THE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE
- Thread starter Ethan1942
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The passage says nothing whatsoever about women in general.
Shall we list all the sinful and, wicked males mentioned in Scripture? That would take too long. How about we limit the list to sinful, wicked male leaders? Shall we conclude then that males should not be in leadership at all, because of the MANY such examples?
If you're going to make an argument from Scripture, be consistent in your application. As it is, your arguments are laughably fallacious.
Shall we list all the sinful and, wicked males mentioned in Scripture? That would take too long. How about we limit the list to sinful, wicked male leaders? Shall we conclude then that males should not be in leadership at all, because of the MANY such examples?
If you're going to make an argument from Scripture, be consistent in your application. As it is, your arguments are laughably fallacious.
The International Critical Commentary Complete
https://archive.org/details/interna...ry/NT/26. ICC I Corinthians/page/231/mode/2up
Paraphrase of 1 Cor. 11:4-7
"4 Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head : 5 whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head ; for she is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. 6 A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7 A man has no right to cover his head ; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’s glory : whereas the woman reflects man’s glory."
Comments on v5
"5. ‘Praying or prophesying ’ must be understood in the same way in both verses : it is arbitrary to say that the man is supposed to be taking the lead m full public worship, but the woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to be veiled at family prayers ? Yet in public worship women were not to speak at all (xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12). Very possibly the women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they must speak ; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled ? In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak. Comp. Philip’s daughters (Acts xxi. 9), and the quotation from Joel (Acts ii. 18). In neither men nor women must prophesying be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers ; prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ (Gal. iii. 28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude should be worn in Christian worship ; or they may have asked why considerations about the head should lead to women being veiled and men not And perhaps they expected that the Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would be in favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette, ad lac.
The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own sex; she is a bare-faced woman, ‘for she is one and the same thing (neut. Blass, Gr. § 31. 2) with the woman that is shaven/ either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of bravado. Aristoph. Thesm . 838 ; Tac. Germ 19 ; and other illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage. Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life ; and it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has control of the wife. Only here and 13 does a/caTa/ca\wros occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (m. 4, 5), St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision."
In this classic commentary written in 1911, it was seen that possibly feminist perversion had actually been challenging the apostle Paul at that time, to which he was answering in 1 Corinthians 11. This commentary gives the best explanation of why Paul is not here contradicting his words in 1 Cor. 14:34 & 1 Tim. 2:12.
https://archive.org/details/interna...ry/NT/26. ICC I Corinthians/page/231/mode/2up
Paraphrase of 1 Cor. 11:4-7
"4 Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head : 5 whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head ; for she is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. 6 A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7 A man has no right to cover his head ; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’s glory : whereas the woman reflects man’s glory."
Comments on v5
"5. ‘Praying or prophesying ’ must be understood in the same way in both verses : it is arbitrary to say that the man is supposed to be taking the lead m full public worship, but the woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to be veiled at family prayers ? Yet in public worship women were not to speak at all (xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12). Very possibly the women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they must speak ; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled ? In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak. Comp. Philip’s daughters (Acts xxi. 9), and the quotation from Joel (Acts ii. 18). In neither men nor women must prophesying be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers ; prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ (Gal. iii. 28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude should be worn in Christian worship ; or they may have asked why considerations about the head should lead to women being veiled and men not And perhaps they expected that the Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would be in favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette, ad lac.
The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own sex; she is a bare-faced woman, ‘for she is one and the same thing (neut. Blass, Gr. § 31. 2) with the woman that is shaven/ either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of bravado. Aristoph. Thesm . 838 ; Tac. Germ 19 ; and other illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage. Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life ; and it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has control of the wife. Only here and 13 does a/caTa/ca\wros occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (m. 4, 5), St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision."
In this classic commentary written in 1911, it was seen that possibly feminist perversion had actually been challenging the apostle Paul at that time, to which he was answering in 1 Corinthians 11. This commentary gives the best explanation of why Paul is not here contradicting his words in 1 Cor. 14:34 & 1 Tim. 2:12.
The commentary is, sadly, just a bunch of circular reasoning. Your attribution of "feminist perversion" to a first-century situation is ridiculously anachronistic.
Paul did not write in 1 Timothy 2:12 that "women" must be silent; he is referring to a woman... singular. In context, it is likely that the specific woman to whom he refers was an inadequately-instructed ex-cultist. Just as a new believer today would not be given an open pulpit, so Paul would not allow someone to teach who had not yet adequately learned. His solution? Let her learn alongside the male students!
Paul did not write in 1 Timothy 2:12 that "women" must be silent; he is referring to a woman... singular. In context, it is likely that the specific woman to whom he refers was an inadequately-instructed ex-cultist. Just as a new believer today would not be given an open pulpit, so Paul would not allow someone to teach who had not yet adequately learned. His solution? Let her learn alongside the male students!
Possibly having the advantage of 80 years on earth, and seeing the perversion of feminism snowball into all areas of life, it is easier to see the contrast of religion today compared to the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures. It is astounding to watch blatant rejection of the emphatic statements of God's commands as rules of hermeneutics are ignored over and over. There is no excuse when there are textbooks of interpretation freely given online and I'll quote from one -
Principles of Interpretation, Clinton Lockhart, Rev. Ed. 1915
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
"It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presupposes ability in him who would use them." page 13
It is clear that for many in this thread, the problem is not merely lack of good judgment and common sense, but an active rejection of and defiance of God's word. The KJV has a good phrase to describe this sort of thinking, "they willingly are ignorant".
Someone rejecting 1 Tim. 2:12 writes, "Paul did not write in 1 Timothy 2:12 that 'women' must be silent; he is referring to a woman... singular. In context, it is likely that the specific woman to whom he refers was an inadequately-instructed ex-cultist."
This person hasn't the ability to even comprehend English! If the verse was meant to refer to "the specific woman", the definite article would have been used. The definite article is not in the Greek nor in the English translations. Then upon this ignorant statement about "a woman", he reads into the verse a crazy and wild invention! Typical of feminized males. Compare some English translations of the verse -
"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1Tim 2:12 RSV)
"I do not permit women to teach or dictate to the men; they should keep quiet." (1Tim 2:12 REB)
I generally ignore such foolish replies, but at times it is important they be exposed for the deceit they contain. I've only posted this much considering that through search engines, many thousands of seekers and the elect can read what God's word clearly teaches.
Principles of Interpretation, Clinton Lockhart, Rev. Ed. 1915
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf
"It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presupposes ability in him who would use them." page 13
It is clear that for many in this thread, the problem is not merely lack of good judgment and common sense, but an active rejection of and defiance of God's word. The KJV has a good phrase to describe this sort of thinking, "they willingly are ignorant".
Someone rejecting 1 Tim. 2:12 writes, "Paul did not write in 1 Timothy 2:12 that 'women' must be silent; he is referring to a woman... singular. In context, it is likely that the specific woman to whom he refers was an inadequately-instructed ex-cultist."
This person hasn't the ability to even comprehend English! If the verse was meant to refer to "the specific woman", the definite article would have been used. The definite article is not in the Greek nor in the English translations. Then upon this ignorant statement about "a woman", he reads into the verse a crazy and wild invention! Typical of feminized males. Compare some English translations of the verse -
"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1Tim 2:12 RSV)
"I do not permit women to teach or dictate to the men; they should keep quiet." (1Tim 2:12 REB)
I generally ignore such foolish replies, but at times it is important they be exposed for the deceit they contain. I've only posted this much considering that through search engines, many thousands of seekers and the elect can read what God's word clearly teaches.
When Eve was made for Adam, the term used to describe her role was ezer kenegdo.
Re: Hebrew ezer kenegdo.
The Hebrew word ezer is a combination of two roots: `-z-r, meaning "to rescue, to save," and g-z-r, meaning "to be strong."
In Genesis 2:18, the word "helpmeet" does not occur. The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears, meaning "one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports." The combination of these two Hebrew words has two roots: `-z-r, meaning "to rescue, to save," and g-z-r, meaning "to be strong." There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in an hierarchical separation of the male and female "spheres" of responsibility, authority, or social position.
Use of the word ezer in the Scripture often refers to either God or military allies. In all other cases the one giving the help is superior to the one receiving the help. Adding kenegdo (meet) modifies the meaning to that of equal rather than superior status. Scripture is so awesome. God says just what He means.
The word ezer is used twice in the Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God.
For example, in the Psalms when David says, "The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.
Click
and click again.
Re: Hebrew ezer kenegdo.
The Hebrew word ezer is a combination of two roots: `-z-r, meaning "to rescue, to save," and g-z-r, meaning "to be strong."
In Genesis 2:18, the word "helpmeet" does not occur. The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears, meaning "one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports." The combination of these two Hebrew words has two roots: `-z-r, meaning "to rescue, to save," and g-z-r, meaning "to be strong." There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in an hierarchical separation of the male and female "spheres" of responsibility, authority, or social position.
Use of the word ezer in the Scripture often refers to either God or military allies. In all other cases the one giving the help is superior to the one receiving the help. Adding kenegdo (meet) modifies the meaning to that of equal rather than superior status. Scripture is so awesome. God says just what He means.
The word ezer is used twice in the Old Testament to refer to the female and 14 times to refer to God.
For example, in the Psalms when David says, "The Lord is my Helper," he uses the word ezer.
Click
and click again.
-
1
- Show all
America is only 5% of the world and is hardly representative of the world.
Still, a woman recently fled a house where she was being kept on a leash and she still had the dog collar on. Human trafficking in this country is up greatly So I don't like the idea of lumping "all of America" as "we".
The USA has some of the highest percentages of poor women of any industrialized country in the world.
Personally I don't see "debt slaves" as being better than many (though not all) slaves in human history.
Still, a woman recently fled a house where she was being kept on a leash and she still had the dog collar on. Human trafficking in this country is up greatly So I don't like the idea of lumping "all of America" as "we".
The USA has some of the highest percentages of poor women of any industrialized country in the world.
Personally I don't see "debt slaves" as being better than many (though not all) slaves in human history.
Human trafficking has skyrocketed in the US ever since Biden signaled that the border was open.
Epstein island, Disney, and the FBI have all been exposed as being part of this network.
The headquarters internationally is said to be Kazakstan and Ukraine, and surprise, surprise, Biden is sending tens of billions to Ukraine for some reason.
My point is you say that "we" have improved from 2,000 years ago and explain that "we" refers to civilization as a whole when in fact the situation in the majority of civilization is pretty horrible to women.
So you do say that perhaps you only mean the US, which is 1/20th of human civilization as a whole, and yet even in this 5% it is only a fraction.
How do we know that the situation for 4% of the world at the time of Cleopatra wasn't every bit as good for women then as it is today?
Epstein island, Disney, and the FBI have all been exposed as being part of this network.
The headquarters internationally is said to be Kazakstan and Ukraine, and surprise, surprise, Biden is sending tens of billions to Ukraine for some reason.
My point is you say that "we" have improved from 2,000 years ago and explain that "we" refers to civilization as a whole when in fact the situation in the majority of civilization is pretty horrible to women.
So you do say that perhaps you only mean the US, which is 1/20th of human civilization as a whole, and yet even in this 5% it is only a fraction.
How do we know that the situation for 4% of the world at the time of Cleopatra wasn't every bit as good for women then as it is today?