No matter how hard you try to re-interpret scripture according to your convenience, the fact remains that the Hebrew culture and the Christian religion are largely patriarchal and efforts to change that will eventually create new sects. What's the point? The book is 2 fucking thousand years old - just write a new one for Christ's sakes. I just don't understand why so many people want to go back and re-interpret scripture because of social norms instead of just dismissing it outright. Just another example of cognitive dissonance in my opinion.
Women be silent!!
daniel-p I agree with you totally but many people here are held captive to the bible and will die for what it says. They are misguided by their parents, Religious leaders, and others that they look to and they became brainwashed by them. I am trying to help others on this board see what is truely happening to them. There might be a women reading today that is being oppressed by the men in her life and think she has to Indure because she believes GOD tells her to. We need too escape this type of thinking. I hope this thread will make some men and women think and maybe it might be a small part of making thier life better.
I see your point.
Sky!!!! Thanks I found that very interesting.... I have asked so many Pastors etc: about women teaching. They all say it is a NO! No! considering that women do MOST of the teaching of children It is a MAN!!!!>>>> expressing HIS thoughts .Nothing new Under the sun!!!!! They STILL DO.
And Daniel!!!!!!! ((((HUGS))) <<<<I feel by the post you wrote you needed that... I still believe there is a creator>>>>DO YOU????
"And Daniel!!!!!!! ((((HUGS))) I feel by the post you wrote you needed that... I still believe there is a creator....DO YOU????"
In my innermost I do believe that there is something vastly greater than me and by the very nature of the universe it stands to reason that it is an intellegent entity. However, I just no longer have a need to define that entity or try to figure out what it requires of me. I would rather live my life and still be asking those questions openly than think I have the answer and still have nagging doubts. I guess that's the biggest reason I have left the JW faith in my heart: I just want freedom to think my own thoughts and agree to disagree. Unfortunately, they do not allow that. It is nice to be here on JWD!
As far as the woman vs. man thing, I just get frustrated with people trying to re-write the Bible when there are just so many glaring facets of it that clearly do not allow for freedom of thought. Religion is all about control. Every religion of every society and people is designed to control people from birth to death and beyond even.
I am convinced the words "KINSMEN and or MEN" were added because older manuscripts did not have the words.
Well, all manuscripts regardless of age lack such words because this is an interpretive (i.e. non-literal) translation to force a masculine reading in Romans 16:7, just as the spelling "Junias" forces a masculine reading even tho the name in the original text was accusative (and thus lacked such an ending). The actual term is episémoi "eminent ones", which the Society renders as "men of note".
What proof is there that 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 are not original. Remove the the two verses of 1Cor. 14: 34, 35 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.
Yes, as I said, there is indeed evidence in favor of the interpolation theory...but this evidence is not proof because the evidence can be interpreted in several different ways. That is why there is an ongoing debate in the critical literature because the evidence is not entirely decisive either way. For instance, the manuscripts with the dislocations are not "older" but rather late manuscripts in the Western textual tradition, and thus more likely represent a "less original" text than the older manuscripts of the Alexandrine text-type, cf. the discussion in:
The interpolation theory may well be correct, but it is less proven than other clearer examples, such as the probable insertion in Galatians 2:7-8 (which has better early manuscript evidence, tho not entirely decisive), and of course the proven interpolation into 1 John 5:7. There are probably many actual interpolations into the NT text which lack any MS evidence at all (due to the early transmission of the text and lack of attestation of the early stages), and any good commentary can list such suspected insertions, but I think most scholars would be careful not to claim that they have been proven to be insertions. In the case of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the existence of a plausible alternative explanation gives me pause in fully accepting the interpolation explanation...as well as the possible (i.e. not proven) allusion to this passage in 1 Clement 21:6-7 (dating to c. AD 95), which is filled with allusions to 1 Corinthians because it is addressed to the church in Corinth.
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.
My big problem with this theory is: where is the refutation, or even the statement of disagreement? If it lies only in v. 36 it is, at best, highly ambiguous. I remember reviewing the Pauline occurrences of rhetorical questions introduced with è ("or") in a previous thread (which I can't find now) and they were never a refutation of the previous assertion.
For another discussion with Mike Satterlee (a Christian) who resorts to invisible quotations for all the embarrassing passages regarding women, see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/85708/3.ashx.
For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only?
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Or do you not know, brothers and sisters--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during that person's lifetime?
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Or do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
1 Corinthians 6:7ff
In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud--and believers at that.
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
2 Corinthians 11:5ff:
I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge; certainly in every way and in all things we have made this evident to you. Or did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God's good news to you free of charge?In all the above instances, the rhetorical question actually confirms, ab absurdo, the previous assertion which reflects the author's stance.
I believe we have a similar pattern in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36:
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
Actually older Manuscripts say foremost Apostle. That would be liken to at least an Elder or a C.O. today.
At least, or almost an elder anyway