Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

I changed my view as soon as I saw Eve proclaim God’s name. I didn’t think that she knew God’s name, but I cannot argue against the Scripture. I had not paid attention to that before. I accept the Bible as written and I do not believe that God’s name has been added to Eve’s quote by Moses. That would be an unethical quote.

I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.

Are you now saying that you accept that Eve spoke God’s name in chapter 4 and that there was no malice by using the term “God” when she spoke to the serpent just as there was no malice by Moses when he wrote chapter 1? I would sure like you to admit when you change your mind too. Or are you still holding on to your believe that Eve was Eve (and apparently Moses) was siding with satan when she used the term God? It is a view that liberals hold who have blasted me for my trust in the Scriptures as they are written.

My basic opinion is always that the Bible is right in its original autograph. I do not believe that it has been tainted nor that someone later added to God’s Word. I struggle with understanding those who believe that God’s Word can be added to. It doesn’t make sense to me.

The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor.

Mark, if I didn’t know better I would think that you were me writing from Australia. It is ultimately the context that is the deciding factor. Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings. That is why I said that the exegesis of the passage is of utmost importance and that a word study alone without the context will not be sufficient to determine the correct meaning.

I think that Suzanne does great work on the issue of “source” and “kephale” http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/

It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers. See here http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/bible/will-women-be-saved-by-childbearing and on this page there is a link to the CBMW article.

Andreas is a nice guy. I liked him a lot. But his theology in this area is faulty. He had no answers to the questions I gave him regarding the holes in his argument. Saved from deception into safety in Christ by remaining in one’s roles has some serious theological issues and Andreas admitted to me that his view does not have full acceptance in CBMW. Problem is that they publish it as if it is a valid Biblical view. My DVD goes through Andreas’ view on 1 Timothy 2:15

I recently purchased a booklet written by a woman defending women’s freedom to minister the Word of God. It was written in 1666. Hardly a view influenced by “feminism” in 1666. It is a common tactic that CBMW uses and seems to dissuade people from looking at all the women ministers hundreds of years ago. No one wants to pay attention to that because they want to say it is a recent trend. That isn’t true.

Now back to work for me.