quote:

ORIGINAL: notmycity

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
As I have pointed out there are scholars that have put in the hard word required to really study these passages and still hold strongly to a "traditional" male headship point of view, so the issue I with some of the posts on this thread is not with their point of view, but with their absolute dogmatism combined with a complete unwillingness to study the issues before declaring to others what they MUST believe.

I don’t believe in so-called scholars, as there’s no Scriptural support for them.

I simply believe in God’s Word. as for the commonly used translations, I am aware of the problems of each. For the purpose of this OP, the KJV is 100% doctrinally sound.

quote:


You refused to address 2 Tim 2:13-14, as do many so-called egalitarians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: notmycity
I don’t believe in so-called scholars, as there’s no Scriptural support for them.

That strikes me as hilarious.

A Bible scholar is one that studies scripture seriously, making it the focus of their energies. Don't you study the Bible seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

On the complementarian side, I find that there is a certain lack of curiousity about the culture of the day and it's possible impact on what Paul wrote and how we should interpret it. Meanings of certain scriptures get frozen in time and become sacred cows that cannot be questioned. This to me is an affront to logic and faithful discourse. Through archaeology and other fields of study, we have been able to add tremendous color and texture to the bible and enhance our ability to understand it. I see no reason why that field of research can not be applied to this question and enhance our understanding of the bible.

quote:

So my point is, NEVER interpret scripture according to what happened during the times. Basically, you should take scripture as the Word of God and end it at that.

quote:


Edit: Another issue I see is that for interpretation's sake, we need to have a benchmark - a set point against which all future interpretations can be measured. By understanding what Paul would have intended his original readers to understand by what he wrote, we draw a line in the sand and say this is the context for a basic understanding. If we don't do that, each successive generation may interepret the bible according to it's own context and thus lead off into only-God-knows-where.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

By the way, liberalism doesn't just limit this kind of interpretation to just the bible. The idea of a "living breathing constitution" is another example where the intentions of the original authors who penned that document are considered irrelevant when deciding how it is interpreted today. Look at the mess and confusion that philosophy has caused in interpreting our constitution, what makes anyone think that it would work better when the apply the same principles to interpreting the bible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

This is my first post on this thread, as I usually stay away from threads that have a lot of Bolding, underlining, etc.

I have read some of the 5000 posts and just have this to ask;

How does one who is opposed to women ministering handle this passage;

(Act 21:8) And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

(Act 21:9) And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

FYI - there is some legitimate discussion on 1 Cor 14 on whether or not women are admonished to remain silent. Depending on how that passage is punctuated, you can easily get diametrically opposed and legitimate interpretations. My opinion is that Paul is actually advocating in favor of a woman's ability to speak in the assembly here as indicated in one of the final sentences where he instructs us not to forbid speaking in tongues and does not qualify the statement by gender.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

Here's why I like this example. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Paul's writing should be able to look at this passage and see a couple of red flags.

First, Paul apparently is resorting to the Law as justification for his position. This is quite unusual for Paul.

Second: Paul clearly allows women to prophesy and doesn't qualify that by gender in the preceding verse. How does one prophesy yet remain silent?

Third: There is a word that is typically omitted from most translations. It's an "article of disassociation" that implies that the writer is about to distance himself from a statement made earlier. This is found at the beginning of v. 36 which is more accurately written "What? Did the word of God originate with you?..."

Fourth: The exclamation beginning in v. 36 is seemingly out of place. What is he disagreeing with

Fifth: There is a grammatical translation issue that plays into this. The original Greek wasn't punctuated. Paul makes liberal use of quotations in this letter but none of them are called out with quotation marks. They didn't have them in that day.

So, the question then becomes this - can this passage be punctuated differently such that these apparent inconsistencies go away. Playing with the punctuation a bit is a completely defensible strategy in cases like this since the original wasn't punctuated at all. All translations must guess at the original intent. So what if I guess thusly:

31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

(Begin quote)
"As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
(End Quote)

36What? Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Now the various "inconsistencies" are completely resolved. The reliance on the Law goes away as does the seemingly inappropriate outburst beginning in V. 36 and the reference to ALL being allowed to speak while simultaneously eliminating women from speaking.

Now, this is strictly conjecture but so is the original punctuation. We may never really know the 100% correct way that Paul intended this as either one is legitimate.

BT

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

JesKlu-

Yes, I think we are getting crossed up in definitions. I didn't read your original post closely enough. Sorry.

The LCMS debate focused on so-called "higher criticism" of which "historical-critical" is one component. Historical-critical methods focus on the origins and sources of the respective physical texts, while the "literary-historical" method I'm talking about is really about understanding the context in which a certain book or passage was written. The two are quite different. One focuses one how books came to be written and by whom, while the other focuses on what the texts should mean.

Looking at a book in its historical context so as to further flesh out the original meaning to the original writer/audience is a very well accepted practice among conservatives and taught in most conservative seminaries that I'm aware of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

I don't think the LCMS uses the literary-historical method either. But I decided to read behind the history again, and yes, it was the historical-critical method that led to the walkout.

But here are some methods they do use (textual criticism, grammar, and lexicography.) Nothing historical in these methods.

Here is the site.

http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/dantalk.htm

This is a sermon that talks about what led to the walkout. Read it carefully.

quote:

Depending on how that passage is punctuated, you can easily get diametrically opposed and legitimate interpretations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

5. We do not swallow feminist philosophy hook, line and sinker, to reinterpret Scripture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CherishedbyGod
I am sick of other females trying to control me and run my life just because I do not go along with their agenda

It seems to me that some women who want to be pastors are caught up in the "I will" syndrome..."I will ascend"....

quote:

ORIGINAL: notmycity
We obviously disagree on the validity of the KJV, so I’ll refrain from responding to your posts.

Thanks...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

I don't think the LCMS uses the literary-historical method either. But I decided to read behind the history again, and yes, it was the historical-critical method that led to the walkout.

But here are some methods they do use (textual criticism, grammar, and lexicography.) Nothing historical in these methods.

Here is the site.

http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/dantalk.htm

This is a sermon that talks about what led to the walkout. Read it carefully.

I read the paper. It really deals with higher criticism and doesn't really address a grammatico-historical hermeneutic.

Some of what you list are tools that are actually used in higher criticism. Benelchi is more educated on some of these issues and can help me out here. I'm a banker not a theologian.

I would be quite shocked if the LCMS didn't use a grammatico historical method, so I think we're still crossed up in definitions.

Maybe to sort things out a bit, we should deal with it in the form of a question:

I think the bible should be interpreted according to what the original writer (e.g. Paul) intended the original reader(s) (e.g. the church in Corinth) to understand with his letter. How would you describe how you determine what the bible should mean?

Update:
The LCMS I believe was a signatory on the so called "Chicago Statement" -
see the excerpt below:

"We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship." (The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XVIII)

I think the problem might be that I'm not describing what I mean by grammatico historical method.