pinklight

W H A CHU say? lol

Shoot, I couldn’t count on my hands how many times I’ve disagreed with you Cheryl because it would be too much. So that’s very little 🙂 I can be like a shark *grin* if I gotta problem with something, I come out *grin* lol I be like “W H A” ? LOL So in a playful mood 🙂

Huh? No way! Disagree? All the time? Sheesh

Yes, I disagree with many parts of comments that are said here, admittedly, and very little do I disagree with Cheryl’s. But when I do, it’s game lol Just playen lol

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/05/30/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl/

The first problem that Neopatriarch has with the connection to Eve is that he makes both Adam and Eve as a representative of the male and female with no proof at all that Paul is using Adam and Eve in this way.

So I ask, what proof does Neopatriarch offer that Paul is making a generic statement about all males and all females? He makes a claim through Mounce that there is a general principle being stated but he gives no data to back up such a statement. This is very poorly done and does nothing to refute my exegesis that “a woman” is a particular woman who was involved with false doctrine.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/05/30/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl/

Paul’s passage that connects verses 11-15 are one unit attached together with the conjunctions of “but” “for” “and” “but”.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/25/round-4-interview-with-the-apostle-paul/

It is impossible to remove the connection between “the woman” and the anarthrous noun in verses 11 & 12 because the entire passage is connected together with conjunctions.

Also Craig, I wasn’t saying that you were ignoring the grammar in #116 All I meant really was that the grammar cannot/shouldn’t be ignored. How much proper attention has tradition given to 1 Tim 2’s grammar? Like none. 0

Thanks Pinklight for all of your one hundred comments of disapproval of my suggestion!

;P

I appreciate your honesty and being willing to say what you think. In a way, it is kind of encouraging when people disagree. If I know people are willing to be critical of an idea when they don’t agree with it, then it makes it more meaningful when you do agree and say encouraging things. So thanks.

Thanks. I have to disagree where I disagree, can’t help it when it’s something I’m passionate about. I disagree with things said on here all the time but I won’t comment cause I don’t have the passion for the subject. I know I also comment and say more when I disagree…maybe my bad lol ;P And you are so right that it makes it more meaningful when we do agree and say encouraging things.
Was real passionate about the subject of possibilities (as I am about 1 Tim 2) cause it had come up before and it didn’t sit well with me and it had been a while since I interacted on the subject and so now I thought I’d jump in 🙂

Does this make any sense, or is this not possible from the grammar as well? Thanks.

It did make sense, perfect sense, but the grammar was the stopper. Little detail – “but…”

Craig,

4 I know both egals and comps who can see the force of Cheryl’s argument from v15, and yet they still have difficulty accepting that v11,12 are speaking of particular individuals. This makes me wonder “are there any other ways of understanding v11-15, where Paul could be expressing a principle in v11,12 while still making sense of the “she” and “they” of v15.

The thing here is that the very thing that is difficult to accept which is Paul speaking of particular individuals is then or would be accepted through v15.

Pinklight, I understand that you are very hesitant about constructing possible scenarios to explain the meaning of bible passages, but don’t we use background information learned from outside the bible to understand difficult passages quite frequently?

Yes, but constructing possible scenarios that we’ve no idea actually exist is different from using historical context that does exist as a help to view a passage.

Anyway, suppose Timothy had asked Paul about a particular woman and a particular man. Could Paul have answered this by first stating the principles that would apply to the specific situation in v11,12 (while Paul and Timothy would know exactly who these principles would be relevant to), and then in v15 spoken of them as “she” (the woman) and “they” (the woman and the man/her husband). This is very similar to Cheryl’s view, but just with a slight twist in v11,12 for those who can’t see the Greek as directly referring to a particular woman and man. Does this make any sense, or is this not possible from the grammar as well? Thanks.

The principle includes vv 13 &14, lack of knowledge and deception. The principle here is that the deceived must learn and not teach (and usurp, dominate) because what they teach is false. Is it possible then that Paul wrote the said principle and not about a particular woman and man in those verses to then in v15 actually write about two real people? It’s not possible because v15 begins with the conjunction “but” which connects it to the previous verses. Grammatically it’s not possible.

Craig,

3 I know both egals and comps who can see the force of Cheryl’s argument from v15, but find it difficult to see how v11-15 then fits in with the context eg Kristen.

I can understand this somewhat.

My last attempt @#102 was an attempt to see v11-15 as dealing with the same subject as the whole of chapter 2 and find some possible explanation for why Paul could have referred to the parties involved as “she” and “they” in v15, and “a woman” and “a man” in v12.

I see. But what would that subject be?

From the responses I have got it seems like I am barking up the wrong tree and just showing my ignorance of grammar -it never has been a strong point of mine.

I don’t think it’s a matter of ignorance of grammar. The grammar is the details, the fine points of the over all picture/painting that cannot be IGNORED (the problem) which is what makes it just as important as the entire context (chp 2). The main problem I saw was looking for possibilities outside of what we do know, which is what the text provides.

I asked “Does that make any sense at all as a possibility to anyone else besides me???”
I have one hundred No’s from Pinklight and zero Yes’s so far. Doesn’t look very promising!

One hundred No’s lol 🙂 NO! ;P lol

I’ve said my peace on possibilities. Thanks for letting me comment one hundred times 🙂

All the possibilities that we could come up with, ever notice, are NOT biblical?

Possibilities? We need to know where the line is drawn. Where can we see the line drawn? That is the question. 🙂

Leave the lines alone! Don’t erase! lol ;P

To me is doesn’t make much sense to focus on what is outside the box, because we don’t kow what is outside the box. So when people talk possibilities, though interesting (because I LOVE the idea of possibilities) I wonder why? Why can we not stay within the boundaries that scripture itself places? What is written is where the lines are drawn. Scripture itself gives the boundaries. But we try and draw lines outside of the lines already drawn. For me, by looking outside of what is written which is what we do know is like like looking at the scriptures as if they were written in pencil, and taking an eraser and erasing what is written. That’s kinda how I view the idea of thinking of possibilities outside the box (scripture).

So the “she” and the “they” refers back to the letter of Timothy rather that v12.

This is interesting. Is it possible from outside the passage? I think the question is rather, what’s possible from within the box (the text). Is it possible from within the box of what is written that Paul had in mind an individual woman and men? Based on what is inside the box itself, I cannot see how it is possible.

If Tim wrote about a woman and several men, then “she” would be the woman and “they” could be the men.
Does that make any sense at all as a possibility to anyone else besides me???

Also if we were to take this idea of Timothy having written to Paul about a woman and several men as a possibility then v15 is entirley without a context – information we’ve no idea about and in that case v15 would be floating in space and taken from it’s home which is vv11-14 at the very least.

If Tim wrote about a woman and several men, then “she” would be the woman and “they” could be the men.
Does that make any sense at all as a possibility to anyone else besides me???

Craig,
On possibilities, here’s how I kinda look at that. Anything outside of what IS written (the box) is possible since I don’t know what was happening outside of what is written. I cannot determine then what is outside the box and therefore cannot make conclusions based on what is outside the box. So I have to stay with the text and from the text make my conclusions which is within reason rather than making conclusions based on possibilities that I have no idea about, which isn’t reasonable to me. Does that make sense? That’s how I kinda look at it. The point is to determine what is in the text anyway and not what is outside of it.
Then the thought of an individual woman “she” and men “they” brings me right back to the question, why did Paul use “a woman” and “a man”? To be consistant both would either have to refer to individuals, a woman and a man, or groups of women and men. I think consistency is better than inconsistency. So if Timothy wrote about a woman and several men how come Paul wrote back then about “a woman” and “a man” rather than “a woman” and “men”?

Paul meant to say that Eve is rep of women but he just didn’t quite get it across. That’s laughable.

It’s a silly idea really that Eve is the rep of women as dervied from an interpretation of “she” in v15. Such a thing would be a serious teaching, and not something written so unclearly.

A person cannot give 1 Timothy 2:15 as proof that Eve represents all women by interpreting the “she” as Eve.

As it is made clear that Adam represented mankind, one would think that such a representation for half the race would be made clear also. I mean, if Eve truly did represent all women wouldn’t we have to know about it? In other words, wouldn’t God have made it very clear through Paul? And since it surley is not clear since “she” must be interpreted to mean “Eve” then how could any woman really know? We know that Adam represnted all mankind, so how come we don’t kow anything similar about Eve? Why would women be left out on a clear teaching on Eve being their rep? Did Paul not care enough to make such a thing clear as he did on Adam?

and I have to make Paul a nonsensical idiot who is deliberating deceiving and tricking everyone when he uses singular and plural in verse 15 to mean the same thing.

I can’t imagine him writing this letter and coming to this point in it and use “she” and “they” in the same sentence to mean the same thing. Definately nonsensical. Who in their right mind, would write like that??

Well, almost perfect… lol

Paul seems to me to be trying to make a point, and he could have made the same point by using the stomach, or knee or some other part of the body rather than the head. He is not making a special point just about the head.

Craig, that’s a Great way to put it! 🙂

…Is the head not a member and therefore not given a gift as the rest of the members of the body?

Thanks so far for your reply, Frank. I agree with your #1, but I don’t agree with all of what you said in #2. What it is that I don’t agree with is the implication of the text that you see. I think Paul is using “head” in 1 Co 12, as simply another member of the body like all the others because it reads that the “eye”, “ear” and “head” are all members and if all are members than in this analogy the head wouldn’t be “source of life” as meant in 1 Co 11. I don’t think Christ is a “member” like we are either. And when I read, “And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” I wonder? Would that be something Paul would even imply that Christ would say? I don’t see how. And then since each member has a gift, and Christ gives the gifts (Eph 4), well he doesn’t need to gift himself? Is the head not a member and therefore not given a gift as the rest of the body?

Frank, are you saying that the husband or man in 1 Co 12 is only, as a member of Christ’s Body, the head?

To better phrase my question…Are you saying that only males can serve as “the head”, a member of Christ’s Body?

Now it seems to me that a clear implication of 12:21 is that the relatioship between the head, eye and hand is that while both eye and hand respond to the Head’s desire to carry out some action, though each has a separate function, yet the relationship between the eye and hand is one of cooperation and interdependency. The eye guides and aids the hand in doing the work the Head desires, but only the Head has the right to tell the hand to begin or to stop. The place of the eye is never to usurp the rule of the Head, but only to guide and aid the hand. And an eye that cannot or will not properly relate to the Head and hand is a diseased eye. Something to think about.

These are my questions, Frank. In this analogy that Paul provides, in 1 Co 12, who acts as the head, as a particular member of Christ’s body? As far as I can tell, all the members collectively are Christ’s Body therefore the head isn’t refering to Christ. Frank, are you saying that the husband or man in 1 Co 12 is only, as a member of Christ’s Body, the head? If so, I don’t see Paul dividing up the members according to male and female sex.

I just love this place 🙂

You DON’T ignore the words of Jesus in order to follow the words of Paul.

Mara, great point. If the comp position wasn’t guilty of this very thing, it wouldn’t even exist.