My wife, 60, was asked to be the Sunday school superintendent, they don't have one now in this 4 yr old church, they are some what unorganized, yes ,she can do a very good job, there is some slack from at least one male, maybe more that don't speak up, independent baptist church, sooooooo, can she be or not according to the bible? or maybe she can be named something else? Thanks
I know what the bile says about women teaching, preaching, etc, does the bible support her in this position at all? Tks, richard

Some churches really don't follow what the bible teaches at all... others are really strict about it.

You can pick a lot of things from a Bible to support your position. Mine is, I want my son stoned to death because he is a lazy drunkard. Not really but what does the Bible say? Deuteronomy 18:18-21. Read it! So, what position do you take? My city council frowned on that practice --BUT THE BIBLE SAYS IT!!

The "women are to be silent" verse was Paul's warning to a SPECIFIC congregation where some (not all) women were very chatty and noisy and disorganized. So, no, there's no biblical reason why she can't be superintendent. Independent Baptist is flexible and not as literal as some denominations, from what I know of it.

P.S. I'm a Lutheran pastor's kid who has studied and taught the Bible to children and adults for years.

We must rightly divide the word of truth, which is why most people do not understand the bible. I agree with WG, Paul was correcting a specific assembly. If it is true that woman cannot teach or preach the Word of the Lord then explain why the Lord specifically told Mary ( after he rose from the dead) to go tell his disciples and Peter he is alive. That is a pretty HUGE announcement and he left it to a mere woman. Also, check out the woman at the well. He revealed to HER who he was. He didn't do that to just anyone. Then she ran and told everyone that would listen to come and listen to Him... she was preaching. It is so sad, the silly things the church get all concerned with. Yes the bible DOES support her position.



Mao641- sigh. That was a definitely a Jewish law in the OT. I have no clue how often it was followed. Having said that, Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. When you have made your last car payment you don't keep paying it. Your debt was paid. The Lord Jesus paid our debt and the law was nailed to the cross. We are now set free from the law. Which by the way, was ONLY given to man in the first place to show him he CAN NOT DO IT. Mankind in general thinks he is pretty good. Well, God set a standard to show him, he isn't good enough for a Holy God. If you break just 1 law you are guilty of breaking all of them. That is God's standard. He knew when he gave it man couldn't keep it. So in LOVE, he sent his Son to keep it and he fulfilled it. It is now null and void. Scandalous, I know. Those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus are not under the law but under grace. Anyone that is truly under grace will not continue to live in sin. Grace is higher than the law. The bible is very clear, it says sin will NOT have dominion over you if you are under grace. Rightly dividing the word of God... it really makes a huge difference if one wants to understand the bible.

rightly divide
That old-fashioned term "rightly divide" is so confusing. To me and many, many others, "divide" is a negative word: a marriage divided, children divided from parents, eggs divided means the yolk is separated from the white. A better term that is easily understood is "correctly teach."

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Timothy%202:15

Sigh, so, "We are now set free from the law". Everything in the OT is wrong, or not acceptable today? "


How about the 10 commandments? All I was referring to is some of the questions/ oddities/absurdities of the OT.


So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
OR
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man". Last time I checked, I had all mine. But maybe evolution took care of that.


Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is
blamelessand upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." But Paul said "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD".


If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

I personally think it a sin if any church edicts that a woman CAN'T preach, or be priests or ministers.

WG

Rightly divide... means to know the difference between law and grace. What is written to the Jewish people under the law, what is written for the church today. The bible is written for ALL of us but not directly TO all of us. Therefore, divide it appropriately. I have no issues with "rightly teach" but you can't do it if you do not understand Law and grace.

Ma0641-

The entire bible is for us today. I didn't say it was wrong. I said the LAW was fulfilled by Jesus. That's a fact. I didn't understand the other stuff. Not sure what your point was. Sorry.

There is no such thing as "Sunday school" or school leaders in the bible. This is a man made function. As such this is not a pastor role, it is not a Bishop Role, it is not a prophet role.

It is not even a teaching role. So there is no reason a women can not do it

"Rightly divide... means to know the difference between law and grace."

Where do you find that in the passage in question?

Because as WG pointed out... it means to correctly teach. How in the world can you "correctly teach" if you don't know the difference? Mixing law with grace does not work. Jesus himself stated you cannot put new wine into old wine skins, it will burst and you will lose them both. When reading the bible, one must know who it is written directly to and what is the context. It is written for us ALL... but it isn't written to us all. Divide it or correctly teach it but understand what is your portion today as a believer.

"Rightly divide... means to know the difference between law and grace."
I think I'm channeling classyT by saying, in the OT and under the Law, women were property of their husbands, stayed at home, did the cooking and cleaning, and tended to the children. In the NT, under the Gospel, Galatians 3:28 (NIV) says "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So if we "correctly teach," it sounds like grace has released women from a narrow role as homemaker to an unlimited role, allowing women to be the best of whatever they can be to the glory of God -- and that includes being a Sunday school superintendent.

Amusing how neither of you answered my actual question. I agree with all the assessments, but that's not the question I asked.

I realize I am a few months late in this. The passage is 2 Timothy 2:15. "Rightly divide" does not mean to know the difference between law and grace. The Greek word used (orthotomounta (http://biblehub.com/greek/orthotomounta_3718.htm)) means to make a straight cut, and so has the understanding of exercising care in being accurate and correct in your teaching of the Word so that you will not need to be ashamed in the presence of God at what you have taught.

So far as Paul's instruction on women teaching or having authority over men is concerned, I think it is hard to say it is only addressed to one church. He makes it clear that it was his general instruction to the churches (I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man), and he also gives his rational for having that position, saying that when Eve sinned, she did so because she had been deceived by the enemy. A susceptibility to deception is not a desirable trait for a teacher or a leader, so Paul felt it was unwise for women to be in those positions.

I realize that is not a wildly popular position in our present culture, but considering how sick that culture is, it does not bother me at all. In fact, I am more concerned when we Christians are admired and applauded in this present age than when we are criticized.

when Eve sinned, she did so because she had been deceived by the enemy.
It took the cunning of the devil himself to make the woman sin, but it took only a woman to make the man sin.

The woman did not make the man sin. He chose to do so. That is Paul's point. The man was not deceived. People can have differing views of this teaching, but to say that Paul was speaking to a specific congregation is simply incorrect. The letter was written to Timothy, not to a specific church. It is certainly not a denigration of the role of women in the gospel. The church would be in far worse shape than it is currently in were it not for women. Women are having to carry the burden of family now far more than men are willing to do. We should certainly celebrate women, but yet still stay true to scripture. It would seem that a reasonable interpretation of God's word is that women should not be the primary pastor or teacher in a church. Can women have roles of administration? I would think so, but not of a primary teacher or pastor.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The woman did not make the man sin. He chose to do so.
The serpent was crafty and the woman ate the forbidden fruit. All the woman had to do was hand it to the man and he ate. Gen. 3:6 -- "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Not much resistance there....

I'm not really sure what your point is. Paul's point was that the woman was deceived and deception is not a trait you want in a teacher, so he did not allow women to "take the point" in teaching or in leading men. If we believe, as I do, that this is not just Paul's words but God's, then we have to take that seriously. Again, that is not a knock on women. I don't think a woman has to be a lead pastor in order to be taken seriously in the church. The enormous significance of women in the gospel should be acknowledged and appreciated.

As I said earlier, it took Satan himself to come up with reasons why the woman should eat the fruit. All she did in turn was hand the fruit to the man while probably batting her eyelashes. And we know that many male church leaders have succumbed to various temptations since those days in the Garden. Thankfully, (less susceptible?) women are finally gaining ground as church leaders.

Well, I guess I will have to take the Bible's view on it or yours. No offense, but I'll go with the Bible. I just can't find any Biblical reason to be thankful that "women are finally gaining ground as church leaders." I realize it is a popular cultural idea, but I cannot be led by culture. Now I would be thankful for women to take their proper and utterly vital place in the family and in the church. But as with all things, it would need to be in line with the Bible. Either that, or we should just throw out the Bible and stop pretending to believe it.

As to your point that women are quite capable of leading men stupidly astray (which is plainly true), I'm not sure how that helps your case.

As to your point that women are quite capable of leading men stupidly astray (which is plainly true), I'm not sure how that helps your case.
How susceptible men (and far too many male church leaders) are to the temptations of the flesh.

But have you not read what prompted Eve to eat the fruit? How it was appealing to the eyes, and to the taste, and was profitable to make one (supposedly) wise? What is that other than a temptation to the flesh? Many men have performed pitifully in fulfilling their responsibilities, but don't think that women are not susceptible to the allures of temptation.

Gen 3
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve to Adam: Here, take a bite.

Adam: Okay. *mmmmmmmm, good!*

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

Thank you for making my point for me. She was tempted by fleshly desire. And it never says Eve tempted Adam. It just says she gave it to him. How do you know he simply did not ask for it?

If you are waiting for me to agree that men can be tempted by women, I will certainly do that. Now I'm waiting for you to agree that women can, and frequently are, tempted by men. And when both of those facts are established, I don't see at all where women have any advantage in this. But enough of this. I'm done. I certainly do wish you well.

But enough of this. I'm done.
Me too. After all, that story is an allegory and makes its point very well.

Deborah was the leader of the entire nation of Israel. Miriam led the celebration after the Red Sea crossing. Priscilla took the lead when she and Aquila trained Apollos. Paul refers to female apostles in the final chapter of Romans. The list goes on and on. 1 Timothy 2 is speaking of a specific situation in Ephesus, because he sent/left Timothy there to sort out some such issues in the church. That's what the first chapter is about.

Timothy was never a pastor as we understand it. He was a trouble-shooter.

You can hang your hat on one out-of-context passage if you want to, but it does not make your view biblical. Until you take ALL of the Bible into account and learn to temper these imagined absolutes with actual real events that God approved of, it's going to be hard to take you seriously.

1. Paul referring to a female apostle in Romans is open to interpretation. At any rate, it is Andronicus (male) and Junia (female), so it is one. Many people believe they were a husband and wife team.
2. Paul's statement to Timothy was plainly not in reference to a specific situation. "I do not allow..." That is a general statement of Paul's practice in the churches. It is plain and obvious.
3. Paul's reference to Eve being deceived was used as his justification for his not allowing women to be in a position of being a formal teacher of men. That is another obvious demonstration that it was his general practice and not a specific situation.
4. There is not a single reference to a female pastor or elder in the entire New Testament with the possible exception of Priscilla, but even that is open to question.
5. It is not stated that Priscilla "took the lead" in teaching Apollos, but she did participate. That is a valid point, but she worked in conjunction with her husband.
6. That Paul told Timothy "I do not allow" does, I think, open the door to the possibility that others held a different view, but it is never stated, and I would not want to be the person that worked in a fashion different from Paul.

I don't mean to be repetitive, but to say that Paul was speaking to Timothy about a specific situation in Ephesus is just make believe. It plainly does not say that. I don't see any reason that a woman cannot be a Sunday school superintendent. I value women's service in the church. It is this business of playing "fast and loose" with the truth that bothers me. Miriam led the women in singing a song of praise. What does that have to do with this discussion? There were isolated examples of women used in leadership (Debra) or prophecy, but that was certainly not the norm. The list does not go on and on. As I said, if you know of a woman pastor or teacher listed in the New Testament, then state her name. Because our culture wants it to be so does not mean the Bible teaches it. We have an obligation to the truth.

The fact that Paul said "*I* do not allow" shows it was a thing of his, not a hard rule from the Lord. He never said it was, he said it was his practice, period. He never said everybody had to follow it, in fact the statement that it was his policy, not necessarily the Lord's, tells us that other people's mileage might vary.

The rest of your list is arguments from silence, which always cut both ways. It doesn't say it wasn't, but it doesn't say it was. It doesn't say A, but that means it also doesn't say B.

Priscilla did indeed take the lead, that's why she's consistently listed first. With a couple like them, that wasn't normally done so there's a reason for it.

And Sunday School didn't exist in his time, so the question of a woman being a superintendent of something that the Bible never remotely addresses is purely academic anyway.

Oh, and by the way, asking for a woman pastor in the New Testament is like asking for a woman bus driver. Pastors as we know them didn't exist. But there were women elders, which is the way the early churches were governed. Check it out. "Pastor" is an anachronistic term, and the one-pastor church was never envisioned in the New Testament.

"And Sunday School didn't exist in his time, so the question of a woman being a superintendent of something that the Bible never remotely addresses is purely academic anyway."

I only mentioned that (Sunday School Super) because it was the original question in this thread.

Where do you find a reference to women elders?

I would agree with you that churches were more likely governed by a board of elders. Paul outlines the qualifications for them to both Timothy and Titus. In both cases they are referred to as being occupied by men. He does mention pastors in Ephesians 4 so they did exist, but as you said, perhaps not in the manner we have them now.

I am not arguing from silence. There are many men named as leaders in the early church. That is not silence, it is thunder. You simply don't find women listed in that capacity other than Priscilla and even that is not clear cut.

Paul's reference to Eve's deception is not silence. It is the foundation for Paul's position.

Yes, you can argue that Paul makes the prohibition and not the Lord. I am at least happy that you have abandoned the position that Paul was referring only to Ephesus. I am happy to concede that perhaps Paul was open to others allowing women to be teachers/leaders (though that is found nowhere), but I would also point out that, to take a position other than what Paul took, one should have a solid scriptural reason and not just be swayed by the winds of our present culture. To point out that one woman was a judge in the OT and two or three were prophets is not, to me, a compelling reason to begin to put women in the position of church leader, elder, pastor, or whatever you want to call it, and thus disregard Paul's clear directive. However, if someone does it, and holds to Jesus as Saviour of lost sinners and the Bible as the final judge of all doctrinal issues, then I can certainly fellowship with them and keep my mouth closed about our differences. But all things equal, I would prefer to fall on the side of Paul.

We can come back to that, but I couldn't help noticing that you glossed right over Deborah, Miriam, Huldah the prophetess, and all the other prominent women in leadership roles in the Bible. I mentioned them and you didn't. What about them?

Paul's comment about Eve is vague at best. What do you with the part about being saved through childbirth? We can't just grab the parts we like out of context and hang our hats on them, that's how cults gets started. (No, I'm not saying that.)

If we're going to appeal to that chapter we have to deal with the whole thing. And then we have to put it into the wider context of Scripture. There is nothing ambiguous about Priscilla's leadership role, simple Greek grammar and the normal practice of the day tell us that. She was the leader and her husband was her sidekick. It's right there in the Greek text for those who know how to read it.

You're not done, my brother. Lots to cover.

I did mention Debra and the others: "To point out that one woman was a judge in the OT and two or three were prophets is not, to me, a compelling reason to begin to put women in the position of church leader, elder, pastor, or whatever you want to call it, and thus disregard Paul's clear directive." I also mentioned them by name in an earlier post. To say I "glossed over them" is puzzling.

Miriam was a songleader for the women on one occasion. She was not a leader of Israel. I have no idea why you continue to mention her other than from desperation to find female leaders in the OT of which there are relatively few. That is not a knock against women, but an appeal for the truth.

Priscilla was important and there is no doubt about it, but it never mentions she was a lead pastor. To say her husband was a sidekick is peculiar. He is mentioned last, and that is significant, but a sidekick? I took three semesters of Greek in Bible college. Now that is miles away from being a Greek scholar, but I'd be interested to hear your take on how it shows him as a "sidekick".

I have no idea what Paul is referring to with the part about women being saved through childbirth. It is an unusual text. However, it is plain and clear what he is referring to concerning women in leadership. His comment about Eve could not be clearer. Vague? Are you serious?

I'm not really clear as to what you are advocating for. All of this should lead to a conclusion. My take is that while Paul did leave an opening for women in leadership (his use of the pronoun "I"), it is a narrow window, and should generally be regarded as a less than good idea. But I'm sure there are circumstances where it is necessary. Still, the vast weight of the Bible falls in the other direction. When we consider how many men are named in positions of leadership throughout the Bible versus how many women are named, it is simply overwhelming. Every one of the 12 disciples of Christ was a man. Every author of a book of the Bible was a man. Every named apostle was a man with the exception of Junia, and that is tenuous. Paul's directives to Timothy and Titus about church leaders specifically refer to men. And your answer for all of that is....Debra? Miriam? Priscilla? All great women, but in an overwhelming minority. That is my point. If we ask who God overwhelmingly chose for leadership in the Bible, it is men. That is not misogyny, it is truth.

If your conclusion is that God might, from time to time, choose to use a woman in leadership, then we are not far apart. If you have concluded that women and men are equally candidates for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ, then we are in different places. Naming a handful of women from the Bible does not amount to making that case. But I have enjoyed the discussion and seeing your perspective on it.

If you have concluded that women and men are equally candidates for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ, then we are in different places.
Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

As with all scriptures, it must be interpreted in context with the rest of the Bible. And bear in mind that this text was written by the same Paul who told Timothy, "3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29736a)] respect."

Plainly a reference to male leadership. Told Titus the same thing. So it would seem to be an amazing thing for that same Paul to be advocating for female leadership in the church.

And also consider that this was "a few years ago" when that country and its culture were not 2018 USA. Things have changed. We don't need to ride donkeys and camels (or are SUVs unbiblical?) or require a widowed woman marry her brother-in-law and we now wear blended fabrics. How Christians did things in 40 A.D. is not how we are required to do them.

From https://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-adiaphora.html --

Adiaphora, in biblical terms, would be the “disputable matters” mentioned in Romans 14:1 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom%2014.1)(the ESV calls them “opinions”). We are not to quarrel over them. Some things are right, because the Bible says they are right; other things are wrong, because the Bible says they are wrong. But some things the Bible neither condemns nor approves. We often refer to these issues as “gray areas” or matters of conscience. We could also call them adiaphora. For example, the Bible clearly promotes truth-telling and condemns lying. But what about writing fiction? As long as everyone knows it’s fiction, that’s adiaphora.

We can also think of the “non-essentials” of the faith as adiaphora. Teachings on the timing of the rapture, the number of angels, or the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rev%2011) are non-essential to the faith; they are adiaphora. On the other hand, doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the bodily resurrection are essential (https://www.gotquestions.org/essentials-Christian-faith.html) and non-negotiable.

In one sense, there is no such thing as adiaphora in human behavior. Paul says, “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Col%203.17)). Everything we do—even things that seem morally neutral—fall under the banner of goodness if we do them for God’s glory. And even things good in themselves can be done with impure motives (https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-motives.html) and thus be dishonoring to God (Isaiah 1:10–15 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isa%201.10%E2%80%9315)). Succeeding in our work, going for a run, playing games with friends, and all the other things we do that don’t seem either good or bad, can fall squarely under the banner of goodness when we do them in a way that glorifies Christ with thanksgiving.

Well, I don't know how to answer that. I guess you are saying that, since some things have changed, then we can now just do whatever our desires dictate. I will stick with the Bible. It has survived over the centuries by the providence of God. If it hurts the feelings of some people, then I can sympathize with that. It sometimes hurts mine as well, but since it is God's word, then I'll stick with it.

Are you a literalist? Please read what I added to my post above regarding adiaphora. Women as SS superintendents is adiaphora.

Wow. You really DID add to your comment. I've already said I don't think the Bible would have an issue with a female Sunday School super. I do agree with your extended statement.

Yes, I am a literalist unless it can clearly not be applied in that way. When Jesus said He was "the light of the world", he did not mean He was the sun.

My major contention in this thread initially was with saying that Paul's statement about women leadership was made to a specific congregation. That is not true. Then it was the contention that, because there are a handful of women in the Bible mentioned in, or around, leadership, then we should ignore Paul's directive. Those are the things I object to. How we interpret the Bible should be a matter of honesty, altogether apart from our own personal feelings.

I would not attend a church with a female in the position of the "lead" pastor. That is my conviction and, it seems to me, a clear teaching in scripture. Would I listen to a lady speaker? Yes. I don't think Paul was saying women could not speak to men. I believe he was saying that a woman is not a good candidate to be primary leader/teacher in a church.

Would I refuse to support a church that had a female as the primary pastor/leader? No. I would happily support them. I would regard it as none of my business.

I would not attend a church with a female in the position of the "lead" pastor. That is my conviction and, it seems to me, a clear teaching in scripture. Would I listen to a lady speaker? Yes. I don't think Paul was saying women could not speak to men. I believe he was saying that a woman is not a good candidate to be primary leader/teacher in a church.
That might be how the church survives, by being led by women. It's not doing well right now. Membership is really down.

What we really need is a revival of Holy Spirit power. We need a revival of prayer. When the church exploded in the first century, it was not because they brought all the ladies in to become pastors. It was because the Spirit of God was at work in glorifying the name of Jesus as Savior and Lord. I certainly hope we can agree on that. It does not belong in the diaphora.

You say "first it was this, then it was that, then it was something else" that we're advocating for. That shows that you are not paying attention. We are advocating for considering ALL of these factors, not just the one verse that you think you can hang your hat on. You can't even define the context, yet you think it's an absolute for all time. That doesn't make sense. If you can't interpret the context and get the passage solidly in the context of what Paul had in mind, you have no business hanging your hat on it. The whole Eve thing is complex and confusing due to the context. You just threw out the context and said "This is where I make my stand."

Sorry, but that's not interpreting the Bible. That's finding a verse to support preconceived ideas. I'm having difficulty taking this seriously, because you are not dealing with the entire context of Scripture.

I think it's much more the decision of the particular churches governing body as to who holds an office in their church and what kind of authority they will have. I am sure they will justify their decision based on their own perspective of the bible, surely not mine.

Just answering the question as asked.

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." That might be complex and confusing to you. To the rest of us, it's pretty plain.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative with you. Honestly, I just cannot follow what you are trying to say. You quoted me, but I did not write what is in your quote, so I just can't answer that. What I actually wrote seemed pretty clear and accurate to me. "My major contention in this thread initially was with saying that Paul's statement about women leadership was made to a specific congregation. That is not true. Then it was the contention that, because there are a handful of women in the Bible mentioned in, or around, leadership, then we should ignore Paul's directive. Those are the things I object to. How we interpret the Bible should be a matter of honesty, altogether apart from our own personal feelings."

Again, I certainly wish you well. I struggle to follow your thinking, but perhaps that is on me.

As talaniman posted, it will be up to the particular church board. I've already said twice I see no problem with it so far as scripture goes. I guess we have talked it to death.

'"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." That might be complex and confusing to you. To the rest of us, it's pretty plain. '

Who exactly is "the rest of us"? It's pretty plain IF you rip it out of its context the way you keep doing. I've already addressed that. If you can't explain the entire passage - you know, the part that puts tons of qualifiers on that statement - then you cannot legitimately hang your hat on it and make a doctrine out of it.

That's not exegesis. It's eisegesis.

OK. One more time.

1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife... (i.e. a man)

2. Titus 1:5 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man...

3. 1 Timothy 2:12,13 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+2&version=NASB#fen-NASB-29730h)]created, and then Eve.

4. All 12 disciples... men.

5. Every apostle a man with one possible (but not certain) exception.

6. Every named author of a Bible book was a man.

The weight of evidence seems overwhelming to me, but everyone has to make their own mind up.

4. All 12 disciples... men.

5. Every apostle a man with one possible (but not certain) exception.
And that was because....


6. Every named author of a Bible book was a man.
Ruth. Esther.

Oh good grief. 10 minutes on the internet would show you that no one believes Ruth was the author of Ruth or Esther was the author of Esther. I can only assume you take this to be some sort of entertainment. I'm done.

How about responding to my first comment. That will help you with the second one.

Why were women's names put on those books?

Entertainment? No. Helping you to think culturally and historically, as well as exegetically? Yes.

OK. One more time, just so I can say I did.

"How about responding to my first comment. That will help you with the second one."
Your first comment was, "And that was because..."
The best answer is this. It was because that was the consistent pattern of leadership approved of God throughout the Bible. There were exceptions, but they were very rare.

"Why were women's names put on those books?"
Just the slightest bit of thought would show that they were named after the women who were the main characters of the book. Does this show that women are important in the Bible as people of faith and character? Absolutely. Does it portray these two women as leaders in Israel? Nope. Does it indicate they wrote those books? No. Again, just troubling yourself slightly to research this would have shown that to you.

History and culture help shed light on the Bible, but do not change the clear teaching and patterns of the Bible.

Again, I have no ill will towards you. However, given a choice between listening to the plain and clear teaching of the Bible versus listening to Wondergirl, I'm going with the Bible.

"It was because that was the consistent pattern of leadership approved of God throughout the Bible. There were exceptions, but they were very rare."

There are two kinds of presentations of this kind of thing in the Bible: descriptive and prescriptive. There is no real indication that male leadership was "approved of God." It was the culture of the time. Men dominated everything. And when God gave Israel a king, it was a punishment for not having faith in Him. During the time before that we had Deborah leading all of Israel on equal footing with the male judges. So it would appear that male-centric leadership in the Bible is descriptive of the way it was done at the time, not prescriptive.

And it sure isn't prescriptive for all time, because if it is, then you also have to conclude that things like genocide are "approved of God" for all time. I doubt you're prepared to do that.

You're taking something descriptive and trying to make it prescriptive. That's a rookie mistake.

" just troubling yourself slightly to research this would have shown that to you."

Could you be more patronizing, especially when you have no idea whom you are addressing? You might want to check out WG's background before you talk down to her like that.

You say, "There is no real indication that male leadership was 'approved of God'." God directly chose hundreds of men from Noah to Nehemiah to the apostles. Of course He approved them. I see no indication in scripture of any change of leadership that would take place in the future. You say the culture of the time influenced God's decisions. I would say that God's decisions influenced the culture. We desperately need the same thing to happen to our culture.

I think your situation is that you have made up your mind, and now you are trying to justify your belief with the Bible. That is backwards. So you have to put forward the "descriptive vs. prescriptive" distinction when it does not apply here.

I don't mean to speak down to anyone. If I came across that way, then my apologies for that. My ambition is to put forward Jesus as the Savior of sinners and the Bible as the foundation for all faith and practice.

You are using arguments from silence, which always cut both ways. Maybe brush up on logic. It reminds me of the time Dennis the Menace and his dad wanted to go somewhere, and dad said, ask your mom. Dennis went inside and mom was running the vacuum. So he said, "Ok if me 'n' dad go do such and such?" Of course she didn't hear him. He came back out and his dad asked, "What did she say?" Dennis replied, "She didn't say no!"

That's what your reasoning sounds like.

Here's a little adage for you to chew on: absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

And from Rehoboam on, I don't know of anybody who really believes God chose all those clowns who led the divided kingdom. You like to mistake the regular culture of the time for God's direct action, except it doesn't work that way. God "chose" Saul as Israel's first king and we know how that turned out.

Silence? If Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra, Samuel, Ezekiel, Elisha, Elijah, Hosea, Jonah, Zechariah, David, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, John the Baptist, the apostles, Paul, Titus, Timothy, and a multitude of others is silence(note: all men chosen by God), then we need to get a hearing test. Not to mention, as I already have, the plain and clear instructions of 1 Timothy 3:2ff, Titus 1:5ff, or 1 Timothy 2:12,13 (prescriptive, not descriptive). To argue that this is an absence of evidence is really stunning, especially from someone who has little other evidence than the judge Debra. Now if you prefer to be led by our current culture, then that is your privilege. But please stop suggesting that a hurricane of testimony is an argument from silence.

An argument from silence would be as follows: "There are but a smattering of women leaders in the Bible, but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of men. There are several scriptures that plainly speak of men in leadership in the church, but none that call for female leadership. However, I contend that, since the Bible does not say that in the 21st century that will not change, then I choose to believe we should therefore now have an abundance of female leadership. Since the Bible does not mention the 21st century, then I appeal to silence."

Whose case does that most resemble in this discussion?

I will plainly state that I am an enthusiastic supporter of women in the ministry and believe that there is abundant opportunity for women in ministry. I'm convinced that we ignore the advice and counsel of wise women to our own peril. Women should be listened to, valued, treasured as gospel ministers, and honored before the Lord Jesus. My dear wife is my chief counselor and partner in life, and I would feel lost without her. Should women, as a general rule, be leaders in the church, or be the prominent teacher in a church? No. Not unless we can get the Bible to read in a different way than it clearly does. Is the door open to the occasional exception? Probably.

Honestly, I can't figure out what your position is or what your objection is. There is no silence in the Bible on this topic, so I'm perplexed. I don't like it when I can't figure out where a person is coming from. So, can I respectfully ask you a question? What are you arguing in favor of? What do you want to see happen on this topic? I would really like to know.

As I said before, you need to study some logic. You do not know what an argument from silence is.

all men [were] chosen by God
God worked within their male-dominated culture. Had He put women in charge, He would have witnessed a tumultuous uprising.


Should women, as a general rule, be leaders in the church, or be the prominent teacher in a church?
Might be a good idea - would cut down on the greed and corruption, the misuse of donated funds, the sex abuse and molestation, the mind blindness in interpretation of the Scriptures....

As I said before, you need to study some logic. You do not know what an argument from silence is.


My logic is to never follow the words of really ancient man to closely, no matter what part of the world he is from. Too much is lost in time and translation. Is it also not logical to seek a personal relationship with a God that YOU understand rather be told by long dead people?

I understand what an argument from silence is. I don't understand how you think I am engaging in it. I regret you did not answer my question.

If I considered the Bible to be merely the words of really ancient people, I wouldn't pay too much attention to it.

"I understand what an argument from silence is. I don't understand how you think I am engaging in it."

Then you don't understand what an argument from silence is.

Hmm. Answering questions is not your strong point. So, using an argument from silence, I know that your silence (in not answering the question) actually means you don't really believe I have been employing an argument from silence. Whew. Glad we got that settled, even though by the use of a logical fallacy.

Best wishes.

If that's logic, the world is in trouble. Arguments from silence always cut both ways. Lack of information about women leaders does not mean there weren't any. We don't have information that they were, and we don't have information that they weren't. Silence is never a good criterion.

You are claiming that women can't be leaders of some certain sort because there's nothing in the Bible that says they can. But there's nothing in the Bible that says they can't. It's already been shown, because you can't explain the entire Timothy passage that puts qualifiers on the "no way" statement, that it doesn't necessarily mean what you want it to mean. You have just glossed over all of that and hung your hat on one verse. That's not Bible study, that's reading one's own ideas into the text.

I'm done here. You do not understand logic, you have no grasp of Bible exegesis, and you are unwilling to listen and learn. Goodbye.

Your problem was in not having any scripture to back up whatever your point was, so you had to resort to personal attacks. My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men. That is not an argument from silence. Very sorry you can't see that, but yeah, we've talked it to death.

My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men.
That was because God worked with the culture that had been established. God didn't dictate the rules of engagement. He had given mankind free will to establish their own governments and policies and systems.

My contention, of course, was that when leaders are named, they were typically men. I said that simply to demonstrate that I am not making an argument from silence.

Your observation, with all due respect, is only speculation. It is not stated anywhere in the Bible. When Israel occupied the Promised Land, it would seem to have been an ideal opportunity to change culture. That, in fact, happened in a variety of ways, but not in the area of leadership. It is more logical to me to simply understand that God ordered the culture, not the other way around. If a person wants to walk in accordance with our current culture, then I get that, but it does not change the teachings of Scripture.

If a person wants to walk in accordance with our current culture, then I get that, but it does not change the teachings of Scripture
So if Christian women become pastors, teachers, even SS superintendents, that would be against God's will?

I think that would be too strong of a statement. I would be content to simply say that God's pattern of leadership, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, was to use men. Were there exceptions to that? Yes, so I would have to conclude there could be exceptions now as well, but they were infrequent and the pattern was quite clear. I honestly don't see how anyone could read the Bible and come to any different conclusion. But when you say, "That was because God worked with the culture that had been established," I don't see how anyone could know that. The Bible, so far as I know, does not indicate that. In fact, your reference to the prevailing culture just strikes me as curious. God always worked to transform cultures, not adjust to them. The NT church was counter-cultural in a striking manner, and yet the leadership even there came, primarily, from men.

I probably shouldn't butt in here, but you know who rushes in where wise men fear to tread.

It seems to me that a book, or collection of books, that covers about a thousand years and is written by many authors containing almost one million words and is from God himself, should have mentioned/approved the idea of women in leadership/preaching roles. Apparently, he didn't (except as noted). So what does that mean?


As for me, following the discussion, and (I think) understanding both sides, it seems the issue is how one interprets the Bible. Has God said everything there is to be said once and for all re salvation? Or, as we grow and evolve, has God left room for the species to widen its understanding on the path to salvation – not changing what has already been written in the Bible but deepening it?

I think where we get hung up is when one side declares the other side to be invalid.


Btw, I wonder if the original poster got his answer?

Btw, I wonder if the original poster got his answer?









Ha! I imagine he got more than he bargained for.

"Has God said everything there is to be said once and for all re salvation? Or, as we grow and evolve, has God left room for the species to widen its understanding on the path to salvation – not changing what has already been written in the Bible but deepening it?"

Concerning salvation, yes he has. Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much.

Concerning salvation, yes he has. Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much.


Thanks for replying.

I understand your answer to be yes - that a woman can be a Sunday School Superintendent according to the Bible. What I didn't understand was the second part of your answer - "Concerning other stuff related to day-to-day life in the 21st century, not so much".

My question would remain, "How do you know that? How do you know that salvation is a settled issue, but other issues related to the 21st century are not settled?" The Bible, so far as I know, has not said that.

The question, I think, is always a simple one. Either the Bible will tell us how to live, or we will tell the Bible how we will live. Now does the Bible mention the internet, or cars, or buses and trains? No, so there are areas where it is silent, and therefore we have to work out God's will on them. But it speaks in great measure about morality, marriage, children, the sanctity of human life, and yes, leadership in the church, as well as many other areas.

Athos, you have asked a great question. I'm glad dwashbur answered you. Honestly, this whole thread has grown tense and tedious to me. We have talked it to death with very little agreement, and I regret that. Questions are asked but not answered, and that is also regrettable.

Man is an imperfect creature, even when speaking for GOD. Ancient man more so as his knowledge was well limited by the time. For sure though each man (Or woman to be PC) can make his own choice in accordance to his own faith, and live in that choice.

Happy journey, may you find your answers.

It's either true or it's not. If it's true, then we should follow it. If not, then we should discard it.

Faith is about believing not knowing. Even knowing has no absolutes.

If knowing has no absolutes, then you cannot know absolutely that knowing has no absolutes. It's a self contradictory statement.

Now if we want to say that we can never know everything, then we are in agreement.

It's either true or it's not.
And truth is determined how?

And truth is determined how?

That's the whole point. Jesus in John 17:17 stated, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The Word of God is the summation of truth. It is the measuring rod, the standard by which truth is determined, and the foundation upon which all truth is built.

That's the whole point. Jesus in John 17:17 stated, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
Thus, anything that's in the Bible is true and is to be taken literally.

The Bible, like all literature, contains idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and analogies, and there would therefore be sections not to be taken literally. Jesus, for instance, when He describes Himself as the door to the sheepfold, does not intend for us to literally see Him as a door. When we are described as sheep, we are not to be thought of literally as sheep. But as a general rule, with some commonsense exceptions, the Bible is to be taken literally.

Is the Bible true? Yes.

Athos,
What I mean is, the Bible gives everything a person needs to know to be reconciled to the God of the Bible and become part of His/Her/Its intimate family.

It can't tell us anything about Sunday School because that's a 19th century invention that has morphed over the decades into something that doesn't remotely resemble its beginnings. The Bible says nothing about such things, so we have to do the best we can figuring it out.

That's what I meant by day-do-day life in the 21st century, not so much. It tells us plenty about what our attitudes are supposed to be, but it doesn't deal with specific behaviors or hierarchical structures such as the church at large has developed across the centuries. Some things, it leaves us to figure out for ourselves.

The Bible, like all literature, contains idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, and analogies, and there would therefore be sections not to be taken literally. Jesus, for instance, when He describes Himself as the door to the sheepfold, does not intend for us to literally see Him as a door. When we are described as sheep, we are not to be thought of literally as sheep. But as a general rule, with some commonsense exceptions, the Bible is to be taken literally.

Is the Bible true? Yes.


As best as humans can make it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible


It has passed through many hands over time.

If I thought the Bible was merely the product of man, I wouldn't pay much attention to it.


Few biblical books are the work of a single author, and most have been edited and revised to produce the texts we have today. That is enormously speculative. As concerns the NT, it is simply incorrect. In fact, I don't know of anyone who is contending that some NT books have multiple authors. A fairly short but very nicely done treatment of this subject was done by Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing (a woman!!) titled "Why Trust the Bible".

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV (https://www.thoughtco.com/new-king-james-version-700665))

Nobody said anything about multiple authors. Talaniman was talking about the editing/redacting process that all the books of the Bible have gone through over the centuries. The manuscripts of the New Testament that we have tell a very interesting picture of the process.

It's also commonly accepted that some letters such as the "pastorals" weren't actually written by Paul but were written by some disciple of his some time later and put his name on them. Even most evangelical scholars accept the idea.

It's even more complex for the Old Testament, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wrote my Masters thesis on that subject. We keep hearing that the DSS confirmed the text of the OT that we have now; baloney. It's nowhere near that simple.

And many of the OT books do have multiple authors, except they're not always stated. It's possible the same is true of some NT books. You say you haven't heard of anyone suggesting such a thing, but it's clear the scope of your research is much too narrow.

Religion as a human concept goes back to the very beginnings of humanity appearing on Earth and the fact that so many bygone civilizations not only had a belief system, but many marvels of ingenuity and accomplishment is not limited to just one religion, or one civilization.

My research has shown much more commonality than difference among the many writings of the various religions and their peoples down through centuries and millenniums. Fascinating it is that groups claim their own roots but evidence suggest many roots of the same tree (Or is it TREES?).

Is this the common human flaw, to be superior (ALPHA?) to other humans? Verily it comes down to the simple choice of which part of our human natures we build on. Some have made better choices than others, and some have just followed the easiest path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Versions_and_translations


John Riches, professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow, provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible:
It has inspired some of the great monuments of human thought, literature, and art; it has equally fuelled some of the worst excesses of human savagery, self-interest, and narrow-mindedness. It has inspired men and women to acts of great service and courage, to fight for liberation and human development; and it has provided the ideological fuel for societies which have enslaved their fellow human beings and reduced them to abject poverty. ... It has, perhaps above all, provided a source of religious and moral norms which have enabled communities to hold together, to care for, and to protect one another; yet precisely this strong sense of belonging has in turn fuelled ethnic, racial, and international tension and conflict.[101] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#cite_note-FOOTNOTERiches2000134-107)

Perhaps I can express it this way. I once heard that there is only one great question to be answered in this life. Did God create man, or did man create God? Now if man created God, then there are no more genuinely important questions to be answered. However, if God created man, then we should wonder if that God has revealed Himself, His thoughts, His ways, and His will to man. I convinced, for many good reasons, He has, and it is the Bible. It is a book unlike any other book to be found anywhere on the earth.

It is a book unlike any other book to be found anywhere on the earth.
Have you read any of the other religions' books?

from Wikipedia:
The Golden Rule (which can be considered a law of reciprocity in some religions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)) is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)) that is found in many religions and cultures (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-Flew-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-2) The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction) governing conduct:


One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-Flew-1)
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-Flew-1)


Even the Satanic Temple has elements of the Golden Rule divided among three of its Seven Tenets: #1. "Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."

You express your preference well Jlisenbe, and our preferences need not be the same to just debate the feelings and philosophy of one another. I have found that no matter what a person believes there are many different ways to express and practice that belief and as far as I'm concerned they are all good if they follow a Good Orderly Direction. Personally though I put NOTHING of man between the very personal relationship with the God I have come to understand and learn more as it is revealed on this life journey.

Yeah I guess I still have much to learn. I have no preference from which book I learn it from, but personal experience is the best teacher.

Even the Satanic Temple has elements of the Golden Rule divided among three of its Seven Tenets: #1. "Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."

If everyone is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true. It still comes down to the worship of God for which we will all some day be held accountable. If Jesus said that God's word is truth, then that will do for me.

Still, we end the discussion as friends.

Still, we end the discussion as friends.
Why end it? This discussion is EXACTLY what this site and this topic need. It's getting views plus it's not only fun, but challenges and stretches my thinking.

OK with me. I just don't want to bore anyone. (<:

If everyone is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true.
Still, we end the discussion as friends.


As long as we're still here, I need some clarification.

To wit: "If everything is right, then no one is right. If everything is true, then nothing is true".

I'm not a logician, but this seems to violate basic rules of premise and conclusion. The one directly contradicts the other. Of course, there may be something very profound here that I'm missing. Something like a play on/with words?

Let's put it this way. We have a problem in math which is 3 x 3 =___. I say it is 6, you say it is 9, and another person says it is zero, so we decide that we must all be right. If any and every answer is considered to be right, then the concept of "rightness" loses any meaning. The same thing pertains to truth. If, for instance, everyone's view of Jesus is considered to be true, despite the fact that there are many contradictions in those views, then the concept of truth has lost all meaning. To say that something is true is to make a meaningless statement under those circumstances.

I gave you the shorthand version in my statement. More accurately we would say, "If everyone's views are considered to be right, no matter how contradictory they may be, then the concept of rightness loses meaning." What was the radio program that said, in some fictitious town, that all of the kids were above average? Same idea. Everyone cannot be above average, and divergent views of truth cannot all be right.

divergent views of truth cannot all be right

Then, like Pilate asked, "What is truth?" How do we figure it out?

I think we should listen to the earlier statement of the man Pilate asked the question of.

Dwashbur, I just saw your earlier response. Didn't intend to ignore it.

You stated, "Nobody said anything about multiple authors." If you would look in the quote above your post, I quoted what the Wikipedia article stated. It very plainly said that few books were the work of one author.

You also state, "It's also commonly accepted that some letters such as the 'pastorals' weren't actually written by Paul but were written by some disciple of his some time later and put his name on them. Even most evangelical scholars accept the idea." That is an exaggeration of a rather high order. For anyone other than Paul to have written either of the letters to Timothy, he would had to have been a liar/forger pure and simple. I say that because of the intensely personal nature of the two letters in which Paul states his great love and affection for his spiritual son, Timothy. It is hard to imagine how anyone in the early church would have accepted them as authentic if the author had not been Paul. Daniel B. Wallace and two others have a very good discussion of the process of accepting the Canon of the NT in the book "Reinventing Jesus".

So far as the OT goes, I would like to hear your thinking on how the DSS do not give evidence of the faithful copying which took place over the centuries. Most of the material I have read on the topic point to the book of Isaiah since there had been one scroll (now two) of that book found complete. A comparison of that scroll with the Masoretic Text, dated at least a thousand years later, showed remarkable agreement between the two texts.

Gleason Archer stated, "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

I understand that the same can be said for the book of Daniel. It is a more difficult case since Daniel was not found intact as Isaiah was, but it has been possible to "assemble" most of the book from fragments found.

I gave you the shorthand version in my statement. More accurately we would say, "If everyone's views are considered to be right, no matter how contradictory they may be, then the concept of rightness loses meaning." What was the radio program that said, in some fictitious town, that all of the kids were above average? Same idea. Everyone cannot be above average, and divergent views of truth cannot all be right.


Your "longhand version", by adding "...no matter how contradictory they may be...", entirely changed the meaning so that it turned out to be the exact opposite of your original statement. Of course, contradictory views cannot all be true at the same time. Logic 101. It has nothing to do with everyone being right leading to no one being right. That's a different proposition.

As to the radio show, the "average" being compared is to the wider or universal average, not to others in the same town. Again, these are basic ideas depending on context for their meaning.

But I don't want this to bog down in a discussion of logic. Your point seems to be there are varying ways of understanding Christianity, but only one way is the truth. That begs the question "Which way is that"?

Each group has their own version of the truth, and they support that truth by quoting the Bible. Whose quote wins? (Rhetorical).

The real question, as Wondergirl (and Pilate) asked, is how do we figure out what truth is. More specifically, what is the truth in the case at hand? Women as Sunday school superintendents. Jesus never answered that question because no one ever asked him.

Paul is the one who is most definitive about the role of women in church. His mind-set was that of one who believed that the end times would come during the lifetime of some still alive in Paul's day. That informed some of his teaching. And we know he was wrong about that. Was he also wrong about the role of women in church? Could he have been?

Jesus took a longer view and we have examples of his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, quite a few examples.

How would each have answered the question?

It's like the blind men and the elephant. Each thinks they know what an elephant is like based on their own experiences and so they disagreed with anyone who didn't share their views. Isn't that why every religion has their own doctrines and traditions, or VERSION of the truth, even within the same religion?

I suppose you don't need FACTS when you have FAITH. Or is it you have faith that ancient man was conveying facts? I have studied many religions and they seem to basically say the same thing (With a few variances, of course.), but argue over who is right and who is wrong. Just like those blind men.

I suppose you don't need FACTS when you have FAITH. Or is it you have faith that ancient man was conveying facts? I have studied many religions and they seem to basically say the same thing (With a few variances, of course.), but argue over who is right and who is wrong. Just like those blind men.

Only the Christian faith has a Savior who is raised from the dead. Only the Christian faith gives salvation on the basis of faith, quite apart from works. I can hardly imagine how anyone could say that all religions say the same thing. Now some of the moral teachings are similar, true enough, but the teachings about the nature of God and our relationship with Him are wildly different.

I might add that my faith is based upon truth. I don't know what you are referring to when you suggest I don't need facts when I have faith. When did they become mutually exclusive?

Your "longhand version", by adding "...no matter how contradictory they may be...", entirely changed the meaning so that it turned out to be the exact opposite of your original statement. Of course, contradictory views cannot all be true at the same time. Logic 101. It has nothing to do with everyone being right leading to no one being right. That's a different proposition.

It did not change the meaning at all. It only clarified it. Surely no one would think that, in the real world, everyone professing truth would all be professing the same truth. Rather plainly there would be contradictions in the opinions of "everyone". I would have thought that was a given.


Jesus took a longer view and we have examples of his dealings with women. As a matter of fact, quite a few examples.

Not women in leadership roles, and that is the core of this thread.

As to Paul, I never cease to be amazed at how casually people tend to question Paul's writings. I would only say that once you have written 13 New Testament books, then you will have arrived at his position. I don't say that in any spiteful or mean manner at all, but nor would I care to so easily question a clear statement as Paul's directive in 1 Timothy.

I think it all comes down to how we view the Bible. I view it, for a number of good reasons, as being God's Word to man. When Paul wrote, he didn't just write his own convictions, but God spoke through him. If that is not true, then we should get rid of it. If it is true, then we should revere it, but under no circumstances do I intend to pick and choose that part which I will accept on the basis of this culture we live in now. There are parts I don't completely understand, but I have no taste for the middle ground where man elects to make himself the judge of what is right and wrong. If there is truly a God, then it should be our business to pursue Him with passion, worship Him, and obey Him.

Only the Christian faith has a Savior who is raised from the dead. Only the Christian faith gives salvation on the basis of faith, quite apart from works. I can hardly imagine how anyone could say that all religions say the same thing. Now some of the moral teachings are similar, true enough, but the teachings about the nature of God and our relationship with Him are wildly different.

I might add that my faith is based upon truth. I don't know what you are referring to when you suggest I don't need facts when I have faith. When did they become mutually exclusive?

If I may respectfully ask my friend, what is the nature of the God as you understand it and the relationship with man that is so different than other religions?

To clarify, I did not mean you the individual, but the more broad collective "you" as far as not needing facts when you have faith. Personally I find it hard to NOT question the words and actions of men in general no matter the religion, or FAITH, or age. History is full of men who do bad deeds in God's name and proclaim divine entitlement to shepherd their sheep to slaughter. In truth I don't question God or his nature, just the word of man (Not YOU, personally but again the collective man).

I think that TRUTH is to be sought, so we can make better choices and honor the gift of CHOICE given to us as humans.

It did not change the meaning at all. It only clarified it. Surely no one would think that, in the real world, everyone professing truth would all be professing the same truth. Rather plainly there would be contradictions in the opinions of "everyone". I would have thought that was a given.

Addition: So if everyone's opinion is right, then the concept of "right" ceases to have meaning. That was the point of the statement. If "right" is to have meaning, then some of those opinions have to be wrong unless, of course, by some miracle, "everyone" agrees in all points. When was the last time you saw that happen?

If I may respectfully ask my friend, what is the nature of the God as you understand it and the relationship with man that is so different than other religions?

Very legitimate question. Some examples.

The Buddhist faith is more of a philosophy of life that does not require a god.

The Hindus are polytheists and so believe in many (millions!) of gods as were the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The Jewish and Muslim faiths believe in one God, but man must engage in good works to please Him. Righteousness is an accomplishment of man. Man does not really engage in a personal relationship, as such, with God.

The Christian faith believes in one God as well, but righteousness is an accomplishment of God, not of man. "All we like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." Isaiah 53. Man and God walk together in a love relationship enabled by faith in the work of Jesus, not in our own works.


I think that TRUTH is to be sought, so we can make better choices and honor the gift of CHOICE given to us as humans.

I tend to agree with that, but might I suggest that you need to take it further. Who gave us that gift of choice, and what does He intend us to do with it?

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!


You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

I meant that post to be a light-hearted one, so the conversation perhaps marginally expanded my horizons, but I've met female ministers before. I have nothing against them. As I stated earlier, I just don't see it as being any of my business. It's an issue between them and God. If they don't ask my opinion, and they typically don't, then I don't offer it. But it was a nice conversation.

It's an issue between them and God.
Why would God have any concern over this?

Why would God have any concern over this?

Are you serious?? I'm tempted to simply say go back and read the 103 posts before yours, but I guess I can at least add that God is interested in everything we do and we should certainly be interested in what He has to say about this, especially where there is good reason to think that He would not approve.

And please, please don't ask why He would not approve, because then I would only be willing to suggest you read the 103 posts before yours.

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

there is good reason to think that He would not approve.
Au contraire! He very much approves!

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

I tell you what. Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.


Au contraire! He very much approves!

Says WG, but not the Bible. I think I'll just go with the Bible. And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this, I'll just say go back and read the previous 103... well, you know.

And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this
The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Christianity), but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

Please reread this thread. :)

Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.


Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

Because of its very plainly prophetic nature. How could man have written anything so accurately predictive of the ministry and vicarious death of Christ? No other religious book has anything like it.


The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Christianity), but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

You must pay attention. We've already covered that ground.

I don't question your right to the peace and comfort of your bible my friend, nor the guidance it gives you to being a good human. All are free to make that choice of how to conduct themselves and where that comfort comes from no matter what book they get it from, or what they perceive is the right path to take on the journey through the reality of their life.

All humans have the gift of choice doesn't matter the region, language, or history.

Comfort does not interest me nearly as much as the truth does. Now we all get to choose, but if the Bible is true, and we are all going to appear before the judgement seat of Christ, then we better choose wisely. If it is not true, then I can't imagine why anyone would pay attention to it. And yet God has left His fingerprints in the Bible in places such as Isaiah 53 and many others. You would be wise, my friend, to consider it well.

Best wishes.

"Dwashbur, I just saw your earlier response. Didn't intend to ignore it."

Ditto. I saw your post and am working on a reply, it's just going to take a while.

"So far as the OT goes, I would like to hear your thinking on how the DSS do not give evidence of the faithful copying which took place over the centuries. Most of the material I have read on the topic point to the book of Isaiah since there had been one scroll (now two) of that book found complete. A comparison of that scroll with the Masoretic Text, dated at least a thousand years later, showed remarkable agreement between the two texts."

The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

The entire body of the scrolls show at least three textual strains: one similar to the Masoretic text, one similar to the Septuagint, and one similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are also tons of unique readings, ones that only appear in one scroll and nowhere else. If you want to get a feel for just how jumbled the picture is, I can refer you to my book, available from SBL Press. There's a hardcover available from E.J. Brill but it's overpriced, ugly, and not worth the difference in price.

If you don't read some Hebrew, the books usefulness may be limited. But with it you can look up a passage, find out of it's preserved anywhere, and get a general idea of how it compares to the Masoretic text et al. I would also suggest you check out some general introductions to the DSS, but look for ones written after the turn of the century.

Here's the link to my book:

https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDetails.asp?ID=067002P&PG=1&Type=BL&PCS=SBL

Fascinating reply. I don't intend to buy your book (no offense), but I did go to the site and it's plainly a serious academic work, so I commend you for it. Please allow me to address one paragraph at a time.


The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

I am aware that there were a number of caves discovered after Cave 1. However, all of the caves at Qumran were discovered by the mid 1950's. Cave 4 that you reference was discovered, for instance, in 1952, which puts it only 5 years later. So to say my information is horribly out of date strikes me as puzzling if your concern is the date of the cave discovery. Perhaps you were referring to the Gleason Archer quote.

My understanding is that the contents of Cave 4 were abundant in number (thousands, but most non-Biblical) but poor in quality, and that while about 15 copies of Isaiah were found,they were in tattered condition and quite fragmentary and incomplete. The two scrolls from Cave 1 appear to be far and away the best quality and most complete, but you might have more current information. To be clear, are you saying the copies of Isaiah in Cave 4 do not support the Masoretic text as well as the two scrolls from Cave 1? I ask because I am not able to find information on that. However, I would think you would agree that the agreement of the two intact scrolls is truly remarkable.

Your comments did make me consider something. I have read many articles and watched a number of documentaries about the DSS, but no books written for that sole purpose. So, taking your advice, I ordered this: Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.​ I'll look at others after that.

I wouldn't expect you to buy my book, that was just for reference. We're badly overdue for a new edition, but SBL has other things on its plate at the moment.

(For comparison, when I gave a copy to my pastor, I said "This will become the most useless book in your library. I doubt you will ever find occasion to open it." I know the audience for that book, and this ain't it.)

There's a lot more than Isaiah. Portions of every book except Esther are preserved, including a near-complete copy of Job translated into Aramaic. A number of non-biblical materials were found, too.

I met Gleason Archer and listened to him present a paper back in the 80's. He was sincere, but didn't always do his homework. While he did take a high view of the Bible, he didn't always do the best job of defending it. He was also one of the most monotone speakers I ever heard, but that's another topic.

But back to the DSS. Example: the books of Samuel, in the Masoretic text, have a problem. In technical scholarly terms, they're a mess. Scholars have thought for nearly two centuries that the Septuagint preserved a more accurate text, and if you look at the marginal or footnotes in the average recent translation, you'll see the "LXX" represented more often than not.

Some pieces of both books were found in Cave 4, and they support that idea. They're in Hebrew, but their text is distinctly LXX. This tells us that the textual strain in the LXX came from an earlier Hebrew textual strain that ultimately fizzled out in Hebrew due to lack of copying. But it also tells that our suspicions were correct: the Greek text of the Septuagint is much closer to the original Hebrew text than the Masoretic text is.

The situation with scrolls from various parts of the Torah is a jumble. Most resemble the MT, but about 10% follow the Septuagint, and about 5% include unique readings from the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The reason I said your information is out of date is because so far we were only talking about Isaiah. Around the time that Archer et al were writing, those first couple of scrolls (two Isaiah scrolls and a commentary on Habakkuk) were just about all that had been released. Editing and publishing was going at a molasses pace, and all this was happening while I was working on that book (it was my Masters thesis). This was 1982-3, before the Internet. So finding the material to put in the book was a serious adventure. When Hershel Shanks of BAR fame announced that the entire body of material was going to be released, I wrote to one of the scholars, described my project, and asked how to get hold of images of the ones he was working on.

I still have his reply somewhere, because it was exemplary for its rudeness. He took a swipe at Hershel Shanks, basically said I sounded like an excited child in my letter, and then essentially told me to go away and quit bothering him.

This is what we were up against with the Dead Sea Scrolls for decades. Gleason Archer and the others wrote about what they knew, they just hadn't had the opportunity to know a whole lot.

Another book you might find interesting is Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" That book caused a firestorm in the DSS community because it basically challenges everything the scholars thought they knew. Whether you come out agreeing or not, it's an excellent book.

More to follow.

I think the emphasis on Isaiah was due to the two complete Hebrew scrolls found, and my understanding is that it is true of no other books, so naturally that would have caused the greatest stir. In fact, I have read that 25% of the Biblical material found in the caves is from Isaiah. And it is remarkable that, over a period of a thousand years, very little changed, and most of the "very little" was due to spelling or obvious errors. But let me ask again, as it is an area of interest, if the Isaiah material from Cave 4 showed greater discrepancies than the two scrolls from Cave 1. Just judging from published photos of the Cave 4 Isaiah material, my far from scholarly impression is that it would be difficult to come up with a meaningful translation, but you would have the better answer to that.

BTW, I have long wondered about the origin of your screen name. When I looked at your book cover, it all became clear, Mr. Washburn.

I would imagine ancient theologians and scholars had the same attitudes by their competition/colleagues, and critics as you have encountered. The politics of the day notwithstanding, and though we have more toys and technology today, we may indeed be only marginally smarter at best. A fascinating post Dwashbur, and very illustrative of source and interpretation being important factors surrounding faith. I think that the main point of widespread collaboration/cooperation between cultures to preserve the words as well as attitude of the ancients that no doubt influenced each other should not be lost.

"I think the emphasis on Isaiah was due to the two complete Hebrew scrolls found, and my understanding is that it is true of no other books,"

This is what I meant by outdated information. Technically what you say is true, but the Targum of Job from Cave 11 is nearly complete, and 8hevXIIgr is a near-complete Greek translation of the 12 prophets ("Minor Prophets" in Christian lingo). The book most thoroughly represented among the DSS is actually Deuteronomy. We don't have any complete copies but we have dozens upon dozens of partial copies that have preserved almost the whole book. And really, for textual criticism at least, multiple scrolls are better than one complete one, because we can not only study what one scribe saw, but we can compare copies from numerous different hands and get a picture of what the textual landscape was like.

The least-represented book, aside from Esther which isn't among them at all, is Proverbs. We have a handful of tiny scraps, nothing more. And contrary to what is often reported, a few non-canonical books were found, as well (books from the "Apocrypha")

I wish I could point you to a fairly comprehensive source that covers all this, but frankly I have yet to see one that I really like. It's not easy to find one, since I reject the theory that a colony of Essenes wrote the scrolls. That's a topic for another day, and probably doesn't fit this board.

Still, if you're interested in that subject, you might enjoy Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" He's both rebellious, and a little arrogant about it, which makes for enjoyable reading. The book caused a firestorm in the scholarly community that still hasn't completely died down. Good stuff.

I assume you are referring to 11Q10. Unless I am mistaken, the Targum of Job from Cave 11 is in Aramaic, and I understand is more of a running commentary/paraphrase rather than a direct translation. My reference was to copies in Hebrew which would thus be candidates for comparison to the MT. 8hevXIIgr is, as you stated, in Greek, which of course can still be compared to MT, but in a different manner. So with all due respect, perhaps my information as regards intact scrolls in Hebrew might appear to be a little more up to date than you wish to represent it.

I would still be interested if you are aware of any comparisons made between the Isaiah manuscripts found in Cave 4 and the Masoretic text. That, to me, is the great question as it leads directly to the question of the reliability of the Old Testament as we currently have it.


We don't have any complete copies but we have dozens upon dozens of partial copies that have preserved almost the whole book. And really, for textual criticism at least, multiple scrolls are better than one complete one, because we can not only study what one scribe saw, but we can compare copies from numerous different hands and get a picture of what the textual landscape was like.

It will be interesting to see how that stacks up against the MT. I get your point there regarding multiple sources. Fascinating stuff. I have really enjoyed your insights.

A targum like 11Q10 isn't a commentary, it's a translation. It's in Aramaic. The other one I mentioned is in Greek. The Job targum shows that there were some variations in the text of Job at the time it was translated. Working with that kind of material is over my pay grade*, though I do read some Aramaic.

8hevXIIgr (there's supposed to be a dot under the "h" but I didn't bother) is an amazingly literal translation of the 12 prophets into Greek. Even where the LXX diverges, this one follows the Masoretic text. It can tell us a lot about the Hebrew text for that reason.

Side note: When I was examining this one for my book, I found it laughable the way so many DSS scholars were trying to figure out how to fit it into a history of the *Greek* text of the Septuagint. For my money, that's not gonna happen. I think it's an ad hoc translation that somebody made more or less for themselves, and has nothing to do with any other Greek translation. I think it's unique because someone made it for private use.

Nobody else in the field seems to consider that possibility, so they do scholarly back-flips to try to shoehorn it in where it doesn't belong. And I sit back and chuckle. (This is how scholars have fun)

There are some scholars who tend to push the idea that complete manuscripts of a book are better than partials, but that's a red herring. What counts isn't the amount, but the content.

The situation with the New Testament is similar. We have two complete mss of the NT (I'm too lazy to write them out each time!) before the sixth century. The best one we have, Codex Vaticanus, isn't complete. And older materials are amazingly fragmented, mostly on papyrus, and anything but complete. The oldest piece we have, the Rylands Fragment from around AD 125 or so, only has a few sentences on it. But there's enough to give us a picture of some of the kinds of alterations and writing errors that happened during the first three centuries of the Christian era.

I love it when people are interested in this sort of thing, because not enough Christians really know where our Bibles came from. I appreciate your questions. My biggest bit of advice would be to pick up the FIRST EDITION of Emmanuel Tov's book on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. He gives a nice picture of how the DSS fit into the known history of the OT. Why the first edition? Because he got into source criticism of the Pentateuch, JEDP if you know what that is, and completely revamped the book in the second edition to build everything on that. It basically ruined his approach, at least for me. The first edition is quite useful; the second one, not so much.

I'll try to glance through my book in the next couple of days and see what kind of general picture emerges for Isaiah and get back to you.

*I'm what's known as a "private scholar," which is to say, I'm not a gray-haired professor at an obscure institution somewhere. The pay grade for a private scholar is exactly what you might guess it is!

*I'm what's known as a "private scholar," which is to say, I'm not a gray-haired professor at an obscure institution somewhere. The pay grade for a private scholar is exactly what you might guess it is!

So you are saying its not six figures?? (<:

Is this the Targum of Job you are referring to?

Carrigan: Targum of Job: 4Q157, 11Q10 (http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/StudTxts/11Q10!.html)​

As to the NT, the most stunning illustration of the integrity of the NT text that I can think of is as follows. The KJV (1611) NT was based upon a Greek collation by Erasmus based on 7 manuscripts. The 2011 NIV revision, 400 years later. was able to draw upon over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. In going from 7 to 5,000, if wholesale changes had been the order of the day, then the KJV would be wildly different from the NIV, scarcely recognizable. That, of course, if far from the case. Their agreement is stunning.

According to Dr. Craig Evans, scarcely a rock-ribbed fundamentalist, there are only three passages in the Gospel accounts which are open to question as to their inclusion. The adulterous woman of John 8, the final 12 verses of Mark 16, and Luke 22:41-45. Their exclusion would affect no Christian doctrines. It would be difficult to have a more clear-cut case for the integrity of the Gospel accounts than that. After so many centuries, and having been touched by so many fallible, human hands, to have such reliability is utterly remarkable.


The best one we have, Codex Vaticanus, isn't complete. And older materials are amazingly fragmented, mostly on papyrus, and anything but complete. That's a fascinating comment. I would have said much the same thing about the Isaiah manuscripts from Cave 4 or the Targum of Job, both of which you seemed rather high on. What is true in one case must also be true of the other.

As always, I value your comments. It is a fascinating exchange.

I only brought up the Job targum as an example of a fairly complete copy, not for any other reason. The completeness of the Isaiah scroll etc. isn't really an indication of its value in terms of the text, but complete copies like it are always welcome in the field. That's probably one reason we almost never find them, we want them too badly.

Your source is correct about the three major passages in the NT. That's not the question in NT textual criticism. It's the little things. Romans 5:1, for example. Does it say "We have peace with God" or does it say "Let us have peace with God"? It's a difference of one letter, and by about the third century both letters were pronounced the same, so there's no audible difference. The manuscripts are about evenly divided. Those are the kinds of issues that people like me have wrestled with since who knows when.

I know we once had a topic here, I forget what it was... ;)

I know we once had a topic here. I forget what it was...

It would be easy to have lost track of it!

I think we must be careful in our examination of the Bible. It is not a case of the glass half full or half empty, but rather a glass 99% full and 1% empty. If we constantly dwell on the 1%, then it raises doubts in the minds of people.


It's the little things. Romans 5:1, for example. Does it say "We have peace with God" or does it say "Let us have peace with God"?

As you said, it's a little thing. It has no effect at all on Christian doctrine. Either translation is meaningful, though the first is certainly the most consistent with the surrounding verses. "That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' 23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also." And then afterwards, "Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Now as a fascinating academic undertaking, I can see how those pursuits would interest you and others. I'm glad you do it.

Ah, but it does affect "Christian doctrine." Is it a promise of peace with God, or a statement of potential, that a person might or might not fulfill? It's a question of security and assurance, and whether we have it or not.

Another one is in Rev 5 (I think - possibly 4, I'm going from memory), where one of the groups in heaven says "You have redeemed them from every tribe and nation etc." But does it say "them"? Some manuscripts read "us." Again, it's a difference of one letter and the two letters were pronounced identically. These manuscripts were made by having one guy stand at the front of a room and read aloud while everybody else in the room wrote down what he read. In this case, I've seen people try to use the verse with "us" to support the whole pretribulational rapture thing, because if it says "us" it could be "the church" that's represented there.

The evidence for the reading "them" is stronger, by the way. But that won't stop some folks.

I agree with you about some people hanging on to one verse, but context frequently solves the problem very easily, as in the Romans 5 passage. In Rev. 5, the song is being sung by the 4 living creatures as well as the 24 elders. I would think it unlikely that the 4 living creatures would need to sing that of themselves (us). The Amplified simply renders it "people", but puts it in italics.

At any rate, it certainly does not lend support to the idea that the text of the NT has been significantly altered over the centuries, and that would seem to be the primary question, especially as regards the ministry of Jesus.

I have a question for you. If I can ever remember it, I'll post it. It occurred to me two or three days ago when reading the Bible, and I thought that you would likely know the answer. As I said, if I can remember it (65 years old), I'll get back with you. It had to do with Hebrew as I recall.

I enjoy your insights.

It depends largely on whom (or what) the creatures are supposed to represent. John and his readers understood apocalyptic and probably knew the symbolism already; we're pretty well clueless down here 2K years later.

"I have a question for you. If I can ever remember it, I'll post it. It occurred to me two or three days ago when reading the Bible, and I thought that you would likely know the answer. As I said, if I can remember it (65 years old), I'll get back with you. It had to do with Hebrew as I recall."

I'm also 65, so fire away. Us old guys gotta stick together!

I'm also 65, so fire away. Us old guys gotta stick together!

Always knew there was something admirable about you!

I was thinking about a subject that you can probably answer, David. Israel went out of business around A.D. 70. It was reconstituted by the United Nations in 1947. That's almost 1900 years. Has any nation ever been "out of business" for that long, with the descendants basically scattered to the four winds, and then been reborn in that fashion?

I will be preaching on Romans 5:1 on Sunday. I see your point about "we have" or "let us have".