Man and woman created as equals

[Rossw]

15 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Not always. Meaning of words that have been translated from an ancient language may require looking outside of the context of Scripture to fully understand their meaning in the context of the time and culture they were written.  Understanding archaeological, other historical, evidence helps to understand things not explained in Scripture. Understanding the geopolitical circumstance when something was written help us to understand what the original writer and readers may have taken for granted and didn't need to have explained.

I disagree. I've always found satisfactory contextual meaning by just reading the Bible and supporting Scriptures. To go outside Scripture is to essentially apply a constant eisegetical hermeneutic.

[Tom Wetmore]

Really?!?! How is understanding  the context of what is written eisegetical?  The very idea is to more carefully exegete the text to grasp its context and meaning. Eisegesis is more the opposite of imposing a context that is foreign or not really related to the text to give it a meaning out of relationship to its context.

Eisegesis would be to read Scripture as if it were written in English in the 21st Century in Western culture, to address a situation occurring in that time and place.

[Tom Wetmore]

3 hours ago, APL said:

Does Green forget that he was made of a woman? 

Excellent point!  

[Tom Wetmore]

19 minutes ago, Rossw said:

Why are extremes, such as abuse in the case of these quotes, continued to be used as strawmen to paint the anti-WO negatively?

What are you talking about?  What extremes or abuse in those quotes?  Here is a fine example of how understanding the context is important.  Look those quotes up and read the full context of EGW's counsel from which they were taken.  Hardly what you are suggesting...

[Gregory Matthews]

There are important words that in the form that they appear in the Bible, occur only once.  There is not other time in which they occur in the Bible, other than that one time.  Any translator must go outside of the Bible to study how  that word is used in the language at that time.   Translation always requires that this be done to some extent, which may differ from word to word.

We who do not understand the Biblical languages in which the Bible was  written  must go beyond our English (or  whatever) translations to better understand the Bible.

 

 

 

 

[Rossw]

8 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Really?!?! How is understanding  the context of what is written eisegetical?  The very idea is to more carefully exegete the text to grasp its context and meaning. Eisegesis is more the opposite of imposing a context that is foreign or not really related to the text to give it a meaning out of relationship to its context.

Eisegesis would be to read Scripture as if it were written in English in the 21st Century in Western culture, to address a situation occurring in that time and place.

A person could use history in about any subjective way to undeservedly force meaning into what isn't there. Essentially what your saying is that we must have history in order to understand Scripture. I think that causes serious issues with a belief in sola Scriptura. Historical references do not trump what is God breathed. A prime example of terrible eisegese is your rendering of 2 John.

[Tom Wetmore]

You really don't get it...  

It is not that history, etc. is a must to get any understanding.  Do you comprehend the idea of gaining a deeper and more complete understanding?  

As for for the reading of 2 John, again that is attempting to really understand the language as it was originally written and understood. Again you are confusing eisegesis and exegesis.  That is not an eisegetical rendering. Very much the opposite!

[Rossw]

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

What are you talking about?  What extremes or abuse in those quotes?  Here is a fine example of how understanding the context is important.  Look those quotes up and read the full context of EGW's counsel from which they were taken.  Hardly what you are suggesting...

Yes, she is showing men should not abuse their responsibility as head of household but they are still the head of the house.

----------

The Head of the Family Firm—The husband and father is the head of the household. The wife looks to him for love and sympathy and for aid in the training of the children; and this is right. The children are his as well as hers, and he is equally interested in their welfare. The children look to the father for support and guidance; he needs to have a right conception of life and of the influences and associations that should surround his family; above all, he should be controlled by the love and fear of God and by the teaching of His word, that he may guide the feet of his children in the right way.... AH 211.4

[Rossw]

3 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

You really don't get it...  

It is not that history, etc. is a must to get any understanding.  Do you comprehend the idea of gaining a deeper and more complete understanding?  

As for for the reading of 2 John, again that is attempting to really understand the language as it was originally written and understood. Again you are confusing eisegesis and exegesis.  That is not an eisegetical rendering. Very much the opposite!

Except when 2 John read in context it shows it isn't written to just one person. Paul uses "chosen" or "elect" often to refer to the church which John is apparently mirroring. The church is often referred to as a woman.

I think I do get it. You'd have everyone believe I am uninformed but I see you use the term "You really don't get it" for others whom you disagree with so I won't take it personally.

The part I don't understand is the thought of getting a deeper and more complete understanding of Scripture outside of Scripture. That's saying I can get a better idea of what God meant by looking at what isn't God breathed. Doesn't make sense. I understand what your trying to say but must acknowledge you may be wrong too.

[Tom Wetmore]

Read the whole context...  All of what she says on the topic...  

[Rossw]

39 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

We who do not understand the Biblical languages in which the Bible was  written  must go beyond our English (or  whatever) translations to better understand the Bible.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Unfortunately if we are not sure of a word usage as a lay person how are we to trust that the source we use in helping to identify a particular word is not biased? Some have argued the established definitions of some passages are mistranslated but how are we to know the alternative source is not also biased to our beliefs. Such as the case of supposedly mistranslating prostatis. The alternative source may be biased which leads to eisegese through the biased source you agree with.

[Rossw]

11 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Read the whole context...  All of what she says on the topic...  

Which one in particular?

[Tom Wetmore]

12 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Interesting word study - http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm 

It is notable that EGW also refers to Adam and Eve as being creates as equals.

 

An important summary from an OT scholar at the Adventist Seminary of the significance of the references in Genesis 1-2 to the creation of Adam and Eve - http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/05/creation-order-genesis.html#more

 

The author effectively refutes the root argument of male headship.

[LifeHiscost]

17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. 18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.… Colossians 3

Not sure how far this principle goes outside of the marraige institutions and how far EGW exercised the allusion of headship.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!     

[Rossw]

Tom, does that scholar disagree with EGW's usage of..."The husband and father is the head of the household."

Adam and Eve may have been created as equals but through one man's sin we all are now living in the consequences. 

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression...Is our current reality.

 

[CoAspen]

....round and round we go......where we stop nobody knows...

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw, said below:

Your questions are valid and worthy of discussion.  I do not want to make light of them.  But, carried to their logical conclusion, one would decide that there was no way that one could escape the bias that resides in all of us and therefor one could never be certain as to what was true.  To start to respond to you:

Consider an English dictionary with me for a minute:   When you  reference a word in an English dictionary, do you begin with the assumption that those who  write the definition of the word you are looking at were biased and therefor suspect?  If  you tell me that you do begin your review of a word in a dictionary with the assumption that it reflects a bias, I will have little to say to you in response.

The same is true for Biblical lexicons which in one sense are dictionaries.   But, the academic lexicons go beyond what you see in an English Dictionary.   The Biblical Lexicons will give the secular (when used) source and date.  If you wish, you can check it our to see the extent to which a bias exists.

Again, Rossw, you ask some valid questions, for which there is not a perfect answer.  But, I suggest you think about the above that I have said and give it some thought.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow you here. Unfortunately if we are not sure of a word usage as a lay person how are we to trust that the source we use in helping to identify a particular word is not biased? Some have argued the established definitions of some passages are mistranslated but how are we to know the alternative source is not also biased to our beliefs. Such as the case of supposedly mistranslating prostatis. The alternative source may be biased which leads to eisegese through the biased source you agree with.

[Rossw]

25 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw, said below:

Your questions are valid and worthy of discussion.  I do not want to make light of them.  But, carried to their logical conclusion, one would decide that there was no way that one could escape the bias that resides in all of us and therefor one could never be certain as to what was true.  To start to respond to you:

Consider an English dictionary with me for a minute:   When you  reference a word in an English dictionary, do you begin with the assumption that those who  write the definition of the word you are looking at were biased and therefor suspect?  If  you tell me that you do begin your review of a word in a dictionary with the assumption that it reflects a bias, I will have little to say to you in response.

The same is true for Biblical lexicons which in one sense are dictionaries.   But, the academic lexicons go beyond what you see in an English Dictionary.   The Biblical Lexicons will give the secular (when used) source and date.  If you wish, you can check it our to see the extent to which a bias exists.

Again, Rossw, you ask some valid questions, for which there is not a perfect answer.  But, I suggest you think about the above that I have said and give it some thought.

 

 

 

 

 

We could discuss the intricacies of lexicon but ultimately my point is the Bible is complete enough even in English form to grasp the concepts held within.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

a question for you, Rossw  (and I'm not trying to be snarky... ) ... in saying that the Bible is complete enough in itself to understand what it means, why do you refer to Ellen White's writings?  I guess I'm wondering if you're one of the folks who consider the EGW writings to be on par with scripture — there are some here that do, though I'm not one of them.

[Kevin H]

You have to remember that Green Cochoa has made his stance clear. He rejects things such as history and culture and archaeological studies and linguistic studies. He will only accept as evidence 1. a proof text, and 2 the proof text has to agree  with his reading of the proof text. All other evidence, no matter how valid or credible  is acceptable to him.

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, Rossw said:

We could discuss the intricacies of lexicon but ultimately my point is the Bible is complete enough even in English form to grasp the concepts held within.

I don't have the exact source and reference but Mrs. White said that while we need to know the history and geography to understand the Biblical text, the basic message of salvation is there for even the most simple to see. Why would she say this?

[Gregory Matthews]

As I was reading the responses, and prior to reading the one by Kevin above, I was thinking:  ")  A knowledge of Biblical geography may be helpful at times to understand the Biblical record.  Yet, if Green is as I understand him, he would consider Books on Biblical Geography to be extra-Biblical and therefore not worthy of any kind of major consideration. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw said, below:

Certainly I would have to agree that there is a fundamental truth to what Rossw has said;  There is a level of basic knowledge of salvation that must be available in clarity that exists within the English form.  But, there are issues that must be considered.  I will list some, but  I do not intend to indicate a numerical order of importance and I certainly should not be considered to be complete.

1)  Ultimately those who advocate one translation of another, such as KJV over the NIV, generally base their arguments, at least in part, on what they would call extra-Biblical knowledge about the MSS and the Biblical languages.  Perhaps some, such as Green, would deny that they do in fact do this:?  But, probably most do it.

2)  The Bible is not equally clear in regard to everything that it says.  It does not need to be equally clear on everything.  As I understand salvation there are some things that I understand the Bible to say that have more relationship to salvation that other issues have.  E.G. To illustrate, and at the risk of generating discussion from those  who will disagree with me; I Find Job 1: 6 & 7 to  be an interesting passage.  As I understand it, that passage gives some insight that   is taught no where else in the Bible.     I find it to be of value. But, I do not find it to be essential to my salvation.  IOW,  it just may be that others  will have as much of a basis for their understanding as I have for mine.  While that passage may be of value, in may not be important that we agree on it.

3)  The Biblical book of Numbers contains many places where the specific groups of the people of Israel were numbered in the thousands.  However, that is only a translation which some might say is subject to bias on the part of the translator.  The Biblical word that has been translated ehrs as thousand has other meaning than what is said in sthe English word "thousand."  A correct translaton of those passages may involve something other than a specific number.  An extra-Biblical knowledge of that Hebrew word may be of value to us in understanding th'ese passages in the book of Nubers.

4) Exodus 1:11 contains an interesting verse in that it tells us that the Children of Israel built Ramses.  Biblical critics allege that this is a very real factual error that could not have happened.  Extra Biblical knowledge from archaeology provides an answer to this question.  However, does my salvation depend on whether or not I believe that they  built this city?    I do not think so.

5) The phrase "three days and three night" is a subject for discussion.  In those discussions it is helpful, I will suggest to understand what   it would have meant  in the culture  of the t ime of Christ, which might differ from what it  would mean in our culture today. 

6)  As EGW is often cited in this discussion,  I will point out that she tells us that  God has left some things unclear in the Bible in order to force us to study the Bible in depth. 

NOTE:  Well, I am certain I have provided enough examples for people to  have grounds to argue with me.    So, this will benough.

 

. . . ultimately my point is the Bible is complete enough even in English form to grasp the concepts held within.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin H said below:

I would make one correction to what Kevin H has said:  Green will accept what Ellen White has said, but only if it agrees with his understanding of what she said.  This along with what Kevin said in # 2, below essentially makes Green the ultimate authority over what the Bible teaches.

You have to remember that Green Cochoa has made his stance clear. He rejects things such as history and culture and archaeological studies and linguistic studies. He will only accept as evidence 1. a proof text, and 2 the proof text has to agree  with his reading of the proof text. All other evidence, no matter how valid or credible  is acceptable to him.

[whbae]

No women should be a head over men!

It is very interesting. Those men who oppose women being a pastor or elder but let them allow women to be a principal of a school where many male teachers working under her.  A woman can be are head of a department in a college such as English or Nursing where many males work, but she cannot be an elder or a pastor or a conference president.  This is a dubious idea,  not consistent  standard.