>I think the whole point Shining One, are we to take it literally or not? To pick and choose is to be arbitrary, and therefore, inconsistent in application. Which you are.
Jgnat,
You are being facetious. I have repeatedly explained the difference between 'pick and choose', arbitrary decisions on what to believe and consistent hermenutical principals. Do you wonder why people lose patience with you?
Rex
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Narkissos
Re x,
Concerning Galatians 3:28 I wrote:
Of course you know that the appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order runs against fundamental Pauline theology according to Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Yet you insist that sexual discrimination in the Church is an all-time rule.
If you think this is just a "spiritual principle" with no social and ecclesial implications, do you think those Christians who fought for the abolition of slavery on the very same grounds were wrong?
By "appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order" I meant the allusions to Genesis in 1 Timothy as you expounded them.
I characterised Galatians 3:28 as "fundamental... theology"; which means that this text is not written as a political, social or ecclesiastical practical admonition (on this we agree) but as a basic theological principle.
Yet the sexual discrimination underlying the practical instructions in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy "runs against" this basic principle as any NT reader easily sees. On a more theological level, the "appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order" backing up those instructions conflicts with this principle. The question being, is the church order to reflect the old or new creation? (Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14ff).
My reference to the issue of slavery (equally mentioned in Galatians 3:28) reveals the same problem: in spite of the Galatians theological principle the NT texts did not condemn slavery on a practical level. Yet later Christian generations felt that the ongoing practice of slavery was incompatible with it. Were they wrong? Perhaps exegetically they were. But if practically they were not, might modern Christians who feel that the ongoing practice of sexual discrimination in church is incompatible with the same principle have a point too?
That's all I said and it was a side point in the discussion (on your unequal treatment of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, mind you) which did not call for an exegesis of Galatians.
You replied:
Let's establish the context of this verse. It is not speaking specifically to women's roles in the church.
I agree.
To use it in that manner is faulty exegesis and instead of letting scripture say what it says, you are 'reading something into it' that is not there.
I didn't do that.
And to the rest of your comments on Galatians I agree.
Just two concluding remarks on the next post of yours.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male.
Hmm... nothing, just found the expression funny.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women. Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
Strange argument. I (wrongly perhaps) assumed you were a Protestant. Protestant doctrine would never base its ecclesiology on the OT priesthood (because of the principle of "universal priesthood"). And even Catholic theologians nowadays would be much more cautious than you are in using such an argument.
-
Shining One
>What did I read into it? I just quoted the text, I did not ask for a commentary (yet I got it) and do not intend to comment the commentary.
Narkissos,
This is exactly why I am not going to go into a full explanation of how you have violated the context of this latest text. You are just as facetious as Jgnat. You asserted a completly fabricated, convenient interpretation of Galations 3:28 and I nailed you on it. You dishonestly ignore this consistent, contextual commentary. BTW, I checked my interpreation with the scholars, did you?
Leolaia,
I am not getting into a hair-splitting exercise in futility with you either. The whole point to the discussion is that we have translations available today that are superior to ages past. Yet the word of God has survived intact and is 'inspired and reliable for 'teaching, reproving and rebuking', despite the assertions by skeptics like the three of you. The bottom line is that we have the most reliable translations today that have ever been published. I can go into a long winded explanation of the dead sea scrolls with appropriate backing references but then what is the point?
For both of you,
I do not accept either of you as authoritative on textual interpretation either. You have no apparent track record to back it up (that I have seen). If you are going to get into any linguistic discussions with me, you had better 'appeal to real authorities' and not your own alternative renderings of koine greek or hebrew word use and definition. I am saying that you need to cite well respected Biblical scholars if you are going to dispute the nuances of present day translations.
What you seem to be doing is using the common methods of cultists to twist scripture out of context in order to impugn the orthodox teachings of Chrsitianity. I believe that your goal is to oppose anyone who takes scripture seriously and it is very convenient for both of you to side with Jgnat regardless of how much solid interpretaion that I show you.
Rex -
jgnat
consistent hermenutical principles
You use the words but fail in the application. You are not consistent in your approach. You may be consistent in your own mind, but you are not convincing your audience. If you use "context and history" in one application, you must use it in all others.
Do you wonder why people lose patience with you?
Who are these "people"? You?
-
Shining One
Defd,
I used to be a JW and guess what? I think you are better off there than with the likes of the skeptics here. Many have taken the great leap from disagreement with the Watchtower to extreme, liberal scripture interpretation and outright unbelief. If you decide to leave the JWs please do investigate evangelical Christianity before you surrender to pointless agnosticism. Feel free to IM me at any time.
God Bless,
Rex -
Shining One
>Let's stick to the quality of their arguments, shall we?
What a joke.
Rex -
-
jgnat
Leolaia, you have contributed a lot to my understanding with this:
It is just not possible in many cases to reconstruct the "originals" of OT books because the evidence is too fragmentary and the standardized MT is not always correct. We need more information about the complex textual history of the OT than what we already have.
If I understand this right, there never was a definitive manuscript, a perfect copy? That maybe such a search is like the hunt for the Holy Grail; noble but pointless?
-
Leolaia
I am not getting into a hair-splitting exercise in futility with you either.
Or is it that you don't want to be pinned down on specifics? Shining One, you made a claim that in light of the preceding sentence was potentially very misleading. Again, to refresh your memory:
'Inerrancy' is the concept that no amount of error is extant in the original, inspired manuscripts. It does not apply to any translation that exists so we have a 'moot point'. It does show a 99.95 accuracy of the harmony where the major texts are compared. With the dead sea scrolls we have some of the Old Testament that goes back to 200 BC and the 'errors' are miniscule. They do not compromise the texts from the 10 and 12th centuries.
I asked for clarification because there simply isn't a 99.95% degree of agreement between the MT and the Qumran texts, especially for the books I cited which depart quite markedly from the MT. Now, I notice that fundamentalists and the Society cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence of the OT's accurate preservation but usually focus only on the Isaiah scroll which indeed shows a very high degree of accordance to the MT text. But I never see them discuss other books like Jeremiah or 1-2 Samuel or the Psalms where the situation is quite different. Thus, your claim of only a "miniscule" difference sounded rather misleading to me.
The whole point to the discussion is that we have translations available today that are superior to ages past. ... The bottom line is that we have the most reliable translations today that have ever been published.
No, that's not the whole point to this discussion. I don't think anyone here, yourself included, doubts that translations have been improved thanks to manuscript discoveries, and that we have a far better handle on the text than ever before. That's not what's being disputed. I'm questioning your claim that the major texts are virtually in complete agreement, as it pertains to the OT especially.
I can go into a long winded explanation of the dead sea scrolls with appropriate backing references but then what is the point?
Well, that would be nice, but the point simply is to clarify what you meant in the prior post, because it sounded like you were downplaying the degree of divergence there is between the MT and Dead Sea Scrolls in various books.
I do not accept either of you as authoritative on textual interpretation either. You have no apparent track record to back it up (that I have seen).
When have I ever claimed to be an "authority"? Do you seriously think one has to be an authority to take part in these discussions and raise germaine points that bear on the subject being discussed?
If you are going to get into any linguistic discussions with me, you had better 'appeal to real authorities' and not your own alternative renderings of koine greek or hebrew word use and definition.
We already do that when needed, but it is pedantic to have to cite an "authority" for every word we mention. My posts are usually thoroughly documented, but I will not look up anthropos in Liddell-Scott to give you a page number for the definition "man", to give an example.
I am saying that you need to cite well respected Biblical scholars if you are going to dispute the nuances of present day translations.
And why don't you do the same thing. Every time you say, this text means such-and-such, let's see several footnotes and references for support. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What you seem to be doing is using the common methods of cultists to twist scripture out of context in order to impugn the orthodox teachings of Chrsitianity.
Or....you are so used to the way you interpret a given text that you are intolerant of interpretations that differ from your own, even if they better respect the literary context and language of the text.
-
Shining One
Jgnat,
You are a unique audience that I know I will never convince.....
Rex