Saved in childbearing... from what?

[TCGreek]

Totally besides the point, but James, Is that a picture of Gilligan as your avatar?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

James Newman,

Excuse me, are you one of them at Gillian's Island? :laugh:

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

TCGreek,

You beat me!!!! :tonofbricks:

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[James_Newman]

It was a gift from the Beaver. Its Maynard G Krebs.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1079614&postcount=26

 

[TCGreek]

It was a gift from the Beaver. Its Maynard G Krebs.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1079614&postcount=26

I am cracking up, almost uncontrollably. The irony is killing me. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Wow! He was so young! I bet that was in year around 1960's.

Now he is an old man, have white hair and is fat. He is the only two of the remain crew of 'Gillian Island'. All are already dead.

I love watched Gillian's Island, when I was boy in 1970's. That show was funny. I am sure many of you watched that show many years ago. I miss them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[npetreley]

Wow! He was so young! I bet that was in year around 1960's.

Now he is an old man, have white hair and is fat. He is the only two of the remain crew of 'Gillian Island'. All are already dead.

I love watched Gillian's Island, when I was boy in 1970's. That show was funny. I am sure many of you watched that show many years ago. I miss them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

That picture was not from Gilligan's Island. Bob Denver (Gilligan and Maynard) played a beatnik called Maynard G. Krebs in the show Dobie Gillis, which debuted in 1959. A year after the Dobie Gillis show ended, he starred in Gilligan's Island (1964).

Maynard was a lovable beatnik, Dobie's best friend, who was allergic to work. If anyone said "work" near him, he's squeal, "Work!!?!?" as if the very sound cut him to the quick.

For what it's worth, I thought Maynard G. Krebs was really funny. I never thought Gilligan was funny.

Here's a link to some info about Dobie Gillis. One funny bit of trivia: They couldn't make up their mind if Dobie should have blond or brown hair. His hair color changed during the series. Another bit of trivia: I'm pretty sure the Dobie Gillis show is where Warren Beatty (Mr. "You're so vain") got his start. (Nope - checked and he started a few years before that.)

http://www.timvp.com/dobie.html
.

 

[James_Newman]

Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on the last post I made, DHK, pertaining to reward being called 'saving your life' and the loss of reward compared to losing your soul.

 

[DHK]

Anyway, I'd like your thoughts on the last post I made, DHK, pertaining to reward being called 'saving your life' and the loss of reward compared to losing your soul.

As per the OP, "saved in childbirth," rewards have nothing to do with it.

 

[James_Newman]

As per the OP, "saved in childbirth," rewards have nothing to do with it.

So you don't think that the woman bearing children, guiding the home, raising godly families is worthy of reward? Could the same 'saving' that Jesus spoke of in regard to losing your life here not be applied to the woman who lays down her own ambitions and desires in order to fulfill God's calling in her life, and would this not make more sense than some relative increase in the likelihood that a woman might survive childbirth?

 

[DHK]

So you don't think that the woman bearing children, guiding the home, raising godly families is worthy of reward? Could the same 'saving' that Jesus spoke of in regard to losing your life here not be applied to the woman who lays down her own ambitions and desires in order to fulfill God's calling in her life, and would this not make more sense than some relative increase in the likelihood that a woman might survive childbirth?

No, read the context. The context relates right back to the curse in Genesis three. The Lord told her that she would have pain in child bearing. Were it not for modern medical science the mortality rate for infants and mothers would be high, as it was in the time of Christ. and as it still is in third world countires. Families that life righreously, (literally "right living") have a much better success rate when mothers are giving birth that both mother and child live. That is the over-all generall statement given here to women, as the statement is plural, the pronoun, (or article) "the" referrring to "The women" That is all of womankind--saved and unsaved alike. Drug addicts, for example have less chance of survival than a righteous living Muslim though both be unsaved.

 

[James_Newman]

No, read the context. The context relates right back to the curse in Genesis three. The Lord told her that she would have pain in child bearing. Were it not for modern medical science the mortality rate for infants and mothers would be high, as it was in the time of Christ. and as it still is in third world countires. Families that life righreously, (literally "right living") have a much better success rate when mothers are giving birth that both mother and child live. That is the over-all generall statement given here to women, as the statement is plural, the pronoun, (or article) "the" referrring to "The women" That is all of womankind--saved and unsaved alike. Drug addicts, for example have less chance of survival than a righteous living Muslim though both be unsaved.

Well, I won't disagree with your general assumption that families that live right do better in life, although I think someone asked for statistics when this was mentioned earlier. But I don't believe that Paul was promising women they could get out from under the curse by living right.

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.

That curse is still in operation and if you ask any godly woman who has had children, I'm sure she can verify that for you. Technological advancements in medical treatment can not really be equated with godliness, nor can they totally eliminate the sorrow of bringing forth children.

John 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.


1 Timothy 2:14-15
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.

Paul is saying that the woman will be saved by submitting to the curse that was brought upon women through Eve's transgression. Not saved from the curse, saved through the curse.

 

[lbaker]

No, read the context. The context relates right back to the curse in Genesis three. The Lord told her that she would have pain in child bearing. Were it not for modern medical science the mortality rate for infants and mothers would be high, as it was in the time of Christ. and as it still is in third world countires. Families that life righreously, (literally "right living") have a much better success rate when mothers are giving birth that both mother and child live. That is the over-all generall statement given here to women, as the statement is plural, the pronoun, (or article) "the" referrring to "The women" That is all of womankind--saved and unsaved alike. Drug addicts, for example have less chance of survival than a righteous living Muslim though both be unsaved.

To take this passage and interpret it any other way would totally twist it out of context.

The implication is that if women do as Paul says, then, even though there is the curse to contend with, they will be more likely to survive childbirth and all its complications.

Les

 

[James_Newman]

To take this passage and interpret it any other way would totally twist it out of context.

The implication is that if women do as Paul says, then, even though there is the curse to contend with, they will be more likely to survive childbirth and all its complications.

Les

Then I would like to see the statistics that back this up, that godly women have better success in child bearing than ungodly women. This would be especially interesting in light of the fact that Christians are having fewer children than those women of other religions.

 

[lbaker]

Ask Paul, he's the one that wrote it.

 

[DHK]

Then I would like to see the statistics that back this up, that godly women have better success in child bearing than ungodly women. This would be especially interesting in light of the fact that Christians are having fewer children than those women of other religions.

Ask the social workers who deal with familes with a history of spousal abuse, and/or substance abuse.

 

[James_Newman]

Ask the social workers who deal with familes with a history of spousal abuse, and/or substance abuse.

These would be health issues, not particularly related to continuing in faith, as I am sure that many infidels know how to improve their health better than most baptists.

 

[lbaker]

Okay James/Maynard, since you are asking for statistics to support our side of the argument, can you provide the stats to support your point of view?

Les

 

[James_Newman]

Okay James/Maynard, since you are asking for statistics to support our side of the argument, can you provide the stats to support your point of view?

Les

I don't think I made any statistical claims, but I'll see what I can come up with

I did read an article showing that the rate of deaths during delivery were on the rise, but it didn't make any mention of whether they were God-fearing ladies or not.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070826_Rise_in_U_S__maternal_death_rate.html

 

[lbaker]

I don't think I made any statistical claims, but I'll see what I can come up with

I did read an article showing that the rate of deaths during delivery were on the rise, but it didn't make any mention of whether they were God-fearing ladies or not.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070826_Rise_in_U_S__maternal_death_rate.html

I don't think "we" did either. We just claim that Paul is making the connection between Godliness and less dangerous childbirth. Of couse any stats either of us could come up with now aren't going to reflect the situation at the time Paul was writing anyway. I'm sure giving birth was a much more perilous deal back then.

So Paul should have provided the stats for the concordance in the back of the Bible, I guess.

There are a bunch of stats out there on infant mortality and maternal mortality but I only found one that mentioned religion, from Africa. But it said that the stats in favor of religion could also be explained by economic status, etc. so I didn't feel justified in using it.