Cheryl

Greg,

I have seen Grudem’s writing before on the “or” of Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 14:36 and I am amazed that he could openly contradict the lexicons and they say that 1 Cor. 14:36 is an example of a rhetorical statement that has a negative answer and is contradicting what has preceded it.  We answer “NO!” to Paul’s questions and verse 36 and these rhetorical questions that must have a negative answer completely contradict verses 34 & 35 plus contradict the “commands” (plural) of Paul’s from the start of chapter 14.  Mr. Grudem is not telling us the truth, yet he tell us to prove something that he misunderstands.  The fact is that verse 36 is both a rhetorical question AND it stands in direct opposition to the claims in verses 34 & 35 so that if one be denied (verse 36 denies the validity of verses 34 & 35) then the other must stand.  Therefore verse 36 is such a straight, sharp and foundation fence that even Mr. Grudem should be able to see that from the lexicons.  The fact that he contradicts the lexicons tells me an awful lot about his motivation.  His motivation has nothing to do with what the lexicons say about this scripture.  It has everything to do with proving his own biased point of view.

And there…..I just put up….now who was it who told me to shut up again?  🙂

Thanks, Greg for pointing us once again to the best example of bias that I have ever seen camouflaged as scholarship.