Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I wasn't referring specifically to you that I know of. I was making a general statement about some who try to explain away parts of God's word that they don't like, like issues on homosexuality, women as pastors over men, marital relationships, etc. This is a place where some say that it doesn't really have authority because it is only Paul's thinking, not God's inspiration. It is a legitimate question to be sure, one for which there is a simple answerOriginally posted by USN2Pulpit:
Pastor Larry, there may be some trying to "get around" scripture, as you so delicately put it, but not I. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm simply trying to understand why Paul would write it in the way he did (under the Holy Spirit's inspiration, of course).
It is definitely something that Paul said, but as he says, he is quoting "one of [their] own." In other words, he is quoting another writer (probably from the 6th century BC if my memory serves me correctly. Paul's point was that this writer (Epiminedes -- again, if my memory serves me correctly) accurately assessed a problem with the Cretans about honesty.Originally posted by gb93433:
Titus 1:12 says that all Creatans are liars. That was probably something that was said.
Tecnically Scripture does not go beyond words. Scripture means "writing" and it is words. The message of those words is definitely living, in the sense that it has eternal and abiding value for all generations because of its nature as God-breathed. This does not leave room for existentialism or any reader reconstruction theory of hermeneutics.Scripture goes way beyond words. It is a living breathing message. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I look at the totality of the package as inspired. God can use whatever He wants to convey the message He wants.
Actually, we do take them literally. You read them in light of your presuppositions. We believe women should be involved in ministry.Originally posted by Jimmy C:
It is very interesting to me though that all you who supposedly take a very literal interpretation of the Word (as I do as well) completely ignore the passages that relate to women in ministry.
And there is no textula indication that any of these positions involved authority over men. You assume that becuas eyou want to support your position. The very clearest texts forbids a woman from having authority over men in the church. There is nothing about these ladies that suggests that they violated that.For example Paul tells women to keep their heads covered WHEN they preach or pray. He is not condeming of them, or telling them to only preach to women. There is no condemnation of Philips daughters who prophesied/preached. Priscilla was very influential in the early church.
The passage in question, I think, is found in one of the letters to Timothy. Paul talks to the men of the church, instructing them in specific ways. He then instructs the women (plural) in other ways. He then shifts to not permitting the "woman" to have authority over the men. Paul shifts from the plural to the singular, which seems kind of odd... UNLESS Paul was specifically talking abuot a specific woman that Timothy would have in question. In other words, that specific command was for a specific person. So, perhaps this command that is often stated as "women shouldn't have authority over men," is referring to a specific person who was causing disruptions in the church instead of a universal command for all women everywhere.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And there is no textula indication that any of these positions involved authority over men. You assume that becuas eyou want to support your position. The very clearest texts forbids a woman from having authority over men in the church. There is nothing about these ladies that suggests that they violated that.
Two different words for servant - Phoebe is considered a diakonos - (or translated deacon). The other word is doulos - or bondslave. All Christians are Christ's bondslave, but not all Christians are deacons.Originally posted by timothy 1769:
[QB] i only found phebe referred to as a servant, but consider this:
The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
I meant Phebe. (the editting time limit is just to short!)
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
[2] That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Phebe is a "servant of the church" and a "succourer of many" Succourer means helper.
I don't have a Hebrew Bible, not do I understand the language. But my English translation does not use the word Deacon in referrence to Phebe.
No, not all Christians are Deacons. That is an appointed office similar to Pastor in it's guidelines for qualifying for the position.
Then why the inconsistency? What are the reasons that this time it doesn't mean the position of "deacon" while elsewhere it does?Originally posted by Gunther:
Servant is the english translation. Deacon is a transliteration. Scott, please explain why that is a bad translation.
That website has some very...interesting...papers. One of them: "A Female Apostle? A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7" so butchers and re-writes the text that any person who knows how to exegete would dismiss it. The dismissing of what is an almost unanimously held belief by the church fathers is also interesting. It's quite sad the lengths some people will go to get rid of certain verses that disprove their strongly-held, extra-Biblical beliefs.Originally posted by Gunther:
For an excellent webpage that deals with all issues, please go to the following:
CBMW [/QB]
Great. Well, if part of the Bible isn't true, why should I believe that any of it is?Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.
Great. Well, if part of the Bible isn't true, why should I believe that any of it is? </font>[/QUOTE]He is NOT saying the Bible is wrong, he is saying that the translators, for some reason, translated that word inconsistently.Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.