Women be silent!!

by skyman 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  skyman

  I have been looking into the research Art D. Ehrman from the Department of Religious Studies from the University of North Carolina. He makes a very convincing argument that to me proves the bible verses that make women less human was not in the originals.

  Paul called women by name some of the Women were taking the lead at Romans 16: 3-16 in verse 3 say fellow worker Prisca (WOMAN). Then verse 7 Junias (Woman) this is interesting some bibles including the New World Translation then says “who are men” or “Kinsmen” This is not found at all in the older Manuscripts so the New World Translation and any other translation is in error. At that time Junias was strictly a woman’s name and notice the verse said Junias was an Apostle. Actually older Manuscripts say foremost Apostle

  . That would be liken to at least an Elder or a C.O. today.
  

  What about 1Cor. 11:2-16 Paul say a Woman can teach with a head covering but at 1 Cor 14: 36-40 says the opposite that she has to be silent, never teaching. The verse found at 1Cor 14: 36-40 was not Paul’s words but was added by a scribe to give credence to the MALE dominated Society and give the Roman Church the right to take power from the woman and dominate her.

  There so much proof that women shortly after Christ not only taught but where the foremost teachers in most cases. By the large part men did not except Jesus at first but the Women did, they flocked to the new teaching by the groves. Think about it, dominated for thousands of years by men then this charismatic leader removes all that away. It must have been great for the women finally be valued.
• 

  Legolas

  Wow Sky that is interesting....thanks for that post!
• 

  Star Moore

  I've done some studying too..I'd like to show you what this man, Mike Satterlee came up with...

  I Cor..14:33.

  As in all the congregations of the holy ones, (another words, this is what's going on in all the congregations) let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says.(Couldn't be Jehovah's law, so it must be their endless traditional laws) If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

  (Note the next scripture, how Paul show abhorence for these ideas)" What? Was it from YOU that the word of God came forth, or was it only as far as YOU that reached." (Paul is saying, Are you making up your own rules, or ignoring God's law)

  So Paul was stating the error of the congregations about there attitute about women. He wasn't stating it as the way women should be treated.
• 

  skyman

  Notice in most bible at Romans 16: 7 the printers of the most of the bibles had to add men or kinsmen. Professor Ehrman states is clear proof that the bible has been corrupted by men that had the ability to change text and lead the reader to a concussion of their choosing This is not the only agenda bible scribes have put into the scriptures but this agenda has been responsible for many deaths and making the lives of women down to this day secondary and slaves for men. Other agendas I will post in future threads
• 

  Leolaia

  I've covered this subject in the following thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92014/1.ashx
• 

  skyman

  Leolia I have read your thread and I like your research, But this is a deliberate changing of the bible that really is incredible to me. As I have posted before I believe we have a bible that is full of problems, this is only one example of how people should be careful not to place all their money on the bible as being the original WORD of GOD. If anyone has a dominating husband that demands respect because of the WORD of GOD says she has too. Men rape women, beat women, dominate women, the congregtions have many capable women that could take to lead, maybe even be part of the Governing BODY. If the JW';s did this it would be revolutionary and we see the problems quickly disappear that we see inside the congregations.

  A Word of GOD that he never spoke how disgusting.
• 

  Chimene

  Wow, thanks for the info!
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, I agree that on the one hand there have been many textual corruptions/additions/omissions in the wider textual tradition (in fact, one late manuscript tried to reorder the verses in this passage to make better sense of it), as perhaps most accessibly documented by Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus.

  On the other hand, I am not convinced that the common text of 1 Corinthians 14 contains a sub-Pauline interpolation. It is possible, indeed, but another possibility that seems just as plausible is the one that Star Moore mentions...that Paul is here citing the view of his opponents in Corinth (for the epistle is mostly concerned with addressing the schismatic situation in Corinth), in order to refute it and state his disagreement with it. There are numerous articles in the critical literature back and forth on the subject.
• 

  skyman

  I am convinced the words "KINSMEN and or MEN" were added because older manuscripts did not have the words. Later scribes did this so the women would not cause problems and question things. It was easier to add "Kinsmen or men" than to explain the verse.

  What proof is there that 1 Cor. 14: 34, 25 are not original. Remove the the two verses of 1Cor. 14: 34, 35 you will notice the passage flows seamlessly without the two verses. Adding more proof some older manuscripts do not put the two verses in the modern location of the bible but shuffle the verses into other locations. Sense the verses did not belong in the originals manuscripts the scribes were trying to find a good location too support their rendering of the text. One rule of thumb if it was original then the text always appears in the same location in all the older Manuscripts by shuffling the two verses around is almost positive proof they were not in the original text. This line of thinking is good enough for other mistakes in translation of the bible. The the same logic should apply here. Last but not least the two verses contradict Paul's writings even within the letter of 1 Cor. this adds even more support that the verses were added.

  The evidence is very strong.
• 

  skyman

  P.S. I changed my avitar before I posted this thread anyone hate it? I hope not, I like the new pumkin adds personality I think.