Search results

The KJV was translated long before Sharp discovered the rule, and the ESV follows it in many places. While the two-person view is easy to get in English, it is an interpretation of a flawed translation. The verses clearly present Jesus as God.

That’s a pleasant sanitized distortion of Scripture. It doesn’t account for the fact that Jesus cast unclean spirits out of people. Unclean spirits are entities distinct from humans. They are real and have power and influence, but cannot stand against Jesus.

I won’t ask if this “girl” was you. ;)

There’s a massive difference: one is God’s will and the other is only His foresight.

While it is about husband and wife, it is not saying that the husband shall have authority over the wife. Rather, it says that, as a consequence of sin, "he shall rule over you". That's the unpleasant outcome for her, and for almost every woman since.

You completely misread my post. You're welcome to exit the conversation, but know that you do on your own error. Further, I am not erasing or explaining away everything God has said on the matter; my position takes into account everything He has said and doesn't conveniently ignore certain...

It's not at all a false premise, it's the meaning of authentein that makes sense of the passage in its context. The wording of many English translations makes this the apparent reason. However, when you study the cultural context in which Timothy was leading, you see the flaw in that reasoning...

Statements of certain consequence, not commands. The statements made to Adam tell us that.

Welcome to CC. Kindly read my explanation for 1 Timothy 2 in post 655 (previous page).

"Vamoose"? Do you seriously think you have the authority to tell me to leave? Go laugh at yourself in the mirror. I have stated my case. You're welcome to disagree, but grow up first.

Your position is inherently self-contradictory. If women are to remain silent in the churches (14:34), they can't pray or prophesy (11:5, sing, or speak in tongues. "Silent" leaves no room for exceptions. Consider that 14:34-35 are actually a quotation to which Paul responds. There are two...

Context informs Scripture. Every competent Hermeneutics teacher will tell you that. Your flippant remark tells me that you aren't interested in discussion, but in perpetuating the errors you believe; I'd like to be proven wrong on that.

There is a difference that must be noted: in the secular world, leadership is effected by force or threat of force. Jesus addresses this clearly in Luke 22:25-26. He makes it crystal clear that among Christians, leaders exercise "authority" by serving, not by domineering. This completely...

I'm aware of what the English text says. I'm also aware of what the original Greek text says (which, by the way, is different). What is your point?

From Brittanica: ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter. Given that’s how I understand it and how I used it, it is unreasonable to accuse me of...

So explain it as you misunderstand it.

My argument is reasonable, and there is no ad hominem content in my comment. Though I didn’t and wouldn’t, I could call your position “bloody stupid” and it still wouldn’t be an ad hominem comment, because it is addressing an idea, not a person.

Given the cultural context of the letter and the fact that this passage only mentions gender in one statement (most of the pronouns are neutral), it is likely that the restriction “the husband of one wife” means to preclude polygamous persons, not women or unmarried men.

I agree with the first two , but the third is the very subject of this thread and is obviously contested.

Thee is no verse or passage in the law requiring women to be silent and under submission. Paul would have known this, suggesting strongly that 1 Corinthians 14;34-35 was not written by him. His shocked reaction in verse 36 makes sense if he is responding to someone else’s words, but not...