1 Timothy / Genesis 1

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Ginger, Jan 17, 2011.

  1. Another member made this comment:
    [my point in bringing up 1 tim 2 was to draw contrast as to how the two passages are treated.

    Genesis 1: That's what it says so that's what happened.

    1 tim 2: "well, if you look at the broader context" "it's only 2 or 3 sentences"

    How is literalness the only way in genesis 1, which is illogical when taken literally, but 1 tim 2:11-12 is not taken literally. Actually, the most basic meaning is changed through "contextualizing"... The passage literally says "I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man", but after we're done contextualizing it, it reads "I don't permit people to be disruptive", or "I don't permit uneducated people to teach or have authority over educated people" (i've heard both before). Both of those interpretations don't work because they have no correlating elements to the Adam & Eve reference that is given immediately after within the same passage.

    But Genesis 1, nope... it says what it says.]

    I am not aware of anyone who thinks 1 Timothy 2: is speaking symbolically or metaphorically.

    While there are places in the Bible that are not to be taken literally, like when Jesus says, "Heaven is like..." 1 Tim is not one of them.

    Paul is advising Timothy how to deal with a real problem within the church. He begins his letter with a greeting as is usual. Then he states his purpose for writing:
    " 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith"
    The book of Timothy is a letter, just one letter written to encourage and advise Timothy on how to deal with current problems while he waits for Paul to come to Ephesus.

    There is no sybolism. Paul states the problem and how he wants Timothy to address those problems clearly.

    The debate among Christians arises over Paul's comments in 1 Ti 2:
    11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

    Let's go back to chapter one, remember this is all one letter. v. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

    This is a specific problem in this specific church. Paul does not say, at first, who these disrupted false teachers are, not until chapter to. Remember one letter. It was translators who divided it into chapters, not Paul.

    False teaching from women is not the only issue, but the biggest concern.

    darn, I have to go​
     
  2. You left out verses 13-15:
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    I would totally accept your interpretation of verses 11-12 if it weren't for 13-15. This passage states that women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man, and his reasoning for this assertion is in verses 13-15, and the reasons he gives have everything to do with adam & eve. You can't make sense of verses 13-15 if Paul is saying anything besides "women can't teach or be in authority".

    Now, the reason I brought this scripture up wasn't to say that you are saying that 1 tim is symbolic. It was a type of defense on what I had said earlier in our previous thread. Someone said something along the lines of "you can believe whatever you want, but I believe that the bible is true", insinuating that I don't believe in the bible because I don't read the bible as a textbook. In bringing up 1 tim 2 I was trying to illustrate that we all interpret, no one has the truth cornered, and to say that I don't believe in the bible is pretty much saying I don't believe your take on it.

    I'm totally cool with women being in leadership. And creationism is just fine with me too, as long as it is not pushed on the public.
     
  3. As I said in the other thread, the question of women in ministry has been thoroughly discussed in another topic, which was only recently closed. When a topic has been closed, it really shouldn't be re-opened, at least until there are new people on the forum who might have a fresh point of view to offer.

    Humble, your post in the other thread suggested that I was accepting the Bible as the Word of God in Genesis, but not doing so in 1 Timothy. That is not true. In fact, it is my very commitment to the authority of the Word that causes me to question the interpretation that is given to the 1 Timothy passage, as you will see if you choose to read my article at http://lynnbfowler.com/womeninministry.html

    As I say in that article, if our interpretation of a passage puts it in conflict with the rest of Scripture, then we need to re-assess our interpretation of that passage, since Scripture cannot contradict itself. Every passage of the Word should be interpreted in the light of the whole teaching of the Word on that subject.

    That is a very different thing to assigning a passage to the realm of "myth" or "poetry" because people choose not to believe what it says. There is not one thing in the Word that suggests that Genesis should be taken any way but literally, or that the people of the time took it any other way.

    Since when does "poetry" contain detailed genealogical lists which continue to be recognized for generations, right down to the time of the New Testament?

    Yet it is fine for the evolution myth to be pushed on the public at every level from school to television to books to you-name-it.

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  4. No, that's not what I said. I was saying that simply equating my not taking Genesis 1 literally with not taking 1 timothy 2 literally.

    I agree. However, if we want to take a strictly literal view of scripture, this doesn't justify dismissing the clear message of one passage because the rest of scripture seems to say something else. I did read your article, and you've changed "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" into "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man until she learns enough".

    People who do stuff for the kingdom of God are not all leaders. You don't need to exercise authority in order to do work for the kingdom of God. If there is a place in scripture where it was blatant that a woman was exercising authority over a man within the church, or it says somewhere that it is okay for a woman to exercise authority over a man, I will agree with you. Maybe I just missed that part?

    When I'm talking about poetry here, I'm talking about Genesis 1.... nothing more. There are no genealogies in Genesis 1. Again about my use of the word myth, it has nothing to do with judging the factual account of a story, it means that it is a story used to teach spiritual principles. That's all I mean by the word myth.

    There actually are things in the bible that suggest Genesis 1 should be taken a different way than literally.
    Hebraic Parallelism: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_chiasmus.html

    To say something is poetic does not make it meaningless. Poetry is very meaningful, but not literal.

    Evolution doesn't classify as a myth. Evolution is a scientific theory, and since they teach science in school, they should teach evolution in school. Creationism is a religious belief, and until valid science is done supporting creationism, it should not be taught in schools other than in a religion class.
     
  5. Sorry, I had to go pick up my kids. :)

    If it's the "Adam/Eve comments that concern you, the answer is simple: men and women have different roles in life by God's design - we should not take that lightly. All of God's creation is designed a specific way for a purpose, so that we may understand God and His plan for us. The natural order of things should not be messed with.
    Men are to be the head of the wife - like Christ is head of the church. It's not about men bossing women around, it's about men loving, caring and protecting women, etc.
    Women are to submit to their husbands, but not to be a doormat! It is how we reflect Christ to them - in obedience just as Christ was obedient.

    In some cases women did take roles of leadership and as teachers like Priscilla, Deborah, and Huldah.

    Are the Scriptures inconsistent then? No.

    I'll repeat, Paul was speaking to a specific situation to which we do not know all the specifics. Also, Paul specifically said "I do not permit..." and gave his reasoning. He did not say "it is never permitted".
     
  6. Well done!
     
  7. Out of curiosity, what does this actually mean.......................
    "And creationism is just fine with me too, as long as it is not pushed on the public."
     
  8. You said......................
    Evolution doesn't classify as a myth. Evolution is a scientific theory, and since they teach science in school, they should teach evolution in school. Creationism is a religious belief, and until valid science is done supporting creationism, it should not be taught in schools other than in a religion class.

    Dosn't the word "THEORY" give you some concern when it is applied to Evolution?

    Why would you accept Evolution THEORY over Creation that should be taught as a science when in fact it is NOT science at all?

    One response of evolutionists to such questions is that creationism is not science. The implication is that if creationism is false, then evolution must be true. But just because scientists cannot think of an alternative is no reason to accept a theory. I don't know of other fields where a theory is accepted simply because no one can think of an alternative.

    In arguing that creation is not science, evolutionists expect creation to pass tests that are not reasonable. They expect creationists to be able to say why God created the specific animals that He did, or why He set the third-position codons as He did. Such questions are not necessarily possible to answer. There may have been many things going on relating to the Creation that we have no idea of. We cannot even predict what a Beethoven would compose or a Van Gogh would paint; much less can we predict what a Creator would create! It would be like asking archaeologists at a dig to predict what they would uncover in the next area of their site. If they could not say, then we could say that their field was not scientific, and that they must explain the ruins they found not as the activity of intelligent beings, but rather as the results of wind and erosion and other natural forces.

    Just something to think about on a slow Tuesday.
     
  9. There are implication to both teachings. Evolution is used to justify things beyond its scope.
     
  10. Just one comment....secularists try to discredit God by repeating theories that have no real substance. For example, the big bang theories contradict the known laws of physics, yet because they want to believe it they ignore that SCIENCE proves it is impossible.

    It's got to make you laugh....
     
  11. Wow, okay. I'll try to keep up with you guys as much as possible, however school is in session.

    Before I go any farther.... The quest must be love. In all things, may we love Christ and each other (including this online forum thread :) ).

    Ginger,
    The thing about science is that it is malleable. The concept of evolution has changed over the years. We no longer believe that we are descendants of monkeys, we know about genetics, etc etc. The big bang has been nothing but confirmed, I don't know of any study that has falsified the big bang theory. I'd like to hear about it though.

    Of course women shouldn't be doormats, that doesn't mean that they are leaders in the church. They can be prophetesses of course, but in the church (New Testament) leadership, there is no example of a woman being in leadership.

    Every passage of the bible is speaking about a specific situation in which we don't know all the specifics. That's no excuse for him saying I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority.

    Major,
    What I was alluding to, is that creationism is a religious belief, and evolution is a scientific theory. I don't believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes, if for no other reason, because it is not science. I'm okay with it being discussed in a religion class.

    Evolution is true not because creationism is false, but because the data support the theory.

    The way the word theory is used in science isn't as it is commonly used. A theory is the application of multiple falsifiable scientific facts. It's not just an idea that could be true. It's actually more solid than any one fact.

    All you need to be accepted in the scientific community is science, of which has never been produced by creationists (besides irreducible complexity which has been thoroughly debunked).


    k, time for class. I'll come back to see if there is anything I haven't responded to.
     
  12. Science is the process of discovery. "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

    You cannot prove the big bang. In fact the big bang defies scientific facts.
    It is a fact that gases do not compress themselves. Therefore, the big bang is impossible without an outside force....such as a supernatural being, say God, for instance, doing something to cause them to compress.

    I love the fact that you said, "We no longer believe that we are descendants of monkeys, ...." Humans descending from monkeys was once taught as tho it had been scientifically proven beyond a doubt. Yet, science has apparently changed and now we know that belief to be false!!!!

    Truth is absolute. It does not change. So who has the truth? The ones whose theories change periodically or the One who remain s unchanged forever, and ever?
     
  13. Science is the process of discovery. "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

    You cannot prove the big bang. In fact the big bang defies scientific facts.
    It is a fact that gases do not compress themselves. Therefore, the big bang is impossible without an outside force....such as a supernatural being, say God, for instance, doing something to cause them to compress.

    I love the fact that you said, "We no longer believe that we are descendants of monkeys, ...." Humans descending from monkeys was once taught as tho it had been scientifically proven beyond a doubt. Yet, science has apparently changed and now we know that belief to be false!!!!

    Truth is absolute. It does not change. So who has the truth? The ones whose theories change periodically or the One who remain s unchanged forever, and ever?
     
  14. I hate technology... but on-the-other-hand, maybe that was worth repeating three times lol
     
    Humble_Servant likes this.
  15. As I said earlier, the whole question of women in leadership has already been thoroughly discussed. I am not going to persue it further other than to say that there were women in leadership in the New Testament ... Junia (a female apostle), Phoebe (a deacon) and Priscilla (a teacher) for a start.

    You cannot remove Genesis 1 from the Bible without creating rifts in the whole Bible. For instance, Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Was the Lord relying on a myth as the basis of the commandment? Or did He maybe not know what He was talking about?

    Some evolutionary scientists have openly admitted that the basis for the theory is very shaky indeed, and the facts really do not support it, but that since the alternative is to believe in God, they stick with the shaky theory.

    Personally, I think it takes far more faith to believe that the amazing creation all around us "just happened" than it does to believe that an eternal and infinitely intelligent God designed it all. Could you believe that the Taj Mahal "just happened", that Shakespear's writings "just happened" or that Mozart's music "just happened"? Any or all of them would be easier than for this universe to "just happen."

    blessings,

    Lynn
     
  16. I'm fine putting the women leadership issue aside, it was a side point.

    I refuse to take my conversation with you on Genesis 1 any further until you acknowledge that I am not removing Genesis 1, or dismissing Genesis 1. You still haven't understood what I mean by the word myth, which I wouldn't have used again for clarity's sake if it hadn't been brought up.

    I read your article, would you mind looking at mine (they're shorter)?
     
  17. First of all, I am a Christian. I believe that God is the creator of the universe. I am fine with a God-caused big bang.(also temperature fluctuation can cause gas compression)

    The point I was bringing up with our discovery that we aren't descendant from monkeys was that science is malleable. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, or that the answers it comes up with are set in stone forever. A scientific answer is the best answer that we can come up with at the moment, concerning naturalistic phenomenon. Scientists do however have high standards for asserting an idea. You better have a good explanation as to how you came up with your conclusion, or they will shut you down. In my opinion, that's why science by and large rejects modern day religion. "Because the bible says so" isn't going to cut it.

    The truth exists, and we are trying to figure out what it is. Just because an assertion hasn't changed in thousands of years doesn't mean that it is true. In fact all the data we do have would say that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not true.

    I think the links that I posted previously do well to show the different perspective that people had at the time Genesis was written. I think it explains a lot.

    Truth changes. Example: Tommy is 5 years old, he is 3 feet 2 inches tall. Time passes, and he is now 10 years old. Is the true statement that Tommy is 3 feet 2 inches tall still true?

    Perhaps I should explain it differently.... We never "have" the truth, we have a relationship with what is true. There is a distinct difference. Strict post-Socratic absolutism and idealism are more or less thrown out the window.
     
  18. lol you reason like a liberal!!!!

    I never said "nothing changes". The Bible tells us things change, but there are absolute truths and absolute truths are not subject to change.

    Let me give you another absolute truth: molesting children is ALWAYS wrong. There are people who don't agree with that, but it doesn't make it right for one person and wrong for another according to how each individual feels about it. It is always wrong.

    Absolute truth exists.
     
  19. I am a liberal :p

    I didn't mean to say that you think nothing changes. I'm saying since things change, and since there are truths about things, truth changes.

    Sure absolute truth exists, but we don't have it. We only "see a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known"
     
  20. You seem to have just told me there are no absolute truths with humans- after I gave the example of child molestation being absolutely wrong.

    Bare with me for just a few moments, please....
    Several years ago a family and their guests were brutally murdered and two young children were missing from the home. When the children were finally found, the little girl was alive, but the boy had been murdered - both had been repeatedly raped by the man who murdered their parents.

    I don't care if this man thought it was okay to murder the adults so he could get the children....I don't care if he thought the children would enjoy what he did to them....I don't care if he was molested and abused as a child.....I don't care if both children had been found alive....it wouldn't change the fact, What he did was absolutly wrong.

    Human beings do not possess all knowledge, but we do have absolutes, even here in the physical World.

    Now, the reason I said you argue like a liberal is because you take things in circles and reject the idea of anything having any clarity on anything. Everything is subject to something so "there is no absolute right or wrong" "what is wrong for you might be right for someone else" it's all relevant to how one feels or perceives the situation.

    Even within your example there are absolutes: Every year that passes, Tommy will absolutely grow one year until he dies.

    Don't be discouraged, I used to be very liberal, so there's hope for you, too! :D
     

Share This Page