Men, authority, and their women

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joy2:
Gen. 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply the 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.

: Joy2 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Joy,

Surely you don't take that passage of punishment against the woman after the fall to be what God originally intended for women before the fall...do you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, honestly, in a perfect world, I guess we wouldn't need to be reminded to submit to one another. Unfortunately, the curse hasn't been lifted, though. I still think the man was created to be the head of the home, after the curse, we women just don't like it because of our rebellious natures. Man still worked before the curse as well. Adam kept the garden. Eve was created later to be his helper, not his boss.

Even our bodies attest to that. Eve was created for Adam, (need I say more?) for child bearing and nurturing. That doesn't mean we are un-intelligent or not capable of leadership, it just means that God had a perfect design for how things were supposed to work.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joy2:
Great personal opinion, now back it up with Scripture!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Divorce stats are not my personal opinion. These are available from the census bureau and Barna and GAllop, etc. There are no verses in scripture to support the concept of one way submission as a rule for all the ages. Gal 8:28 (I think) points out that in Christ there is ...neither male nor female ... we are all one in Christ. I still cringe when I think about the comment of Mrs. D. Patterson that she would obey her husband even if she knew he was wrong ... that he would have to answer to God. Sure gonna be a lot of surprised ladies on judgement day.

 

Ok Joshua . . . since you say I am giving my understanding of submission from the Bible, let's here your take on those verses please. I'd be interested in knowing what you think they mean.

And for what it's worth, Biblical submission doesn't work for a lot of women because they don't want it to. If they want to be so very independent, then they should have stayed single.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bezalel:
Gal 8:28 (I think) points out that in Christ there is ...neither male nor female ... we are all one in Christ. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bezalel, that scripture, in it's context, refers to salvation, not the roles of husbands and wives within a marriage.

 

I was refering to the Scriptures when I said back it up, and as Keeper pointed out, the one verse you did use was not in context. Go back and look up the references I gave. How do you explain Gen. 3:16, Proverbs ch.31, I Cor. 11:3, 14:34, Eph. 5:22, Col 3:18, I Tim. 2:11, Titus 2:5, I Pet. 3:1,5,+6 ?

Again, equal in value does not mean same in function!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joy2:
I was refering to the Scriptures when I said back it up, and as Keeper pointed out, the one verse you did use was not in context. Go back and look up the references I gave. How do you explain Gen. 3:16, Proverbs ch.31, I Cor. 11:3, 14:34, Eph. 5:22, Col 3:18, I Tim. 2:11, Titus 2:5, I Pet. 3:1,5,+6 ?

Again, equal in value does not mean same in function!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that these scriptures can all be interpreted in the light of their own culture at the time Paul wrote. I don't think that they provide universal applications for all time and all cultures and that Scripture must be interpreted in light of the particular culture in which it is being used. This is the 21st century not the 1st. The use of "silly, simpering women" was not name calling ... except if the shoe fits ... but characterization of an attitude. Some of you ladies sound like you wear army boots! Certainly not simpering!

 

Oh, so Bezalel, so now you're knocking how I choose to dress!
Keeper, you have pointed out my worst flaw! By, was I not meant for submission, lol! But hey, I did it, I did it well, I just struggled with every second of it.
I believe Keeper and Joy are both very correct here, and exactly in line with the scriptures. Bezalil, coming from me that's saying a lot, because I will find every way possible to weasel out of any type of authority over me. I have witnesses. They'll be going to court with me too. I am standing against school authorities, I am standing against officers, I am standing against a judge, and I will tell them all they are incorrect, but Joy and Keeper? I can't. They have biblical proof on their side. You cannot argue with that. You're basically arguing against G-d's authority, and it isn't working.
How did you get your name, by the way?
Gina

 

Army boots~ hee hee! Your not far off! My husband might be the General, but I'm a drill sargeant!

 

AMEN Dr. Bob!

Kathy
&lt;&gt;&lt;

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joy2:
Army boots~ hee hee! Your not far off! My husband might be the General, but I'm a drill sargeant!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How VERY apropos!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Granted we must look at the context, the time and history, but we could throw out EVERY SINGLE VERSE in the Bible based on the faulty logic of "interpreting in the light of culture".

Example: Jesus said to Nick at night - "Ye must be born again". But that was 2000 years ago, to a Jewish Sanhedrin member. It is NOT for today. It is NOT for gentiles. It was for that culture, that time, that person!

Get the problem? We would have NO Bible left if "cultural relavance" were the criteria. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Brother Bob if one doesn't intrepret the Bible in the light of day in which one lives, how then can it be relavant? Your illustration about "Nick at Night" refers to a timeless truth... revealed by Jesus. Paul, on the other hand spoke to a local problem.

 

Local? It is taught throughout the entire Scriptures, and right from the very point of creation of Adam and Eve!

If God wanted us to be the same in function, He would've made Steve instead of Eve Getting rid of the different roles which God has set up for us, is a huge mistake. It blurs the sexes into one, which is just exactly what the homosexual community and the feminist community wants. If the sexes are blurred, they don't have to feel so guilty for their lifestyle.

Proper marriages, where that husband and wife are equal in value but have separate roles, are an example of God and the church. Improper role blending is called blasphemous, because it sends a picture of man setting himself up higher than God!

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: Joy2 ]