I used the term, "unconfirmed suspicion" because I don't have handy the references for the position though I have heard/read it more than once.
If you disagree that Paul is giving us instruction ("the commandment of the Lord"), and instead of quoting another piece of literature, give us evidence in order to appropriately entertain the thought. If you have no evidence that Paul is referencing another letter, we have no reason to take the claim seriously. Until then, it is perfectly acceptable and consistent for the NT authors to give us details about the OT that we may not verify elsewhere (examples provided in
post# 1,010).
There is a principle of hermeneutics: "If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense."
That may work when you are in a passage that is intended to be understood plainly. God hides wisdom in His Word. The diligent find it. So this is not a universally applicable hermeneutic. The Bible does not support the use of this hermeneutic.
the plain sense of these passages does not make sense. So, I don't accept it
Then you are unteachable. Let Scripture change your understanding. It does not submit to your capacity to reason.
There are literally people who cannot make sense of the simple Gospel:
“
the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (
1 Corinthians 1:18)
Should they wait until the Gospel makes sense to them before they accept it? Of course not! How then could anyone be saved?
If a new believer is presented with an advanced Biblical concept and cannot comprehend it, should they reject it until it makes sense? I tell you truly, that person will never come to salvation.
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,” (
1 Corinthians 3:1–2)
I'll call your hermeneutic and raise you one better:
"What we cannot understand by intellect, we apprehend by faith". Spurgeon appeals to the hermeneutic this way:
'"It is not your duty to comprehend, but to apprehend such truths as these: you are to believe, rather than to reason. [Comprehension may be granted to you after]."
This hermeneutic is actually supported by Scripture: (
Pro 3:5; Isa 5:21; Mk 4:20; etc) It's called "trusting in God's Word" (even when it doesn't make sense to you: God’s ways are incomprehensible (
Isa. 55:8–9; Rom. 11:33–34); yet He is trustworthy.
“[
you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God].” (
1 Thessalonians 2:13)
The Biblical evidence for my position is not in conflict with any Scripture; it is only in conflict with your understanding. And when I give you verses that support this position, you say:...
I don't accept your interpretation of the text as being "simple, obvious Scripture".
This is the simple, obvious Scripture: (no interpretations, just Scripture)
"I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."
I have explained the "for" in 1 Timothy 2.
You have commented on the verse in general, but you have not explained the grammatical role of this connecting conjunction: "for" in
1 Tim 2:12-14. Tell me,
What relationship is indicated by the initial conjunction γάρ (‘because'), and what is the role of this verse in Paul's argument?
You either understand the syntactic relationship surrounding this word, or you do not.
I have already pointed out that
the conjunction γάρ indicates the first grounds for Paul’s statement in 2:11–12...
...If you disagree, then tell me why I am wrong about this syntactical relationship (i.e. tell me the correct syntactical meaning of this conjunction).