This is a sensitive one but something I feel should be addressed.

1 Timothy 2: 11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Ok, so if the bible is the inerrant word of God (and the statement of faith here describes it as such - "The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, and, therefore, are the final authority for faith and life."), what then do we make of this?

In relation to this ministry - and please please understand that I'm not trying to cause trouble, I simply want to understand the logic here - why then are women moderators allowed (noting 1 Timothy 2:12, the bolded portion)?

For me this is an easy one - these verses are crap that Paul made up, pure and simple. Such are part of the reason I cannot consider the bible of a lot of value, much less inerrant or infallible. (So yeah, I'm on your side ladies )

Well thanks for your support ...but this here ExWitch is not a "church" ...

I spent allot of time reading through countless, endless posts on CARM on this exact topic, which was interesting especially since the entire ministry is viced by a female who is most definitely opposed to female pastors etc. They have held a few formal debates with well known US female pastor - quite interesting if you wanted to check it out...

De nada



So in your opinion the church/non-church setting makes all the difference? Interesting. Church setting was certainly the type of setting Paul is talking about in both cases, but one would think that he meant it as a wider principle the way it's stated.

Question though - what precisely is the difference between a ministry and a church? (Is that kinda like the difference between "is" and "is"? )



Can you point me in the direction of a few of the better posts? CARM appears to be a rather large site....

In the Timothy passage, he clearly says 'I do not permit a woman to ..." so I would say that's a personal preference. The context of the Corinthians quote is specifically on the speaking and interpretation of tongues.

Thoughts on what is not specifically spoken of in scripture-several women are noted as being deaconesses and in a culture that assumes the seperation of men and women at all activities it is assumed that Christian women will be participating at the same services as their male counterparts.

For an interesting twist...that verse about the Scriptures is referring strictly to the Torah. Show me in the Torah where it says a woman is to keep silent and I'll shut my mouth. Until someone can point me to that, I'm going to accept that there are letters missing in the NT and that reading one side of a conversation often leaves a person confused about what is really being said. I dunno what Paul was getting at, but I do know that there's not OT precedent for it so I'm a lot hesitant to take it as much more than personal opinion or one side of a conversation that would have made sense all put together.

What Would Jesus Do?



Very cliche--but something to think about as Jesus DID get the women involved with His ministry! In fact, from what the Gospels tell us, one of them was an accountant! As someone else mentioned earlier, in the Early Church, they were made DEACONESESS!

One thing is certain--they weren't Southern Baptists!

Interesting. So if marriage is a model of our relationship with Christ, perhaps there is something of the "don't commit spiritual adultery by asking after other gods" in this. Much to ponder on.

...And besides, the KJV reads "usurp authority over the man."

Hmm, so basically some of what Paul writes is personal opinion - and thus not authoritative. This would mean that the bible is not entirely the word of God. Where then does one draw the line?



This leads to the same problem as above, only from a different angle - if highly relevant parts of the bible are missing how can the whole be considered authoritative, much less inerrant?



So, as I've stated before, Jesus trumps Paul. I'm beginning to see that the practical position being espoused is not so much "the bible is the inerrant word of God that is the final authority" but rather more of "the bible is right wherein it doesn't contradict one's conscience". This I can agree with

I'll go so far as to say that the Torah is inerrant. I might include the rest of the OT, still studying on that. But when it comes to the NT, if it doesn't line up with and support the OT, I throw it out. I'm definitely going to have to study that more before I decide what to do with it.

I also have heard from those who can translate the Greek that some of what it says isn't really what it says. But I'm not (yet) capable of translating Greek so I mostly just shelve the NT that I can't support with OT (I can translate Hebrew) until I become capable. Considering my schedule, that could be awhile. lol

Before I ask anything else, please clarify - in what sense do you mean inerrant?



I've heard similar things. Unfortunately languages and myself don't get along well, so I kinda have to take the word of others save in very rudimentary cases.

trying to compare two cultures is kinda... like comparing apples and oranges. i'd say that this sort of stuff doesn't really apply to todays society. imho, starting to follow beliefs like this is a step back from where humanity wants to be as a whole. in my own beliefs, god doesn't want women to be seen like that, and he doesn't not want women to be seen like that. its a choice people have to make depending on personal preference and thats kinda the way it works now a days. if a woman wants to become a pastor, she can. if people don't want to follow a female pastor, they don't have to.

if staying silent and completely submissive to males does not spiritually fulfill a female, then why should they stay that way? why does sexual intercourse have to govern behavior in people? its kinda absurd in my eyes... though again, lots of things people do are completely absurd in my eyes lol.

It's true to the original text as far as I can tell from research on the subject.



It's simply a matter of not enough hours in the day and too many things demanding my attention for me. I don't have too many problems with languages if I can find the time to apply myself at all.

Shades,

I certainly concur that these are Paul's preferences and NOT expressly God's, however since I've become increasingly dubious of Paul's authority generally, I'm probably not the best one to ask on this subject.

-Theophilus

I don't know if I'd call the Torah inerrant, but I'd put greater reliability in it than I would Paul's letters.

Respectfully,

-Theophilus

May I ask why not?

Always curious.

Cool - we can agree on this I think Now whether the original text is accurate to reality, that's another question



With me it's largely a problem of discipline - I just don't have the patience.

Pleased that you asked Nakoe.

I posted on this subject recently elsewhere, but in brief, I don't see the Scriptures claiming to be inerrant. The nature of communication as such, especially over time and translation that while communication can be effective and sufficient it is doubtful to be inerrantly so to all readers / hearers. We can see this in the questions that are raised on subjects covered in the Torah.

That is not to say that the Scriptures are useless or irrelevant, and are in context and detail sufficient to make a choice regarding offer of a covenant relationship, its' Author offers. My preference has been to examine the earliest sources in amplification. For the Tanahk (OT) this has meant examining the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) whenever possible, especially in the Messianic passages which conflict with the more popular Masoretic Text (MT). While the Septuagint (LX) also is dating quite early (300 BCE range) the opportunity for agendas to influence more recent copies is possible. As for the Renewed Covenant writings (NT), I favor a similar approach especially for Greek Manuscripts pre-dating Constantine and am especially wary of translations / revisions made from the Latin Vulgate (LV) or Textus Receptus (TR). Of late I've also come to seriously question whether Paul's letters ought to be regarded as anything more than Paul's letters, especially when they appear to conflict with Messiah's words or the Torah.

I hope that this helps,

Respectfully,

Theophilus

Very much. I'd love to have coffee with you sometime!

I'm only just getting back into my studies on this subject after about a year break.

The idea that "Jesus trumps Paul" isn't a new one; the issue is, if you don't bother to study the scriptures at all for yourself, you take these verses only at face value and don't bother to "dig a little deeper." Sheesh; get a concordance if you're not sure what they're saying.

But uhmmm...at any rate, it should be obvious that Jesus and Paul complimented each other and didn't contradict one another; Christ had women in position of authority and Paul allowed it too (and that's the whole point I was trying to make!)

I don't see how you can say I'm making "Jesus trump Paul".

But oh well...life goes on.

~

Recently, a Jewish Orthodox scholar visited Melbourne University (highly credentialed university in Australia) and gave a series of lectures on would you believe it - Paul. Now this woman is not a believer and the bulk of her studies has been on Paul. Her lectures affirmed Paul in the sense that she encouraged Jewish acadaemia to take another look at Paul as truly Jewish, a Rabbi etc. Im currently trying to retrieve more information on these lecturers, but a few of my friends went to the lectures and were astounded....without even knowing it, she was sharing the Gospel to Jewish community

Heh, I may have been out of the Christian "game" for some time, and am thus a tad rusty, but please don't presume that I'm some sort of idiot. Further, you seem to think that just because a book says "concordance" that it can be trusted. Given 2000 ish years of agenda and theology, I'd much rather trust the words of individuals like Theo or Nak - whom I believe can be trusted - that can do such work over the authors of some concordance whom undoubtedly draw a salery from some institution with a definitive agenda.



No where herein, especially in your post, do I see it being stated that Paul allowed women in positions of authority - and indeed the point is his statements against such. You noted that Christ allowed women in positions of authority. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this equates to "Jesus trumps Paul".

Sorry I took so long to get back to you on this one Nightmare. I searched CARM and it seems they have taken down that particular forum. It was a rather "heated" place thats for sure so maybe thats the reason

very cool.

Ah poop. Thanks anyway Anita