s noise could have been. And like how could she have forgotten all that God said about what they could not eat?

For example, I’m bombarded every day with so much information coming from a million different directions, so I could forget something when I use my memory, but how could Eve forget so little? Actualy that last question was a poor one, because, it wouldn’t be a matter of forgetting what God said, but rather a matter of remembering what ONLY he said. So how could the perfect creature, in the garden, not remember ONLY what he said?

If it’s not a matter of memory than what is it a matter of? Like when you say ‘mistaken’, what kind of ‘mistake’ do you mean?

Let’s assume for arguments sake that she was ‘in error’, well what do you mean by that or by she was not ‘errorless’? In what way was she not ‘errorless’?

Don, are you saying she may have been deceived when she responded (about what they were given permission to eat, and what God said) to the serpent? Even if you are not, because I have heard this argument before, I would like to answer to some extent at this time.

Who deceived the woman?

Did she deceive herself regarding what God said? Or did the serpent deceive her (about God’s character)?

She said the serpent (the character, who said, ‘you will not surely die…you will become like God knowing good and evil’) deceived her. If she was right when she said this to God (and we accept that she was right when she spoke to him), then she wasn’t deceived when she responded to the serpent as that would make her rather to have deceived herself. But if we were to say that she deceived herself, then we would have to say that she did not deceive herself into eating the fruit (as her response hardly counts as an action of eating) but rather that she deceived herself into believing that she/they must not touch the fruit.

If one of the arguments is that she was deceived by, the first thing that the serpent said, the serpent’s question (twist of God’s word) then we would have to see what in her full response reflects any of the twist of the serpent’s question (as it was deceptive and twisted to be sure). And I see absolutely nothing except her answering the serpent’s question using the words the serpent did (which he got from the command God gave the man) ‘in the garden’.

And we CAN see that when she goes to eat, what the serpent said the second time he spoke to her, IS reflected in how she views the fruit, so we can know that she was deceived when she goes to eat. But there is no evidence whatsoever that she was deceived when she answered the serpent’s twisted question.