Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.

This view contradicts Paul’s view in 1 Cor. 14 where in the “gathered assemblies” he gives women freedom to prophesy so that all may learn

Also nowhere does the Scripture say that only men may teach the assembly or that only pastors may teach the assembly of believers. In the list of gifts, the gift of teacher is not given only to men and nowhere does the Scripture say that men are not to learn from female teachers. While teaching may not be prophesying, prophesying certainly includes teaching. If you checked out my response to Mike Seaver, you will see the lexical proof that prophesying encompasses both teaching and preaching.

Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat.

Chapter 1 also reveals what they cannot eat. They cannot eat from any tree that has fruit that is not seed bearing. This is prohibited in the way that God spoke it by removing this kind of fruit from the permission list. No permission given = prohibition.

We only have recorded that God spoke to Adam about what not to eat, so i’m following the bible here.

Really? How do you explain Genesis 2:16?

Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
Gen 2:17 but …

You said:

It is most natural to assume Adam passed on the information to Eve.

How can it be “most natural” when Eve is quoted as telling us that “God said You shall not…” How is the plural term “you” a natural fit as coming from Adam?

. If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible?

Genesis 3:2,3 It is her own testimony that is recorded in God’s inspired Word about God’s Word to both Adam and Eve.

Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam?

It isn’t a distortion. It is additional information that never contradicts God’s original command given to Adam alone.

Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.

I think that I have proven Eve’s correct witness. Now it is time for a challenge to you. Prove that God’s Words to Eve are not an addition but a contradiction to what was given to Adam. I think it is time to put your money where you mouth is. No disrespect meant, just a Canadian term for a request to prove your charge of sin.

If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different. So we cannot claim an argument on the plural ‘you’ because the supposed 2 seperate commands given to Adam and Eve are actually different.

“Different” is not a problem. Contradictory is. You have not proven that the words of God are contradictory. If “different” ways for God to say what is permissible for Adam to eat is not allowed, then please explain why God is not charged with being “different” i.e. contradictory in Genesis 1 where God adds the qualification that only fruit that has seeds may be eaten. Was he lying when he told Adam that he could eat the fruit from every tree in the garden except for one? Or is the different way of saying it the same thing i.e. only one tree had fruit without without seed therefore they were allowed to eat from every tree except for one?

It seems to me that you would have no problem with any of this if you did not have your stakes pinned on Eve misrepresenting God. Is there any other doctrines that you believe in that require Eve to misrepresent God and if you admit that Eve told the truth, then another doctrine would have to be discarded? I am very interested in understanding what causes you to hold to such an evil nature of the woman before sin entered the world. It seems to me that prejudice might not be the full reason if perhaps the “fall” of Eve before she ate the apple so ties into another doctrine that you cannot admit that you may be wrong. So I am asking if this belief of yours is tied into something else that I have not picked up on? What am I missing?