[Basilissa]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Once again, I am not here to argue about the Bible.

You can find internet sites that will support either of our beliefs. Mine is based on plenty of study and is supported by many scholars of the faith. I said myself that this particular verse is a controversial one.

Is this your response? Backing off instead of supporting your views with Bible?

Like it or not, I'm not that easily irritated; in fact, I'm nowhere near there.

Who did say anything about getting irritated, dear?

Praise the Lord for His Love.

Amen!

[Primrose Dawn]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Once again, I am not here to argue about the Bible.

You can find internet sites that will support either of our beliefs. Mine is based on plenty of study and is supported by many scholars of the faith. I said myself that this particular verse is a controversial one.

Like it or not, I'm not that easily irritated; in fact, I'm nowhere near there.

Praise the Lord for His Love.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

The passage you quoted about childbirth requires knowledge of just why the author was speaking to his audience.

If 2 Timothy 3:16 is right, then the Author is God and He was speaking to all of His people. If God were simply speaking through Paul to address a specific problem in a specific church, then why would He have allowed 1 Timothy to enter the canon of Scripture? And if He'd intended it to become part of the Bible from the start, then wouldn't He have made the context clear so that lay people wouldn't misunderstand the passage? But He didn't leave any clue that this passage should be understood to apply only to a specific woman. The only conclusion I can draw is that 1 Tim 2:15 applies to all women.

There had been "trouble in River City" if you know what I mean. Specifically, there were those within the area that were creating issues with the teachings; these were certain people. When the writer mentions "they," he is likely not referring to women that might follow but instead women that were creating the discord for Christian teachers at that time. For this passage to be interpreted correctly, you MUST take that into account.

Once you go down the road of trying to interpret the Bible, you run into all sorts of problems. If you need a degree to understand the Bible, then what good is it to the lay person? And even scholars can't agree on the correct interpretation.

Some believe Paul was speaking against the goddess Artemis.

Some believe 1 Tim 2:15 means that women will find true fulfilment in childbearing.

Some say it means if women want to avoid Eve's mistake, they must adhering to God-given boundaries and responsibilities.

Some believe Paul is saying that the woman will be saved from the stigma or the responsibility of having caused the Fall.

That's four different interpretations from the top four google results. Which interpretation are we to believe?

I have studied the Word fairly extensively. This includes the translations that formed your favorite KJV 1611 Bible. When looking at the original language, the only logical interpretation of this "childbearing" thing is that the author is speaking of specific people. To see this, though, you'll need to study the circumstances, as I said earlier, that led the writer to direct this letter as he was guided by the Holy Spirit.

You want us to go back to the original languages, which is fine for pastors and such, but the lay person cannot do that. If God had wanted His Word to be understood by the lay person, don't you think He would have made sure His Word was translated accurately? Is He not powerful enough? Couldn't He have prevented the translators from making such a botch job?

For any scripture to be taken as instruction (and ALL of it is meant to be - not just a few cherry picked verses), the reader needs to first pray, ask the Holy Spirit for His aid, and learn about the circumstances and surroundings that caused the scripture to be written.

Why didn't God include these simple instructions in His Word?

You are free to have your own interpretation; this is a very controversial scripture.

People are not free to have their own interpretation of this verse. It is a verse about salvation, which means it's critical. God's way of salvation is not a matter of opinion and not open to dispute. If details of the situation Paul was addressing would have made such a huge difference to our understanding of this passage, then God surely would have included them. You would have us believe God was trying to trick the layman with a play on words.

What kind of a pastor cannot even get his own wife get saved?

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Amen, Sister! A man who cannot control his own wife is unfit to bear office.

1 Tim 3:1-5
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

[Basilissa]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Obviously you've mistaken me for someone that hasn't researched the Bible. The passage you quoted about childbirth requires knowledge of just why the author was speaking to his audience. There had been "trouble in River City" if you know what I mean. Specifically, there were those within the area that were creating issues with the teachings; these were certain people. When the writer mentions "they," he is likely not referring to women that might follow but instead women that were creating the discord for Christian teachers at that time.

Care to support that claim with a passage? Because I'm not finding it in my Bible.

For this passage to be interpreted correctly, you MUST take that into account.

Wrong. 2 Peter 1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (In context, 2 Peter 1:3-21).

I have studied the Word fairly extensively. This includes the translations that formed your favorite KJV 1611 Bible. When looking at the original language, the only logical interpretation of this "childbearing" thing is that the author is speaking of specific people.

I've read different translations of the Bible in three modern languages as well as Latin Vulgata. I haven't seen in any of them even a hint that this passage was directed to specific people. Also, note that the verses before 1 Timothy 2:15 talk about a woman who is the ancestor of all other women, Eve. You can read it however you want, but 1 Timothy 2:11-15 explains that women IN GENERAL cannot teach in church because of Eve. Otherwise, why would Paul talk about a specific unnamed woman first, then make an digression to the mother of all women, and then come back to the first woman? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

To see this, though, you'll need to study the circumstances, as I said earlier, that led the writer to direct this letter as he was guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a passage that has been argued for years. Think: no one can be saved simply through childbearing and being faithful - that's just ludicrous.

Well, do you have a Bible verse that would somehow contradict what Paul says?

For any scripture to be taken as instruction (and ALL of it is meant to be - not just a few cherry picked verses),

We finally agree on something. ALL Scripture needs to be taken as instruction. My personal favorites are Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua smite all enemies of God!

the reader needs to first pray, ask the Holy Spirit for His aid, and learn about the circumstances and surroundings that caused the scripture to be written.

Circumstances and surroundings: God given inspiration. What else would we need to know?

Do I expect you to accept this? No. Let the barrage of criticism begin. My studies mean more than your lack of understanding. The Bible is not meant to be argued; I don't need to have the last word. You are free to have your own interpretation; this is a very controversial scripture.

Again, God doesn't approve of free interpretations. Here at Landover Baptist, we read the Bible as is.

Pastor's wife sometimes disagrees with her husband (to his chagrin) but they have a lovely relationship.

What kind of a pastor cannot even get his own wife get saved?

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Our congregation has people from all backgrounds and levels of faith and has outreaches for each of them. I have often been asked to bring my perspective since the Lord has led me to having a love for His service and for His Word. I'm not adrift; Jesus is my anchor and guides me in all things.

Sweetie, I don't think He is. You are twisting His words to agree with your own personal agenda. This is not having Jesus as an anchor, this is using Him as a paperweight.

Sorry, Scott. That's just ridiculous. Study the scripture you quoted in light of the original language. "The woman" refers to one, singular woman, otherwise God would have inspired the writer to use a different form of the noun. Childbirth, while painful, is not a sorrowful experience.

I'm guessing you've never been around a pregnant woman and never been present during childbirth. It IS painful and dirty.

To think it is desecrates what God intends to be a beautiful blessing.

Get pregnant and have a baby, then we'll talk again, sweetie. I'm pretty sure that months of morning sickness and hours in labor will cure you from your idealism.

For ME - just me - I have chosen to accept what the Bible says.

You did? It doesn't seem like it.

Not because one person's interpretation is right when someone else's is wrong, as you've implied. It's not mine to say. My studies give me the ability, however, to point out when someone is not using the scriptures in the light of the original language.

Fine. I'll give you that, ancient Greek is not on the list of the languages I speak.

That's the same as interpreting "Veni, Vidi, Vici" as I came, I saw, I conquered, instead of "I was on the way, saw what I needed to do, and beat their behinds senseless."

???? This is not what it says, sweetheart! I see that you do not speak Latin.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

*** blah blah blah ***

Less arguing, more praising Jesus.

YiC,

Zech

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Have you ever formally studied logic? If so, you are well aware of the methods you're using to "sound" right. If you haven't, let me assure you that you are using many fallacious arguments. And, as I said, I will not argue the Bible. Part of the issue is your viewpoint.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Shut your godmocking mouth.

[Primrose Dawn]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

So it all means something, but what exactly it means is up to what the voice in your own head says it does, and if anyone else's little voice doesn't say the exact same thing then then it's not really God talking to them.

So many fallacies of logic that to delete them is for your own good.

Have you ever formally studied logic? If so, you are well aware of the methods you're using to "sound" right. If you haven't, let me assure you that you are using many fallacious arguments. And, as I said, I will not argue the Bible. Part of the issue is your viewpoint.

Understand that I am not saying that's wrong; it's just obvious that you are skeptical of the Bible and that's your right. Since any acceptance of a God or a god is dependent on the ability to logically find proof, and faith is necessary for much of the Christian Bible, it will be ludicrous to point things out to you that you simply have not found reason to accept.

For ME - just me - I have chosen to accept what the Bible says. Not because one person's interpretation is right when someone else's is wrong, as you've implied. It's not mine to say. My studies give me the ability, however, to point out when someone is not using the scriptures in the light of the original language. That's the same as interpreting "Veni, Vidi, Vici" as I came, I saw, I conquered, instead of "I was on the way, saw what I needed to do, and beat their behinds senseless."

Peace, Didymus.

[Scott Cole]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Sorry, Scott. That's just ridiculous. Study the scripture you quoted in light of the original language. "The woman" refers to one, singular woman, otherwise God would have inspired the writer to use a different form of the noun. Childbirth, while painful, is not a sorrowful experience. To think it is desecrates what God intends to be a beautiful blessing.

Much love,
Prim

Enough word play woman, What Bible do you read from? to me you seem to be a feminazi or at least some kind of witch who believes women are mans equals

[Primrose Dawn]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Im sorry but im stuck at the part where she thinks she has a say in who she can and cant marry.

Young Lady why hasn't your Father given you away to a decent Christian man? you do realize your only purpose here on Earth is to spill out little Christian soldiers, cook clean and fetch beers.

Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee



God Bless

Sorry, Scott. That's just ridiculous. Study the scripture you quoted in light of the original language. "The woman" refers to one, singular woman, otherwise God would have inspired the writer to use a different form of the noun. Childbirth, while painful, is not a sorrowful experience. To think it is desecrates what God intends to be a beautiful blessing.

Much love,
Prim

[Primrose Dawn]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

You seem to be legitimately reaching for Jesus, Sister Primrose. My fear is that you have made a few false conclusions and are being led astray.

Have you talked to your Pastor about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of trying, in your capacity as a woman, to study and understand God's word without the assistance of a male person, preferably your husband, father, older brother or Pastor?

I fear for your future. You seem adrift on a dangerous sea.

I love you, Alvin

However, we are about to disagree. So, can we just be friends with differing viewpoints, please? My Bible studies are ongoing at a Christian school and I often meet and discuss His Word with my pastor. In addition, I belong to a women's study group that is actually overseen by our pastor. Pastor's wife sometimes disagrees with her husband (to his chagrin) but they have a lovely relationship. Our congregation has people from all backgrounds and levels of faith and has outreaches for each of them. I have often been asked to bring my perspective since the Lord has led me to having a love for His service and for His Word. I'm not adrift; Jesus is my anchor and guides me in all things.

Blessings,
Prim

[Scott Cole]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Im sorry but im stuck at the part where she thinks she has a say in who she can and cant marry.

Young Lady why hasn't your Father given you away to a decent Christian man? you do realize your only purpose here on Earth is to spill out little Christian soldiers, cook clean and fetch beers.

Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee



God Bless

[Didymus Much]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

...For any scripture to be taken as instruction (and ALL of it is meant to be - not just a few cherry picked verses), the reader needs to first pray, ask the Holy Spirit for His aid, and learn about the circumstances and surroundings that caused the scripture to be written...

So it all means something, but what exactly it means is up to what the voice in your own head says it does, and if anyone else's little voice doesn't say the exact same thing then then it's not really God talking to them.

Wait, what?

...Do I expect you to accept this? No.,,

Phew.

...Let the barrage of criticism education begin continue...

FTFY.

...My imagination means more than the actually written word of God...

FTFY.

...The Bible is not meant to be argued...

Then what the heck are you doing?

...You are free to have your own interpretation...

No, they're not.

The Bible can be viewed as a contract (in fact, that's what covenant means). It says that if you fulfill your obligations to God (obeying [perfectly] over 630 commandments, orders, and directives contained in the Bible), then after you die, God will let you join Him in Heaven. If you don't, well, no Heaven for you!

Now, is the Bible a perfect reflection of God's will?

Either:

1) The Bible is a true reflection of God's Will (and absolute, perfect obedience to every last one of the 630+ commandments, conditions, clauses, etc. is necessary, see James 2:10) or
2) It's not.

If it's not, either:

1) God is unaware that it has been corrupted, in which case He is not omniscient (as the Bible claims He is), and is not worthy of worship
2) God is aware, but is unable to change it, in which case He is not omnipotent (as the Bible claims He is), and is not worthy of worship
3) God is aware, but is unwilling to change it, in which case He doesn't want us to know His true Will and be Saved, and Salvation becomes basically a lottery. These would be the actions of a psychopath.
4) God does not exist.

Which of the above cases do you believe to be the truth?

[Alvin Moss]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

You seem to be legitimately reaching for Jesus, Sister Primrose. My fear is that you have made a few false conclusions and are being led astray.

Have you talked to your Pastor about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of trying, in your capacity as a woman, to study and understand God's word without the assistance of a male person, preferably your husband, father, older brother or Pastor?

I fear for your future. You seem adrift on a dangerous sea.

[Primrose Dawn]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

Obviously you've mistaken me for someone that hasn't researched the Bible. The passage you quoted about childbirth requires knowledge of just why the author was speaking to his audience. There had been "trouble in River City" if you know what I mean. Specifically, there were those within the area that were creating issues with the teachings; these were certain people. When the writer mentions "they," he is likely not referring to women that might follow but instead women that were creating the discord for Christian teachers at that time. For this passage to be interpreted correctly, you MUST take that into account. I have studied the Word fairly extensively. This includes the translations that formed your favorite KJV 1611 Bible. When looking at the original language, the only logical interpretation of this "childbearing" thing is that the author is speaking of specific people. To see this, though, you'll need to study the circumstances, as I said earlier, that led the writer to direct this letter as he was guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a passage that has been argued for years. Think: no one can be saved simply through childbearing and being faithful - that's just ludicrous. For any scripture to be taken as instruction (and ALL of it is meant to be - not just a few cherry picked verses), the reader needs to first pray, ask the Holy Spirit for His aid, and learn about the circumstances and surroundings that caused the scripture to be written.

Do I expect you to accept this? No. Let the barrage of criticism begin. My studies mean more than your lack of understanding. The Bible is not meant to be argued; I don't need to have the last word. You are free to have your own interpretation; this is a very controversial scripture.

In His Love,
Prim

[Basilissa]

Re: Peace in Jesus Name

"First of all, he's obviously not a Christian in the sense that Jesus meant us to be. You can quote any scripture to fit your purpose. It's up to the Holy Spirit to guide you in its meaning - but never should scripture be taken out of context."

Sweetie, show me a single instance where a True Christian - either a man or a woman - cites the Holy Bible out of context. Tell that false "pastor" of yours to go ahead and read the entire Bible, not just selected passages that make his cherry picking heart happy.

I know my heart, and I know that Jesus Christ lives there. I know that the decisions I've made regarding dating only honest, Christian men will come to be a huge benefit when I finally decide to marry once I have established myself in a career. I will never be dependent on a man.

Honey, do you know who Apostle Paul is? Read his letters, especially Ephesians 5:22-23 (go ahead, read the entire chapter 5 for context), and Colossians 3:18 (here in context).

You may also be interested in reading 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in context.

If children are a part of my future,

For your own sake, I hope they will- 1 Timothy 2:15 - let's see it in context:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Having good Christian kids is the only way that a women can be saved. That's not taking Bible out of context, that's reading it as it is.

regardless of their race, they will be raised in the church - a Baptist church, by the way, IF that is their choice later in life - and I'm sure our Lord will smile upon them.

Read your Bible. Our God is Mighty and Fierce Lord of War (Exodus 15:3), He punishes much more often than He smiles.

"Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me." I'm sure they weren't all white Baptists, "pastor" Ezekiel.

The kids that Jesus was talking about were all Jews, but that's a different point.

Praise the Lord that He gives us the right to rebuke those that come against us.

That is so sad, you seemed to be a nice, decent girl, and now I see that you are a God hating atheist. How can you reject His Holy Words? How can you reject the only evidence of His Will - the Holy Bible?

My heart is saddened, but I will pray for you.

Know that you stand in rebuke right now. I can almost hear the gasps across the land that I woman should dare to speak to a man in such a fashion! Frankly, you can just close those mouths. Women, stand your ground! I know you're out there - those that are not happy with with a subservient role. Speak up. Speak out. Jesus will reward you.

Why would we go against the words of the Holy Bible?

Obvious answer: his is not the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit does not call us to hate or despise.

Oh, really? Jesus disagrees with you.

Here are the words of Jesus Himself:

Matthew 10:34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 14:26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Again, please feel free to read both verses in context:
Matthew chapter 10
Luke chapter 14