She brings out some very interesting points in the previous context and I like her approach. However, item 14 about gune and aner is contradicted by one of the hot passages in this debate, 1 Corinthians 11:3. In the NASB, it is translated man and woman.

In the careful handlings of this 1 Tim passage, most commentators point out that gune can be either wife or woman. They rule out the wife option since the address of this entire passage seems to be on a gender basis and not a relational basis. Ben Witherington has just published a new commentary on the Pastorals and does a very fine job in explaining the text and showing that the most plausible answer points to a temporary ban on teaching until a time of instruction has passed.

I also think she is straining the singular a bit, but maybe not since both sides give extensive discussion to the singular in verse 15.

All in all, it is a fresh take and even in the areas of disagreement with her, I have received insight and new perspectives on this troublesome passage that helps my understand the text and argument more clearly.

Rusty Bullerman

Thank you Rusty for your comments! Two things I would like to comment back on. In 1 Cor. 11:3 although the NASB says the man is the head of the woman, the understanding in commentaries is always that it is speaking of husband and wife. I am sure you would agree that no other man is the head of your wife and you personally are not the head of every woman you see. Yes once again husband and wife are the context of aner and gune when it is talking about the two in relationship.

Secondly about the singular “she” in verse 15, if we are going to be true to God’s word, we must pay attention to his inspired words and his inspired grammar. I really like the NASB, but their rendering of 1 Timothy 2:15 as “women will be preserved…if they” completely hides the Greek “she” and “they” in this passage. If other versions had not been faithful to the Greek change from singular to plural here, I may not have come to understand this passage as clearly as I have. To complementarians, I ask, please show me who the “she” is and who are the “they” that verse 15 refers to? I believe my exegesis not only explains clearly who “she” and “they” are but keeps the meaning in the complete context of the passage regarding deceived teachers and false doctrine.

I believe that it is completely out of context to interpret verse 12 as Paul stopping godly women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. With that interpretation we then have Paul questioning the salvation of women in general. The salvation of women in general is never questioned in scripture.

Great, simply great exegesis 🙂

I was wondering if I can translate your blog post to Danish and pass it around to anyone I know?

Hi Martin,

You have my blessing to post my blog in Danish. Go for it!

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your comments. You asked why the biblical references are automatically linked to ESV. My son graciously gave me space on his site for my blog and he said he had found an add-on to automatically link to the bible. I asked him to remove the add-on. I am not really up on all these blog technical things.

It certainly is helpful when Bibles render the passages that refer to men and women in a way that we can understand. 1 Tim. 1:3 is generic to show that the false teachers can be men, women or both. Your point is well taken that 2 Tim. 2:2 “the faithful ones who are able to teach“ is also a gender generic passage.

I disagree with your point that the “certain people” from verses 3 and 6 are the same group as those of verse 19. Here is why I believe they are two separate groups of people.

1. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are apparently false teachers who are in the congregation whereas the deceivers of verses 19 and 20 had already left the faith or were already removed from the congregation due to the seriousness of their teaching (saying that the resurrection had already happened).

2. The group of people in verses 3 and 6 are teaching myths, endless genealogies and speculations. They are not teaching outright heresy as are the two mentioned in verse 20. The fact that the teachings of the first group are also serious matters that could lead them away from God is certain because instead of following the faith some have “turned aside to fruitless discussion” Paul wants them to be instructed in the truth and stay away from the speculations.

3. The two deceivers mentioned in verse 20 are a part of the group mentioned in verse 19 which are again generic “some” showing that this group also could be men and women. However this group had rejected the faith: “which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” Since they have rejected the faith, they were no longer in the congregation.

4. Paul does not advocate teaching to this second group of people who are deliberate deceivers. The fact that Paul says Hymenaeus and Alexander should be taught does not mean taught by the church. Paul handed them over to Satan so that Satan will be used to teach them not to blaspheme. “Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” This is certainly nothing like the teaching that the church gives, but is more like being “raked over the coals” by the enemy so that their suffering may convince them to stop their deception and their error. Paul does not say that he has handed them over to the church to be taught. No, he says he handed them over to Satan to be taught. Again, I repeat that Paul wants the deceived ones to be taught and the deliberate deceivers he shuns them until they have learned how to stop their blasphemous ways. The deceivers are not to be tolerated in the church. Their learning is outside the church and once they stop their deception, they are welcome back.

Peter, you also said “I don’t understand point 16.” The main reference to point 16 is found in the Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book edited by Robert D. Bergen and published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics copyright 1994. Here the grammar from Genesis 2:8, 19 is analyzed and shown as the individual verbs in 2:8 and 2:19 are intended sequentially within that account. Their point is that the creating of the garden and the creation of the animals in chapter 2 is intended as a further act of creation after Adam was created. This is clearly shown in the Apostle’s bible link that I gave. The full quotes to the Discourse Linguistics book are given in our DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?”

Thank you for saying that the exegesis makes sense. At this point I believe that my exegesis makes the best sense because one must have a valid explanation for who is the “she” and who are the “they” of verse 15 to make sense of the entire passage. So far I have not read nor have I heard anyone give any viable other option to the “she” and “they” of verse 15. We cannot just ignore the grammar and the words to make sense of the passage. I have taken great pains not to ignore either.

Thank you, Cheryl. You may well be right about the two groups of false teachers. Certainly the ones in verses 3 and 6 had not gone as far as Hymenaeus and Alexander had, and so had not been put out of the congregation. But they were potential teachers. I suppose the point is that they had not yet become like H&A, but were perhaps heading in that direction and were to be stopped before the situation went so far. But surely heterodidaskein in verse 3 means something like “to teach false doctrine”, and the present infinitive here implies that they were not stop doing it, not just not to start. In verse 19, however, the group seems to have rejected conscience rather than faith, and Paul’s action in delivering two of them to Satan suggests that they had not voluntarily left the church. But I agree with you on the basic point that “Paul wants the deceived ones to be taught and the deliberate deceivers he shuns them until they have learned how to stop their blasphemous ways.”

Thanks also for the Bergen reference. This book happens to be on my bookshelf. But I will make that a separate comment simply because I must now take a break and don’t want to leave unsaved material.

Hey Peter,

You said “In verse 19, however, the group seems to have rejected conscience rather than faith, and Paul’s action in delivering two of them to Satan suggests that they had not voluntarily left the church.”

How about we both agree? My understanding of verse 19 says that they rejected *both* their faith and their conscience. I also agree that although some left the congregation on their own accord, (1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” In this verse it does seem that some left on their own accord) there were definitely those who had to be given the “boot”. I fully agree with you on that point.

I consider it a privilege to be able to dialogue with someone who has the knowledge in Hebrew to own the Robert Bergen reference book. Most of the book is way over my head, but I feel it important enough to see the primary documents for myself so I purchased the book to check out the facts. This book really helped me to see Paul’s point in taking us back to the Genesis account in order to understand why Adam was not deceived and why Eve was.

Well, I didn’t say I could understand the Bergen book, only that I have it! But I have worked on a translation of the Hebrew Bible, as well as the Greek NT, and so I do know a little Hebrew.

I now understand the issue you had with Genesis 2:8,19. In Bergen’s book Randall Buth rightly argues that NIV’s use of pluperfect tenses in these verses (“had planted… had formed” – apparently an attempt to harmonise these verses with chapter 1) is without linguistic justification. Buth writes: “What is happening here is that the creation story is purposely told from two different perspectives in chapter 1 and chapter 2”. This is equally clear in the Hebrew and the LXX Greek text, but may have been clarified in the Apostle’s Bible translation of LXX which you mentioned. So, yes, in chapter 2 there do seem to be acts of creation after the formation of the man, but before the formation of the woman who in fact seems to be the last to be created, the final crown of creation. So Adam would have witnessed this further creation and so been better educated than Eve. I still don’t see the relevance of this to the situation in 1 Timothy 2, but then maybe I need to get the DVD.

Yup, you will need to get the DVD 🙂 It’s multi-media with high quality pictures and I think that helps to get the idea across succinctly. Well it’s me teaching so I am kind of biased, but I think you will like it. I will give you an idea of what you will see in it. If one sees with their very own eyes the Creator creating animals from the dirt and you know that you yourself were created by the Creator from the dirt, would you be convinced that you could be like Him? Or would you understand that there is a vast difference between creation and the Creator? Now how about if you didn’t have the opportunity to see this with your own eyes? Would it be easier to deceive you? Could you perhaps be convinced that you were only a bite of fruit away from being just like God? Is sound doctrine (about the difference between God and his creation) something that will keep us safe from deception and did Adam have special hands on training in sound doctrine in regards to who God is? I think we can safely say YES!

If we follow Paul’s lead back to Genesis, we can see how sound doctrine can keep us all safe from being deceived. It is also sound doctrine that will straighten out the deception and the deceived teachers.

So Paul’s point was that the first one created was not deceived (he had sound doctrine concerning the difference between God and creation). The second one created was deceived (she did not have the opportunity to see the difference between God and creation). The woman in verse 12 is deceived and teaching error. She needs to stop teaching and learn sound doctrine so that she too will not be deceived. Does that make sense?

Thanks. Yes, this is starting to make sense. But I must get on with my Bible translation work – which today happens to be a check of 1 Timothy, so what I have learned from this thread may help me.

Blessings to you Peter!

A very interesting reading. I’m not sure that I am entirely convinced, but then, when dealing with an epistle in which references are made to very specific situations of which we know next to nothing, your reconstruction of the situation does make sense.

I had always felt that in this passage, the specific prohibition was against a wife ‘talking over’ or contradicting her husband in public (during worship?). But, recognising that I do not know what, in particular, Paul was addressing – and it cannot be a general prohibition for Paul respects/values various women as fellow apostles, co-workers and so on.

Hi Sam,

The interpretation that Paul is prohibiting a wife from “talking over†or contradicting her husband in public is an interesting one. However the problem you would have with this interpretation is three-fold.

1. It gives no explanation for the connection that Paul gives for the reason for the prohibition and that is the deception and falling into sin of the first woman. How is contradicting one’s husband in public connected to the deception of Eve and her falling into sin?

2. The restriction in verse 12 is “teaching” and “authenteo” not “talking over” or contradicting. I think you would have a difficult time connecting a public contradicting of one’s husband with the word “authenteo”. Titus 1:9 gives the Greek word #483 which is the normal word that means to speak against or to contradict. Since Paul had at his disposal the regular word that would describe the action of contradicting or “talking over” her husband, it would seem extremely odd to describe the prohibition of contradicting with the extremely rare word of “authenteo.”

3. In verse 15, the salvation of “a woman” is questioned. In what way would contradicting one’s husband result in having one’s salvation questioned?

I think my interpretation of Paul restricting a particular deceived woman from teaching or influencing her husband fits the context, fits the connection to deception in chapter one and in verse 14, and gives a very understandable answer to why the salvation of “a woman” is questioned in verse 15.

Cheryl, (or Peter if you are still checking in, my Dad is a scientist and I have been around scientists all my life who fully embrace the authority of scripture. Some I know have studied theology along with their science. To a person, they see no conflict between the earth being billions of years old and animal life originating 100s of millions of years ago. I have never heard this claim before that this passage must mean that animals were created after Adam.

I would appreciate more on the idea that animals were formed after Adam and before Eve. IMO, if so, then the creation story is not a historical account but rather a nonhistorical construction to illustrate theological truths, much like the discussion at Jesus Creed awhile back. In your estimation, does the language necessitate such a reading or is it merely a possible reading?

Cheryl, getting back to my earlier comment and your response, I am no sort of scholar and really hesitate to expose my ignorance on questions like this. It has also been quite some time since I studied that passage and coming to the tentative conclusion that I had earlier stated. I remember now, when again looking up the words that what struck me at that time was the relationship of authenteo to autodikeo. I think that that’s largely why I thought of the ‘talking over’ explanation.

I believe that the Adam and Eve parallel that Paul draws on has perhaps to do with the very specific use of the word didaskein in the context of the passing on of gospel tradition as opposed to general teaching. I think that the reason why the man is given this charge in this instance has perhaps more to do with a possible rabbinic studentship background for the particular persons (necessarily male) who were entrusted to carry or be the repository for Jesus’s ‘words of life’ i.e. the gospel (following Gerhardson). I don’t however feel that this is a sufficient explanation for Paul’s use of such a strong, creational, analogy. Perhaps the woman in question had defied Timothy’s attempts to request silence when the gospel was being taught… I don’t know.

Your explanation makes more sense from the whole letter rather than from just these couple of verses but whether it all connects up would be my main doubt.

Hi Cheryl,

In Norman Geisler’s “When Critics Ask†writes (p. 35):

Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus of Chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:

Gen 1 vs Gen2

Chronological order vs Topical order
Outline vs Details
Creating animals vs naming animals

Douglas Jacoby in “Genesis, Science and History†writing about the alleged contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2, p. 102.

* To begin with, the focus of Genesis is man, not the creation. Genesis 1 gives us a panorama, then chapter 2 zooms in on man and his relationship with God. The focus will narrow further as Genesis moves from Abraham to his descendants through Isaac and to Isaac’s descendants through Jacob.

* Chapter 2 seems to have the animals being created after man, rather than before him, as in the sixth “day†of creation in chapter 1. Perhaps 2:19, which in the NIV is translated “had formed,†solves the apparent problem. Most versions translate the verb “formed,†reversing the time sequence. In Hebrew the distinction between perfect and pluperfect must be determined by context, since there exists no separate form for the pluperfect (past perfect).

* On the other hand, we are probably imposing our chronology on the text. The two accounts should be read as complementary, rather than as intersecting.

* To sum up, Genesis 1 shows man’s special place in the creation, while Genesis 2 shows man’s special relationship with God. No contradiction.

Looking at Jacoby’s second bullet, whether it perfect or pluperfect depends on context. It is not self evident from the text. Where should we look? To Genesis 1 where the animals were created before man.

As to Ross, I find him exceedingly persuading. The fact that an ancient pre-scientific and pre-literate people could come up with a creation sequence that matches everything we know about the formation of the earth from science (allowing for non 24 hour days) is absolutely startling! As to genealogies, the Hebrew scholars I have talked with, to a person, do not consider these to be a complete catalog of the generations. There purpose was to lift key individuals out of the lineage to say something about origin of the descendant. Genealogies covering the same lines seem to conflict with each other yet the often list a symbolic number of people from beginning to end.

Furthermore, because scientists have made revisions to their estimates speaks to imprecision not inaccuracy. I find no problem at all with humanity being 50,000 to 100,000 years old. I see nothing in Scripture that precludes this. However, this does provide a difficult riddle for the strict evolutionist since Neanderthal is the only potential hominid ancestor known to have survived to overlap with existence of modern humans and he has been eliminated and as genetic predecessor.

That the DNA suggests one date for the first man and an earlier date for the first woman is another puzzle the Bible might have the answer for. Everyone living is a descendant of Noah so all male genes trace to him. However, Noah’s sons each had wives, which means our common female ancestor is Eve through these three women. The diversity of the DNA trail for woman points to evidence for the Biblical Noah story.

I’ve gone too long, so I’ll leave it there for now.

I forgot to add.

“Michael, I am so glad that we can discuss these things in a spirit of Christian love and these things don’t separate us as a brother and sister in Christ.”

Amen! Keep up the good fight (for the truth that is, not with me. 🙂 !

Hi Cheryl, just a couple general comments.

Hi Paula,

You said: “Since non-YECs agree that science keeps changing its mind on what the facts are, science is therefore unreliable. The fact is that true science is not the issue at all, but interpretations of them based upon one’s worldview and philosophy.â€

That is the general idea that I get too from reading the material. When I have read Ross’ writings, I see that from his testimony he was looking for a religion that matched up with his worldview of an old earth. I find that when people come to the bible with a preconceived idea, they either find contradictions in the bible (because it contradicts their preconceived ideas) or they have to shoehorn the bible to fit into their worldview. That’s the part that I have a problem with. If we let the bible speak for itself instead of “fudging†to make the bible connect with our worldview, we usually have to change our worldview. The bible is just not going to be forced to fit someone’s idea. I am glad that you agree that scripture comes first.

I had a look at the chart you drew. It is interesting and some of the same things I found you show as well. You are one day off though. There are a couple of things that you missed. I will email you later with my findings and we can compare. It might take me a day or so to get things together to share with you. The biggest thing is that Jesus’ resurrection happened very shortly before he spoke to Mary at the tomb because he said that he had not yet ascended to the Father. If he had resurrected in the evening before that Sunday morning, he would have had plenty of time to ascend to the Father. Anyway, I’ll email and give you the whole scoop.

I appreciated your comments!

1

Cheryl, your last comment was four pages single spaced when I copied into a word document. This post and the comments we are all making here may be your first book! 🙂 I am going to address several issues you raised but I am going to break them in to multiple posts. But first I want to lay some cards out on the table.

CBMW is fearful that if they let open the possibility that women are not subordinate then they will have opened the door to Scripture being discredited….

Michael,

I am going to start another post on my blog to deal specifically with the issues that you have brought up regarding Genesis. I will move your comments over to that discussion so that we can keep the issue of the age of the earth separate from the 1 Timothy 2 passage comments. Hopefully that will make it easier to read.

Oops your blog doesn’t read Greek fonts. “????” in the second paragraph is “gune”.

Consider the Greek of 1 Tim. 2:13-14–

For first Adam was formed and Eve after, and Adam was not seduced. Yet woman being seduced in transgression HAS BECOME.

It’s all about deception or seduction; there is nothing about authority. And as you should know, the Greek word authentein is hotly debated because of its rarity, and there are much clearer words for authority that Paul did not use here.

Note also that the tense of “has become” shows continuing action in the present, meaning the woman Paul refers to is not Eve but a woman living at the time, since whoever she is she is STILL in a state of error as of his writing.

Also note that when authorities disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to them. You only quoted those that agree with your interpretation regarding whether “a woman” can be understood generically in this passage. And when such a switch is made in the middle of a sentence, such a view stretches credulity, no matter who it is that’s doing the stretching.

“Chris aka slick”
I would like a second witness. Please produce a biblical example where a generic singular is also in the same sentence changed to plural. This is improper grammar and I challenge you to find another example of this in the scripture. It isn’t there. If you don’t agree, it should take nothing to prove me wrong 😉

Paula : “It’s all about deception or seduction; there is nothing about authority.”

Is this another negative you don’t have to prove? Apparently, you get to make all kinds of dogmatic assertions this way without ever having to produce a single piece of evidence to support them.

Paula: “Also note that when authorities disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to them.”

This is false. It’s not like competing authorities simply cancel each other out. Please. Besides, I’m kind of looking for the authorities Cheryl is using to support her arguments, especially on the specific points I’ve mentioned.

Now you’re really falling apart, “Chris”. I quoted scripture and even bolded the “deception” words. Talk about reading comprehension problems! How do you weasel out of what is plainly written there? The letter’s stated purpose is about deception and the verses you are focusing are have deception stated explicitly. What on earth do you thing the topic is, and what on earth do you call evidence, if not that?

“Also note that when authorities disagree, it is fallacious to appeal to them. You only quoted those that agree with your interpretation regarding whether “a woman” can be understood generically in this passage. And when such a switch is made in the middle of a sentence, such a view stretches credulity, no matter who it is that’s doing the stretching.”

I agree, Paula. I was waiting for quotes from Grudem to make their appearance. The problem is that these ‘guys’ are not well read because they are only presented with one side and not any of the hard questions asked of their favorite ‘scholars’ who write papers and put them on sites that allow no comments. They just ignore other scholars who bring out hard questions. I completely shut down when Calvin is quoted. After all, he was so brilliant a theologian, he was in a ‘state church’ baptizing babies. Wonder where he saw that in scripture? And lets not forget Grudem’s book that teaches that God is subordinate to us when He ‘ezer’ us in an attempt to affirm that ezer means subordinate. That is how far they are willing to go to hang on to their fleshly desires of power and control over others.

Is “chris’ serious that he/she wants you to prove what is not there? Why doesn’t he just show us the OT scriptures that say women cannot teach men? It would save us all a lot of time. But that is not the point, is it?

Cheryl, I recommend you move this discussion to the latest thread. for some reason, chris wants it buried. I can guess why but I think this needs to be more widely read. After all, it WAS on topic of your latest post: What Paul was teaching.

‘Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.’

Chris,

There is no way for the patri/comp to prove that Paul stopped more than one woman, so it doesn’t matter what their argument is since that’s the bottom line. What can only be proven from the passage in regards to who Paul stopped from teaching, is that he stopped one woman since one is the smallest number. That’s the big ‘duh’. But then, funny thing is, that the patri/comp does actualy want to claim that Paul used ‘a woman’ specificaly but only in v14 (as a reference to ‘Eve’)! But when they interpret vv 11 & 12, they want to claim that Paul uses the same singular genericaly, though they cannot prove it. So they want thier cake and to eat it too. They believe then that Paul uses the singular to refer to a specific woman but only when it suits their interpretive purposes. Simply, Paul uses the singular ‘a woman’ 3 times throughout the passage to refer to the same woman.

Great blog! I enjoy the reading! Here in Italy there’s nothing on the internet written in Italian to explain and justify the Women in Ministry.
Thank you!

Ylenia,
Welcome to my blog! Wish I knew Italian, but hopefully our site is still valuable to you.

Nice blog, and great article.

I had never thought of it like that…. I had thought of the “nagging wife” thing back when I saw the various meanings for the Greek. But this is something to muse over.

Thing is… The switch from women in general to speaking of one woman and her husband is kind of strange… If it followed at the end of chapter 1, it might make more clear sense as you translate it. But it follows Paul asking women to dress modestly and with propriety. However, the patriarchal method is confusing lunacy.

1. What does other women teaching and having authority over men have to do with the fact that the first man wasn’t deceived, while the first woman was? That’s like saying just because some of my female friends or, even better, my mother isn’t as knowledgeable about the Bible, that means that I must, therefore, not know much about the Bible. That’s stupid and proves nothing. What about when God came and told Rebekah that the babies in her womb were two nations and that the older would serve the younger? Jacob still insisted on trying to bless Esau in rebellion of God’s wishes.
   What about Esther knowing more than her husband?
   What about Deborah being ruler over her husband and other men?
   What about the Shunamite woman taking charge of her son’s death and other property matters?
   What about Pontius Pilate’s wife asking him to not do this to Jesus?
   There are lots of places where the wife got Godly council over their husbands; and they presented this council to their husbands. That line of thinking is just stupid.

2. Second, my NIV translation makes it seem like only women fell into sin: “14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” We all know that Adam also became a sinner. Paul himself has said so many times. It makes me question my Bible’s translation.

3. If Adam wasn’t deceived, yet he still at the fruit, what does that say about him? He knowingly walked into this. So, if women are always going to have to go to their men for correct instruction because we are always going to be deceived, I guess that means that men are always going to know what the Scriptures say but will still knowingly commit sin and not bother to give correct instruction, anyway.
   Adam is kind of like a false prophet who knows what he is saying is wrong, while Eve is kind of like a false prophet who has been deceived into thinking this is the correct doctrine. Who is the worse one here? I don’t see how that makes him better able to give correct instruction when he is unwilling to do so.

4. What do they mean that women will be saved through childbearing? That makes no sense. We are saved by grace alone, period.

Anyway, I don’t know enough Hebrew to be an authority or anything. I just know that the patriarchal usage of this is contradictory to the rest of Scripture and just plain strange.

My original thought is that it would be basically translated as (Forgive me if I don’t perfectly remember the other translations of the various Greek words….. It’s been a while….) Think of women as having not gotten the Scriptural training men have gotten up to this point since it was not a priority in these cultures for women to learn things other than just obey:

11 A woman should learn with quiet grace and great humbleness. 12 I don’t want a woman to be lecturing men with false authority; she must be humble. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived (i.e. had more knowledge by being born before her); it was the woman who was deceived (did not have knowledge) and became a sinner because of her lack of knowledge. But she will be saved through childbearing (as in reference to “the woman’s seed striking the head of the snake”?) — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It’s what I’ve been thinking of…; but yours is interesting…. What do you think? (Sorry if I’m not totally clear…..)

…..Oops….. It’s Isaac there instead of *Jacob…. -_-;
My mistake…

By the way, one proof that the animals of the Garden of Eden were created after Adam is the fact that it doesn’t mention fish and some other animals like reptiles and amphibians being created.

Genesis 2:19-20:
[quote]19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought {them} to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.[/quote]

See what I mean? But Genesis 1:20-25 says:

[quote]20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.[/quote]

In Genesis 1, God creates not only the birds of the air and the beasts of the field that were the only animal creations in Genesis 2, but also swarms of living creatures teeming the waters, great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, and creeping things.
Where is that in the second chapter? No mention of it. Why? Probably because he created a second set of animals to dwell with Adam and Eve in the garden. (This would, however, negate your theory that God created the female counter parts in the second chapter, as there are definitely female fish and reptiles and insects etc.)

Also, the reason why it is believed that Christ died on a Friday is because verses like John 19:31 stated that the Sabbath was the next day. The reason why it says that he rose on the third day is because he died on Friday, day one, and rose on Sunday, day three.
That’s why. I’ve heard that Jews consider any part of the day to still be that day.

Oooo…. One more thing…. It is a little harder to tell with accuracy how old the earth is based on the genealogies because we don’t know how long a year is since things have changed over there years, recently from Julian to Gregorian calendars. Also, there are small discrepancies such as the fact that I heard that the year of Christ’s birth was misplaced by 4 years. And there is the fact that we don’t have totally complete genealogies up to Christ since Matthew and Luke did skip a bit….and didn’t give ages for some of the parents and children like in Genesis…

My thoughts on it…

Hi guy’s. I would pity Timothy in his interpretation of this letter.
It all seems pretty straight forward. Why do we have to make something so simple so complicated. I have read this passage over many times and the message Paul was trying to convey was as it is written. This portion of scripture shows why so many have to explain
away something that is so simple.
bless ya
1 Corinthians 1:25
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Steve,
Many say that Paul’s meaning is “clear” and “simple”. The problem with this is that those who say that Paul’s wisdom is “clear” and “simple” may be of the ones who distort Paul’s words in their context.

The apostle Peter said:

2 Peter 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

If we do not want to be of those who distort the words of Paul then we need to make sure that our interpretation fits with the entire context. Those who cannot answer the hard questions that come from the entire passage including the extremely hard saying of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:15 need to rethink if the passage is really as “clear” and “simple” as they claim.

I also challenge my brothers in Christ who believe that I am wrong to show me where I am wrong. It is one thing to say that the passage is “clear” and my interpretation is wrong, but if they cannot show the holes in my argument, then they have failed in their oversight.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Steve,

I’m unclear about your meaning. What do you believe the clear meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is?

We have gone through this exercise before but it bears repeating. Even if we read a passage over and over we are influenced by the bias of the translation (assuming we are reading the same or only a few translations). So, just to get a flavor of how different this passage can read if we consider many sources, here is a paraphrase that matches, I think perfectly, with Cheryl’s analysis. Each verse, or portion of a verse, has been taken from a different translation. I have underlined words and phrases that are significant to the discussion.

11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection (KJV, Douay-Rheims)
12. and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule over a husband, but to be in quietness (Young’s)
13. For it was Adam who was first created, then Eve (NASB)
14. And, Adam, was not deceived, whereas, the woman, having been wholly deceived, hath come to be, in transgression; (Rotherham)
    15a. But she shall be saved (ASV)
    15b. through the birth of the child (GodsWord)
    15c. if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and growing holiness, with habitual self-restraint. (Weymouth NT)

Notice when it is rendered this way, it seems absolutely “clear” that a single husband and wife are in view. The beauty of this paraphrase, and the strength of Cheryl’s argument, is that it most closely matches the actual Greek grammer of the passage.

…and the underlining didn’t work, but the significant words and phrases should be clear.

Cool blog.
I have been thinking on this scripture for some time. I never hear who believe that women can preach preach on this scripture. They simply stop before they get to it or skip over it. It’s good. You seem sincere in your search from the blog. Most are just trying win arguments rather than seek truth. May the Lord bless you with that truth. I want it too.

Funny thing is I started out listening to Joyce Meyer back in 98. I hear some women today preaching better than men. So why would God tell all of these intelligent women to keep silent (regarding preaching)? Why is there such a fight by women to be preachers? Is the pulpit the final frontier of feminism? Is it a Gideon type of deal where the men were not up to par so the woman took the initiative? When did the God who changes not change? If he can change on this issue what else of the Apostles foundation is obsolete? Who decides?

I have been using Spiros Zhodiates for the greek and hebrew words. I do not like commentaries much because you can find a commentary on any position. I like to go to the source of what is being commented on. To me plausibility does not mean truth.
From what I have read the book of Timothy consists of Paul instructing Timothy how to set the general church in order according to God’s order.
In every case roles of teaching the general body are designated to faithful men. When it comes to teaching the general body the scripture says that women should keep silent. The book of Titus tells us plainly which women are to teach and to whom they should teach. The book of Titus also tells us what the Godly wives are supposed to do. Never in regards to Godly women is teaching assigned except in Titus, where the older women are to teach the younger women. There are no examples of women teaching the church except Jezebel (may be figurative of a gov) in Revelation. We see how God responded to that. Priciilla with her husband expounded to apollos. Of all the women named as fellow laborers none of them were preachers. None of them baptised. None of them were apostles or evangelists. Nonetheless they were all Godly women, Godly enough to be recognized by name in the holy scriptures.

I see a lot of sincere sisters preaching well. But is it right? I continually ask God to give me understanding where I lack. As of yet there has been no change. I can see what you are saying but I don’t believe its true in light of the rest of the bible.
I think you would be a good person to interview on the truthmatters show with pastor sean finnegin(sp) .

Peace and blessings
CaptaaaaainPlanet!!!!!

Cheryl, thanks for your blogs. I realize my comments are years after your writing, but I’m glad your writing is still here because I am struggling with these Pauline things taken out of context too.

I wanted to inquire about the comment “Our tradition says that Jesus was crucified on Friday, but God’s word doesn’t say that. I believed God first and then had it proved to me that his word prevailed and our tradition was the one that was faulty.” – I had struggled with the same thing, but have read that in Jewish/Hebrew custom, ANY part of a day will count as a day. It need not be a full day. (This is similar to that a father can be a father-in-law or grandfather and STILL be called a father in Hebrew.) Yet you mention that it was the 3 nights you questioned. What is the conclusion that you came to while in Israel in regards to the resurrection after 3 days and nights?

Margaret,
Welcome to my blog! I know that this post is a very old one, but I am glad that you took the time to comment.

The issue of three nights of Jesus’ death was an important one to me since I could understand parts of three days as any part can be spoken of as a whole, but I couldn’t make three nights work. But if there were not three nights then this part of the Bible was either it was truth and I just didn’t have all the facts so that my understanding was partial and faulty or else the bible was in error and if it was in error in one area, then how could I a mere human determine which was true and which wasn’t? The big leap for me was believing that every word of the passage in question was truth and admitting to God that I believed Him over my own understanding. Then God took me outside my box to help me understand and that was the basis of my strong belief that God’s Word is trustworthy and the answer is there is I work hard to uncover God’s unfailing truth.

My research brought me to the conclusion that Jesus died on Thursday between the two evenings (when the lamb was to be slain) and that He rose from the dead very early Sunday before the light of day dawned. The issues of the Jewish counting of the start of the days, a special Sabbath that caused a double Sabbath, the Jewish counting of two evenings when the lamb must be slain and the fact that Jesus did not stay in the grave once the dawn of the day of Sunday were all a part of my education. The Jewish counting of their day is the day starts at sundown.

Anyway thanks again for popping in and I hope that my work can be a help to you along your journey.

Absolutely no Biblical basis to my following comment:

When I had children, my focus and my sense of self changed. I “settled down”. Being a mother that also works outside the home, I have no time to champion my causes in all self-righteousness. I only have time to try to focus on “faith, love, and holiness with propriety” (NIV) in my walk with Christ. Not to suggest that I haven’t taken the time to sin!

I don’t know any Greek, and wonder what “saved” means. Could it be translated as a turnaround, or saved as in English we would denote saving someone from drowning? Or healed? Or as in bridging a gap that is missing? I would love to have the input.

Rita

Rita, welcome to my blog!

After Paul made this statement, he gave a brief explanation in the following verses for this statement. He pointed back to the origin of deception and how it came through the 1st woman (Eve). In this, Paul was saying that because of Eve’s part in the beginning, he didn’t permit women to teach and/or have authority over men. Whether women were victims of deceit or being deceitful, the point is that Paul was speaking of women that were derived from the beginning. Then he goes on in verse 15 to say how women could basically render their service. In verse 15 he wasn’t talking about the women who were decieving or being deceived, he was talking of women in general. Overall, we look to Paul’s explanation in 13-15 to discern what he meant.

Andrew, welcome to my blog!

Unfortunately the view that you have of these hard verses is typical of the unsatisfying answer we have had for many years. Paul is indeed talking about deception and false teaching throughout the book of 1 Timothy, but the grammar changes to a current situation in Ephesus. There is no way logically we can take Paul’s words and create a ban against Eve (and all women) when God did not pronounce a judgment of “no teaching” against her in the garden. Also it makes an extremely unsatisfying answer why Eve’s deception would cause her inability to teach only men. Why not ban her from teaching women and children?

Paul isn’t saying that women’s nature (the way that God created them) is one of deception. That would make God the origin of what is “not good” as His original creation would be faulty, defective and the gifts He gives women in teaching would be ill advised.

It also makes women’s salvation to have an additional factor of works to provide a “service”. How are single women going to be “saved”? How are single women going to provide a service? And what about married women who are barren?

What we need to do is compare what we think Paul meant in these verses to what he said in the entire book and in his dealings with women. Paul never held them back or said teachers like Priscilla should not be teaching men nor did he remind the men to look out for the “easily deceived” women who were working right alongside Paul. Surely they should not have been working in the gospel but staying at home providing a “service” in making more children.

Instead of fanciful additions to the Scripture in saving women through child birth and blaming the woman’s deception on her nature rather than the serpent and the man who listened but was not deceived, let’s work through this passage in a manner that fits the rest of Paul’s writings to Timothy and the Church and not create a “law” that restricts women when no such “law” was ever produced in the church before or after Paul’s letter to Timothy.

Well, just read all this jolly good stuff,
The words from Timothy are very clear to me and have set meanings. Trying to change them by all this argumentive prose is very clever, but is the style of a guilty woman trying to excuse her crime. The more prose you write the easier it is to see the sin being commited, So please save yourself. Paul says this can be done by child bearing. I am a man so how can I be saved? Can I bear a child?
So how can a man be saved?
I will tell you, by the blood of Christ. Only a woman seems to have two chances?

Huh?

What the heck?

God never made male and female sin to be different from on another. The ten commandments apply to both equally. The two greatest commandments issued from the mouth of Jesus Christ, “love the Lord you God… and love your neighbor as yourself…” have not gender considerations.

Pulling Paul’s words out of context, words that Peter himself found confusing doesn’t make for clear understanding of anything. Peter was a contemporary of Paul who spoke the same language as Paul but says in his letters that Paul’s words are difficult to understand.

Men fool themselves when they say Paul’s words are clear. Translators have a hard time trying to figure out what Paul meant on so many levels.

The words of Jesus, however, are very clear. He made no distiction between male and female sins.

It is not a sin for a woman to preach or teach men. If it were so grievious a sin, Jesus would have made it clear and never let the woman at the well go to the men of the town and preach to them. Nor would He have ever, ever, ever sent the women from the empty tomb to preach the good news. And he would have never scold the men for not listening to and believing the women Jesus sent. If it were so bad for women to preach or teach, Jesus would have told the men first, not the women.

Paul’s words are only ‘clear’ to you because men translate them a certain way then tell each other it means this or that.

They are not clear, nor is the one on women being saved in childbearing clear. It makes about no sense. Yet people are so sure it is so clear even when their version of what is says totally contradicts the whole rest of the Bible and the very actions of Jesus Christ, Himself.

Mara, great response.
Words have set meanings and always will. Do you use a dictionary?
I reckon you do like me when I am not sure of a word’s meaning.

All sin is henious and will reap the wrath of God in all its forms revolts, earthquake, volcanos, floods, avarious bankers etc. etc. No matter how great the repentance the wrath will be visited upon gulity parties as punishemnet has to be carried out to fit the crime(sin). Even victim impact statements can not save a gulity (wo)man from jail since messages need to sent out to the peolpe that certain behaviour is not accetable in the eyes of the law. The law is usually develpoed from a moral code eg Chritianity or Isalm which has sharia law and allows judicial amputation stoning etc.

But to answer your points paragrph by paragraph:
God never made male and female sin to be different from on another. The ten commandments apply to both equally. The two greatest commandments issued from the mouth of Jesus Christ, “love the Lord you God… and love your neighbor as yourself…” have not gender considerations.
My answer: Yup no arguement there.

Pulling Paul’s words out of context, words that Peter himself found confusing doesn’t make for clear understanding of anything. Peter was a contemporary of Paul who spoke the same language as Paul but says in his letters that Paul’s words are difficult to understand.
My answer: The text in question is a letter by Paul to Timothy the man in charge at Ehpesus who was having difficulty with the women in the congregation. So where is Peter’s place in all this? The advsice was to stop them and tell them to be quite and behave and not teach because they were bearing false witness. Seems clear they were not to be trusted and were no better than sirens.

Men fool themselves when they say Paul’s words are clear. Translators have a hard time trying to figure out what Paul meant on so many levels.
My answer: As you say translators(ie the clssical greek scholars) have a hard time then the answer is to get the point sorted now before anymore women are ordanined becasue the process will develope a schism in the church thus temping the wrath of God.

The words of Jesus, however, are very clear. He made no distiction between male and female sins.
My answer: Yup OK agreed.

It is not a sin for a woman to preach or teach men. If it were so grievious a sin, Jesus would have made it clear and never let the woman at the well go to the men of the town and preach to them. Nor would He have ever, ever, ever sent the women from the empty tomb to preach the good news. And he would have never scold the men for not listening to and believing the women Jesus sent. If it were so bad for women to preach or teach, Jesus would have told the men first, not the women.
My Answer: There were no women disciples, but there were and have been since women kings queens leading nations. The discovery by Mary of the empty tomb is teh realtung of a tale of discovery that Jessus body had gone. Mary did not preach whe was merely relay facts, like any good reporter. Did jesus ever say it was OK for woemen to preach or teach? Can you tell be were this is written explicitly?

Paul’s words are only ‘clear’ to you because men translate them a certain way then tell each other it means this or that.
My answer: See the first sentence of my reply.

They are not clear, nor is the one on women being saved in childbearing clear. It makes about no sense. Yet people are so sure it is so clear even when their version of what is says totally contradicts the whole rest of the Bible and the very actions of Jesus Christ, Himself.
My answer: Only women can bear children as my wife says, unless you agree that men can with medical intervention, which itself is self mutilation. So women should bear children as was intend once impregnated by their husbands. The bible is a collection of books/essays/writings written over many years and was never properly co-ordinated. Once the bible was written in everyone’s language for the masses to read and interpret not just the preists and with everyone being educated, God’s wrath has been visited upon (wo)man ever since. Ordination of women and preaching by women has just created more angst. We already have seen the Roman Catholics accepting preists from the Anglican communion becasue of the problem. A schism has started.

Hi Douglas,
You said, “Did jesus ever say it was OK for woemen (unfortunate typo there Douglas…I hope!) to preach or teach? Can you tell be were this is written explicitly?”

Can I ask:
Where does Jesus say explicitly that they can’t preach or teach?

Where it is written explicitly that women teaching or preaching is a sin? (1 Tim 2 does not)

Where explicitly does the Bible say that God’s wrath is being visited upon women for being educated? (This seems to be contrary to the spirit of 1 Tim 2:12-15 where they are expected to be taught)

Where does it explicitly say that Mary was a ‘reporter’? (She was a witness who proclaimed the truth that Jesus had risen from the dead in response to instructions from an angel)

Where does it explicitly say that women have two different ways to be saved? (1 Tim 2 does not)

There has been some great info offered here by Cheryl, and comments by others. Why not interact with some things that have been said Douglas? It might be more helpful, especially as much of what has been says related to what Paul meant when he wrote to Timothy. If you have an issue with a specific thing said, then please draw our attention to it.

Cheers

Dave

Dave, not such an exciting response as Mara’s. But here goes anyway.
Yup there were typos. The spell check did not seem to be available. But I think you got the general jist. Well done.

My last piece about schisms I think says it all. The ordination of women has been beyond the pale and is getting justified by linkages between books of the bible, which were written at different times and not co-ordinated. Then arguements would be coherent then and justifiable. Thus preventing schisms.

Sorry not to have excited you Douglas. I am trying to follow your thinking. It is hard because you have not backed your statements up with anything specific from what has been said. How is women’s ordination being justified in the way that you suggest? Has this happened here at this blog or in another place?
Also…

How does speaking the truth in love create a schism? If it does, should we not speak the truth in love? Unless you can point us to something that has been said that is in error, then we must conclude that only the truth has been spoken.

You make it sound as though errors in our thinking are obvious, but you do not seem to want to point to them?

Dave

And just for fun, here is my “cherry-picked” version of the passage, where I take bits and pieces from various translations to provide an even more accurate, IMO, picture of what Paul is saying.

Verse 11
A wife should learn (Aramaic Bible English Translation)
in peace, (The Complete Jewish Bible)
being ready to cooperate in everything. (New Century Version)
Verse 12
But I do not allow (common)
the wife (The Word of Yah)
to teach (common)
[false doctrine] (my extra-biblical addition based on the context)
or to be domineering over (Concordant Literal New Testament)
the husband, (The Word of Yah)
rather, she is to remain at peace. (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Verse 13
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (common)
Verse 14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
Verse 15
But she will be saved (many)
through the birth of the child, (God’s Word Translation)
if she and her husband continue to live (Weymouth New Testament)
in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (common)

SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI
hAGIASMWi META SWFROSUNHS.
James Moffatt’s translation of 1 Tim. 2:15:
“However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming.”

in view of the fact that ancient childbirth is by no means without risk of life (Euripides’ Medea, remember, says she’d rather face the foe with a spear on the battlefield three times to giving birth once!), and given the fact that, outside of the theological sphere, SWZEIN most normally DOES mean “bring safely,” “preserve through peril,” “keep intact” (as in the parable of the wine and wineskins; I tend to think of getting safely through a semester!), the first clause of Moffat’s translation seems very natural.

In John 11:12 the same use of the word SWQHSETAI meaning “preserve through peril” is appropriate to for our fond friend Laz and never translated as such nor as ‘saved’. Translations have so many opinions, one needs the Holy Spirit with reliable Greek Interlinear.

foggy, welcome to my blog!

While the meaning can mean to preserve through something, unfortunately this would make Paul to be one who gave out a false promise for many godly, faithful women were not kept safely through child bearing as many of these godly women died giving birth. This is why I pressed on to find the meaning from the passage itself that would bring a true promise not a false one. I also believe that one cannot understand verse 12 without understanding verse 15 as verse 15 is the conclusion to the prohibition.

“the first clause of Moffat’s translation seems very natural.”

Except for the fact that it does not follow the grammer. Moffet presents “Childbirth” as a verb but the actual text is “the childbirth” – a definite noun. Plus, one can’t simply ignore that this passage is decidedly inside the theological sphere.

Young’s Literal Translation is more true to the grammer and presents quite a contrast from Moffet. “she shall be saved through the child-bearing”.

And then there is the context to consider. What could being brought physically safely through the child bearing process have to do with the rest of this passage? It would be completely out of the blue with no prior or subsequent text to warrant its inclusion.

Hi Gengwall,
@73 you said Moffet presents “Childbirth” as a verb but the actual text is “the childbirth” – a definite noun.
I agree with your thoughts and Cheryl’s that Paul is referring to the birth of Christ in 1 Tim 2:15, but in Moffet’s translation isn’t “childbirth” a noun? I admit that English grammar is not my strong point, and I am happy to learn, but how is childbirth a verb in Moffat’s translation?

Moffet translates: “through childbirth”. I used to be good at grammer but maybe my skills are rusty. I interpret Moffet’s interpretation as saying in essense “through giving birth”, not “through a birth”. At best, that would make “childbirth” a gerund (a verb acting like a noun). The translation is not indicating an act (noun) which the women is saved via, but an action (verb) which she will be saved from the risks of. Again, I might be wrong. Still, the two translations stand in stark contrast to each other.

mmmmmm yes, that is so true re the childbirth process and the verb scenario. Unless perhaps that teknogonia is to mean the parenting or child REaring rather than Bearing as in the child birth process, and parenting as a NOUN

At first, when I considered v14 in the Greek, that Eve/the woman, being seduced, as a result of that i.e. being seduced, that perhaps “has become beside stepping” (literal Greek translation). While almost all translations seem to make this word parabasis as transgression, I did wonder whether it actually meant, “distracted” or easily side tracked as in side stepping and that caring for children would preserve a woman from the peril of being side tracked i.e. to focus and not be as easily distracted, but then I thought that would be too random since children are a big distraction leaving little time for preparing to be able to teach (which is where the context follows in terms of women teaching)…………. so I went back to the childbirth idea, but I am keen to know the truth here, certainly it is not a salvation scenario.

Hi Cheryl,
I haven’t had time yet to read all the responses but I did read down to this part and I’ll quote you, not as a cherrypick but because I couldn’t get past this without questioning what you’re trying to say with the following:
“The bottom line is are we going to believe what God has said (his testimony) or are we going to believe the testimony of science? The one thing that I know for sure science has changed their dating system by billions of years just in my own lifetime. I remember in my early years of school being taught that the earth was millions of years old. I didn’t pay attention to when it exactly happened, but the earth got a lot older sometime through the years. Now we are told it is no longer millions of years old, but billions of years old. Animals now are not just millions of years old, but hundreds of millions of years. That is a significant change, but the truth hasn’t changed since truth is consistent.”
You are correct about science changing it’s dating of the world. That’s how science works, it keeps adapting in search of the truth. Technology has advanced in your lifetime. There are new dating methods with clear empirical evidence such as fossil evidence, Radio-carbon dating, ice core samples, just to name a few. Is denying this kind of evidence part of the pursuit of truth? Is truth really consistent? The world would still be flat and we would be at the center of the universe if truth was consistent. Truth is subjective. What I view as the truth may not be what my neighbor views as the truth. Do history books tell the truth? Do I tell the truth? Do you tell the truth? I could tell you that I tell the truth and would you have to believe me? No, you obviously wouldn’t have to believe me.
I’ve put aside my assumptions. I’ve kept myself open to new understanding. I hold my beliefs in an open hand and not a tight fist.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

foggy #76,
My sincerest apologies for being so slow in answering your question. I hope you signed up for a notification so that you do get the answer. I think my being so overwhelmed this last year and especially since late spring has caused me to miss out on a lot on this blog, unfortunately.

Dr. Witherington did respond to me and he does have a copy of my DVD but he has given me no feedback. I would suspect that it is because the basis of my work (starting from the assumed viewpoint that the inspiration of the Scriptures includes the inspired words and the inspired grammar). Dr. Witherington comes from a far more liberal viewpoint than I have.

Ramiro,
You said:

You are correct about science changing it’s dating of the world. That’s how science works, it keeps adapting in search of the truth.

It doesn’t seem to me that “science” is in search of the truth. “Science” is published as having the truth. It was supposedly the truth when I was a child and it is supposedly the truth now. I don’t think that using a rubber ruler is helpful at determining the truth.
You said:

There are new dating methods with clear empirical evidence such as fossil evidence, Radio-carbon dating, ice core samples, just to name a few. Is denying this kind of evidence part of the pursuit of truth?

There are two sides to the story so that what is claimed as “evidence” has been challenged. Answersingenesis.org has brought a serious challenge to the “evidence” of science that appears to dispute the Bible’s record. I highly recommend their web site.

Is truth really consistent? The world would still be flat and we would be at the center of the universe if truth was consistent.

Real truth is consistent. Faulty “facts” disguised as truth will not be consistent. The world was never flat and the Bible gives evidence of that even before any worldly scientist understood that fact.

Do history books tell the truth? Do I tell the truth? Do you tell the truth? I could tell you that I tell the truth and would you have to believe me? No, you obviously wouldn’t have to believe me.
I’ve put aside my assumptions. I’ve kept myself open to new understanding. I hold my beliefs in an open hand and not a tight fist.

What is claimed as truth needs to be measured by something that is really true. We are told by the Scriptures that we are to test all things and to hold fast to what is true. When I am corrected by the truth of the Scriptures, I will let my false ideas go. But I will never test the Scriptures by science. The most important test for spiritual truth is to have the straight edge of God’s truth to test all things. This is what I aim to do and I encourage all here to do the same.

Thanks for asking!

Personally, I don’t think the Bible was intended by God to be “the history book of the universe.” It’s not a history book, or a science textbook, or a rulebook that tells us what to do in every situation, or anything of that nature. It’s the story of God’s creation and redemption of humanity; it’s the story of Christ. As such, it contains history; but telling us all about the history of the universe is simply not what it has ever been forl.

I think finding authorial intent (both God’s and the human writers’) is the best way to interpret it. I can find no reference within it that it was ever intended to be “the history book of the universe.” I think if we’re not careful, we will apply templates to it that the original authors simply never conceived of. Scientific methods, newspaper-style reporting, and so on, are among those templates that are often misapplied. The Bible needs to be allowed to be what it is, not faulted for not being what it was never meant to be.

“Personally, I don’t think the Bible was intended by God to be “the history book of the universe.” It’s not a history book, or a science textbook, or a rulebook that tells us what to do in every situation, or anything of that nature. It’s the story of God’s creation and redemption of humanity; it’s the story of Christ. ”

Kristen – I think you have spoken well. Christ says “blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” and “If you love Me, you’ll keep my commands.” – the “book” is about salvation, not “worldly knowledge” which is not really applicable to salvation. I don’t remember Jesus ever saying we should know the secrets of creation or the universe. But He does call us to love Him, and love one another.

Blessings in Christ,
Margaret

I do agree that the Bible is “God’s history book of the universe”. I also understand what they mean by that. The meaning is that the history of the creation of the universe is written in God’s Word. We can know how the universe came into being by reading God’s account of what He did. We can also read the history of the creation of man and the history of the entrance of sin into the world. Science can tell us nothing about the existence of sin or of God’s creating man in His own image. The Bible tells us everything that we need to know to have faith that God told the truth about what He did and the results of man’s choice.

I also believe that the Bible, while not a science manual, has information in it that if heeded by man would keep us from making mistakes about God’s creation. By reading God’s word, we can know that the earth was a sphere, not flat, for example.

I firmly believe that God’s Word was written as it was with inspired words and inspired grammar so that all of our spiritual questions will be answered sufficiently for us to have faith in God. I trust that the Bible is an accurate ruler to measure other claims of truth.

Ramiro,
You said about the creation science site that I gave a link to:

I wasn’t swayed in any way unfortunately.

The site has great audio/video material that is well done and with a lot of research. I highly recommend that you actually have a look at the material rather than dismiss their Biblical arguments without researching the facts that they present.

You also said:

I reply with a simple two-part question: Can you envision anything that while change your mind on this subject? If the answer is “no” (as it appears to me), then is this really a discussion that we are having?

The answer is not “no”. I can envision something that has the power to change my mind. I will be corrected by the Bible as it is the only accurate “ruler” that tests all spiritual claims of truth including the claim to the origin of God’s creation.

I also do not want my blog to become a discussion of evolution or scientific claims of the origin of matter. This is a blog dedicated to the issue of women in ministry and I do not want to go off of that focus. I am certain that answersingenesis.org would have information that could be given on discussion groups hosted by biblical creationists.

Perhaps if you have time you could let me know what is your “ruler” of truth that you use to measure all other claims of truth?

I agree with Cheryl that this is not a creation/evolution or old earth/young earth discussion site. There are only about a bazillion of those out there to have that argument.

Just to show Ramiro that even within the Christian community there can be vigorous debate on such subjects, I offer another Christian creation apologetics site where they don’t adhere to a young earth view while still adamantly supporting the biblical account and the inerrancy of God’s word.

Wow,
I really enjoy reading all of the comments. So full of education and love. I want to learn all i can on hard topics like these and im so glad i mean really glad i found this blog. May God bless everyone here and thanks so very much for teaching me about God and revealing His word. I hope to teach others the truth as well. Amen