Is Aunt Jenny disobedient?

===


I don't know that any poster here argued that the issue was not submission or that the passages are not compatible.

My concern is why do we think that 1 Cor 14:34 prevents women from prohesying in genderly mixed meetings since women in ch 11 prophesied.

What Dr. Bob argued was that ch 11 refers to meetings in which only women were present. I asked him for evidence from the text to support that. None came.

IMO the reason that 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14:34 ARE compatible is not that the Corinthians had sexually segregated meetings, but that prophecy was not authoritative It seems to have usually concerned personal and/or temporal matters not dogma or eternal verities.But the passing on of the apostolic tradition (teaching) was authoritative.

So my opinion is that women could prophesy in front of men, BUT they could not teach men with authority--at least as an office (note that the verb tense in 1 Tim may allow for occasional addresses by a woman--IMO).

Further I think that the restriction in 11:34 has as its referent the judging of prophecy. Neither could women do that as such could be tantamont to teaching.

 

Does Bilezikian even know what a disjunctive particle is? The examples BDAG lists don't even come close to the construction in 1Co. 14:36:

Here are examples of the disjunctive particle H in Greek:

Mt. 5:36: "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black."

Rv. 3:15: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot."

Mt. 21:25: "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?..."

Mt. 22:17: "Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"

Mk. 3:4: "And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace."

Lk. 2:24: "And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

etc., etc., etc.

What am I missing here? None of these "disjunctive" uses of H even comes close to the construction of 1Co. 14:36. My guess is that some misnomenclature is going on here, either that or Paul is the only one in all of ancient literature to use the disjunctive particle in the way Bilezikian says he does.

The obvious true function of the Greek "H" in 1Co. 14:36 is the general use that often occurs in interrogative sentences to introduce and to add rhetorical questions, as all translations known to man have so recognized in translating that passage.

Yours, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]===


IMO this is a very good post. You have met Bilezikian head on instead of just appealing to 1 Tim 2 as though no other text has import .

This is exactly how I think doctrines should be built and supported: on the Greek and on the exegeses of texts (as well as establishing a coherence with other tenets).


However, I'm surprised that you didn't use a Pauline example as Rom 3:29, or even in 1 Cor itself as 10:22! Clearly in these the use of the particle is not to refute what preceded it.

Consequently, 14:34 IS Paul's own view and not just that of the Corinthians as B. claims.