Leaderboard

Ellen G. White makes an important issue out of the fact that Eve was made of a bone taken from Adam's side, rather than from his head or foot: “Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him.” Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 47 This is God's original ideal. It is sin that has introduced domination/submission into the relationship. We should seek to reform as far as possible all the consequences of sin. In the same statement where God predicted that the woman would submit to the man, God also said that the pain and sorrow of childbirth would be multiplied for the woman. But we today do not count it as defying God's will to administer anesthetic when needed to ease the pain of childbirth. It is good to seek to ameliorate all the effects of sin, as far as possible.

I don't know what this text means, but it seems to me that your question complicates the matter by using the word "headship." No form of the word head or headship is found here. Our brothers and sisters who advocate an eternal principle of male headship have created the idea that men are to have the last word on all important family and church decisions and that women are to submit. Relations between men and women are about authority and submission. If fact, in their system the pastor has authority over the local church, whose members submit to him. Jesus said "it shall not be so among you" and taught and demonstrated a different kind of leadership -- servanthood. It seems clear that this text is promising a future where the role of women is upgraded, but if we drop headship out of the equation the role of women may be upgraded to something more like mutual respect and mutual servanthood, not authority or dominance. Still, your point that a prophet of God would not use "sinful" female equality as a symbol of His future blessings, is worth thinking about.

Here's the way the chapter ends: 13 Here is the final conclusion, now that you have heard everything: fear God, and keep his mitzvot; this is what being human is all about. 14 For God will bring to judgment everything we do, including every secret, whether good or bad. [Here is the final conclusion, now that you have heard everything: fear God, and keep his mitzvot; this is what being human is all about.]

Someone I know the other day made a comment on how much they dislike Jesus. When I asked them why, they started listing of a great list of Christian behaviour, most of which I could not disagree with. So I asked them to tell me some things about Jesus. Again they listed of a bunch of stuff relating to Christians, again most of which was undeniable. But yet never did they actually say anything about Jesus himself, just about the religions that have adopted his name as their title. It got me thinking, is Jesus a captive of Christianity? Is his message, his ideals, his whole persona held back and hidden by Christianity?

1.) Because Numbers 15:38 tells all the children of Israel to wear tassels with blue threads. Archaeology has discovered that in the ancient world this was a symbol of being an ordained priest. 2.) There are Psalms written in the feminine indicating that they were to have been lead by a female priest. 3.) About 200 years before Jesus there was a push in Judaism to STOP having female priests and Rabbis. And that only Men should wear the tassel with the blue thread, thus the traditions of may were changing the law of God. 4.) The topic of women's ordination was a debated topic in Jesus' day. Despite 200 years of trying to get rid of them there were still some women Rabbis with in Judaism. 5.) The culture of Jesus' day was that when a Rabbi sat to teach, his (and some cases her) ORDAINED disciples sat at his (and in some cases her) feet. About 12 who were the same sex as the Rabbi due to the 24 hour access and privileged to late night talks as they were going to sleep, then about 70. Among the conservative Rabbis in Jesus day the 70 tended to have both men and women. Among the liberal Rabbis of Jesus' day the 70 would be all men. The lay members would stand. Again if it was a conservative Rabbi it would be both men and women standing. If it was a liberal Rabbi the lay men would stand. The women had to do hospitality tasks. We find in the Bible that Martha was doing what the liberal Rabbis said a woman should do and Protested that Mary was in the position not of a layman but as an ordained Rabbinical Student. She SAT at Jesus' feet. A sign of being ordained. Jesus could have easily have said "Mary, while you don't need to do these hospitality tasks, women really should not be ordained. You are welcome to stand with the Laymen." Instead Jesus allowed her to be in the position of ordination and said that she choose good and it would not be taken away from her. Why should we say that Jesus is wrong and say that the Rabbis who opposed women's ordination was right? 6.) Besides Mary there is evidence that Jesus ordained other women among the 70. On the road to Emmaus Jesus met two disciples. One is named, indicating that it was a husband and wife. Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. The fact that they were both disciples indicated that they were both ordained. In John 19:25 we read about Mary the wife of Clopas being at the cross. This was probably the same name as Cleopas, so the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus were Cleopas and Mary, both ordained disciples. Not one disciple and his wife. 7.) In teams in both the culture at the time and in the Bible the leader's name would be mentioned first. If you were to read in your Bible about Aquilla and Priscilla; in all but one place when talking about them as man and wife it is Aquilla and Priscilla. However when talking about them as a ministerial team it is ALWAYS Priscilla and Aquilla. Thus the Bible says that Elder Priscilla was the head pastor with her husband Aquilla being her assistant. 8.) The letter to the Romans: Paul had not yet been to Rome. Yet he was aware of a number of women, not because he enjoyed their contribution to the pot luck after church, but because of their ministry. The terms applied to Phoebe are the words from which we get our concept of ordination. Until around 1300 AD Junia was unquestioned female. It was Catholic Priests who did not like the idea of a female apostle who around 1300 AD invented arguments to try to make her a male. 9.) The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems. They make sense in their context. It is not that Paul was against women being ordained or that Paul was a victim of his culture etc. Paul (as indicated in Acts and Romans) supported women's ordination. But had some problems that he was addressing in Corinth and Ephesus that history has saved for us to know what he was talking about. To rip those texts out of the context and apply it to women' ordination is being unfair to the Bible. Also, those who oppose women's ordination are doing a tap-dance over the words. They say that the words don't mean what they actually say. They say that women are allowed to do everything those verses command them not to do just as long as we don't ordain them. 10.) In the first decade of the 1900s the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to start ordaining women. A. G. Daniels was on a visit at the time. He agreed with them that they should start ordaining women. However he asked them to hold off for just a little bit. He pointed out to the leaders that there were uneducated people in the church who thought that women should not be ordained The church leadership did not want to hurt their faith but wanted to educate the church first. Since here there were women ready for ordination he was going to ask Mrs. White to write some articles about women in ministry that was to try to educate those uneducated members so that the church could ordain women. Mrs. White here had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. She was not afraid to tell us when we were doing something wrong. Here was her chance to correct Elder Daniels, the NY Conference and Atlantic Union and lay the issue to rest once and for all. Instead she wrote those articles that Elder Daniels promised NY and the Atlantic Union that she would write. The opponents of women's ordination need to act like lawyers looking for loopholes in these writings and explain them away as dealing with lay ministries and not ordained. However Mrs. White wrote them in a historical contexts of wanting to prepare the church to start to ordain women. 11.) Dr. Brian Strayer a church historian at Andrews has found other documents of our pioneers supporting women's ordination. The evidence looks like they felt like what Elder Daniels expressed to New York and the Atlantic Union that they felt that women's ordination was Biblical but that there were uneducated people who did not think it was and that they needed to work with these people to educate them. That they did not want to offend weaker breathern. Now people want to turn this kindness into enforcing the ignorance.

I would seriously doubt that the reason that you have a problem with a search is that "70-85%" have been deleted by administrators. A very, very small percentage of posts and topics get deleted. And not many more get hidden or moved. I suspect another issue cause your low success rate on searches.

It is not spiritually safe to use scattered indirect references in an effort to avoid clear and direct biblical teachings. "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." 1 Timothy 3:1-2. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God." Titus 1:5-7. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for OUR learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4. "There is a decided work to be done in our churches. Those chosen as elders of the churches are to be men of experience, who have a knowledge of the truth and are sound in the faith.... The qualifications of an elder are plainly stated by the apostle Paul: 'If any be blameless, the husband of one wife....'" 5MR 449.

The only reason it is focused on the gay agenda is that is the only agenda being using force to make others agree or participate in some way. I have no idea how others handle their investments as they are not demanding I agree or participate. The homosexual lifestyle is the one sin that is going to be crammed,rammed and forced down the throat of those that hold another view.

Always sad when it's your own whose lives are taken in a violent manner. Because Kenya has always been a friendly, safe country to visit, and to do mission trips we have a strong SDA presence. However, no matter what Christian denomination, all who gave their life for their belief are (IMHO) martyrs

If you note the name of the video on YouTube, "Liberals Are Distorting the Bible to Advance Their Political Agenda" is the name of the video.

Life: I seem to find that I have some of the same issues to include forgetting what important posts I had made in what threads. It is age, I guess.

Young man in the video makes excellent points that I agree with but God most certainly sees color. He created them all. Diversity is beautiful and should be celebrated. Being color blind is a disability and makes it hard for you to see reality. If you simply ignore a persons color you are ignoring a part of who they are.

Do not judge a book by its cover. Open the book and read it. Statistics tell us that African Americans attend church more freaquently than white people do. Of course, not all African Americans attend church and not all white folks stay home. So one has to set aside racial sterotypes and actually get to know the person - or metephorically - read the book. I have been pulled over by police officiers in the past and each time I recieve "just a warning" it does make me feel a bit grateful. I think it was really nice for this young man to make this video as he was feeling so grateful for the grace the officer extended to him. That is a really good feeling.

How about that!

"Adam" consistently refers to a man (and not just "a person") in this LITERAL translation: Genesis 2:18-24Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 18 And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' 19 And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name. 20 And the man calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; and to man hath not been found an helper -- as his counterpart. 21 And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead. 22 And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man; 23 and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken; 24 therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh. And this in the NT 1 Timothy 2:13-14Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 13 for Adam was first formed, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman...

Here's how the CJB translates this verse: 22 How long will you hesitate, you unruly daughter? For ADONAI has created something new on earth: a woman with the strengths of a man. Here's how the Tanach translates this verse: 21 How long will you hide, O backsliding daughter? For the Lord has created something new on the earth, a woman shall go after a man. & here's Rashis Commentary of this verse: will you hide: will you hide from Me, that you are ashamed to return to Me because of your way? Behold, something new has been created on earth, that a woman shall go after a man to seek him that he should marry her. This is an expression of “and I will go around (וַאֲסוֹבְבָה) in the city; I will seek, etc.” (Song 3:2). And in the name of Rabbi Judah the Preacher I heard: A woman shall turn around to become a man. I gave you like a daughter, who receives a tenth of the property of her father, seven nations out of seventy. Ultimately, you shall take everything like a son, a male, who inherits everything.

YAHWEH selected Moses do lead the Children of Israel, but I have not read that Miriam wanted take Moses position. Both Aaron and Miriam complained, Miriam started it and she felt the wrath of ELOHIM. When you are giving facts they must be correct. Miriam was already ordain as a prophet and she too was a leader with both Aaron and Moses. The other point is Adam which does mean both men and women and it is right in the Bible. Adam: ruddy, that is, a human being. Strong Hebrew Dictionary And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR IMAGE, according to OUR LIKENESS; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And ELOHIM created the man in THEIR OWN IMAGE; in THE IMAGE of ELOHIM THEY created them. THEY created them male and female. And ELOHIM blessed them; and ELOHIM said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth. Gen 1:26-28 After sin, the male man took on the human name of Adam and the female was given the name Eve. Gen 4:1 Before this Eve was woman which mean she came from his rib. I urge you to learn what words mean and realize that words were also changed in the Bible, EGW stated this very clearly from ELOHIM! EW p. 220 The Hebrew word ’ishshah, “woman,” is formed of the word ’ish, “man,” with the feminine ending. The English word “woman” (Anglo-Saxon, wife-man) is similarly related to the word “man.” The same is true in various other languages. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 p. 227 Happy Sabbath and be bless!

I love this, thanks I knew some but not all. It makes sense because all of these women were mention by name and did great things and they were recorded. Happy Sabbath and be bless!

JSM, you said: "Kevin wrote: 'The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems.' But that is not an accurate statement." It IS an accurate statement. Sound, responsible Bible scholarship requires that we take everything in context--including cultural context. All the Bible verses sometimes cited in an effort to oppose women's ordination, depend upon a superficial interpretation, that neglects such things as the common practice of most human languages of using the masculine to refer to both genders. Such as James 1:5-8; NKJV: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Notice that here it uses masculine pronouns--"him" and "he." It even says "that man." But no one would deny that this statement is equally true for women. And look at the way cultural context makes all the difference in rightly interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12-15. If you insist on a superficial, overly literal interpretation of what Paul says here, you have the Apostle of Justification by Faith stating blatant heresy when he says "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing...." Women are saved by the blood of Christ, the same as men. Obviously this is a poor translation. The correct sense of the Greek is that "women shall be kept safe in childbirth." This was a large concern back when one woman in five died in childbirth. This meaning is indicated in the margin for The English Version Good News translation: “But a woman will be saved through having children, {will be saved through having children; [or] will be kept safe through childbirth.} if she perseveres {if she perseveres; [or] if they persevere.} in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” As scholars have noted, this was the very promise that the false goddess, Artemis (or Diana to the Romans) made to women in the cult of Artemis, which is what Paul and Timothy were principally dealing with in Ephesus. Paul was saying put your trust in the Lord, not in Artemis. It is the Lord who has the power to keep you safe during childbirth. Likewise the previous verses can be translated with better accuracy, when we keep in mind that Paul was counselling Timothy on how to deal with the Artemis Cult in Ephesus, which taught a number of errors, such as that Eve was created first, and that because Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, that conferred upon all women a secret wisdom. Also it must be remembered that even in Judaism, women were not taught to read, and Gentile women in Ephesus were not educated, except in the myths of the Artemis cult. So of course Paul would not want any of those who were uneducated in the Scriptures to teach. 1 Tim. 2:11 says, in the KJV: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” But again, this is not a good translation, and does not convey properly the imperative sense of the sentence. The Living Bible does it a little better. It says: “Women should listen and learn quietly and humbly.” The actual sense of the original Greek is, “Let the woman learn (or be taught).” Then of course women can teach others, once they have been educated in God’s Word themselves. This was really a very radical thing in Paul’s time. He was in effect saying “Women should be taught.” Even today, the Taliban sect of Islam forbids the education of women. The true religion of God and His Word must lead us away from such wrong customs. Many people get hung up with 1 Tim. 2:12. This also is poorly translated in most modern versions where they say Paul did not allow a woman to “have authority” over a man. That is not what the original Greek means. Originally, Paul was referring to the cult of Artemis, in which women dominate over men through their supposed secret knowledge that comes from Eve eating of the Tree of Knowledge, and also by giving sexual favors to those who submit to the control of the women. Paul was countering this by saying he did not allow women "to domineer over men." This is in fact, the way the old Vulgate translation rendered this. It is only the modern translations that make it sound like Paul did not allow women ever to exercise any authority at all over men. Even the KJV made it a little clearer by saying “usurp authority” over a man. The Living Bible captures the sense a little better, when it says: “I never let women teach men or lord it over them.” The fact that this is contrary to the real thinking of Paul should be evident from the way that Romans 16:1, 2 clearly contradicts this, where Paul commends to the Roman Christians the woman Phoebe, who he calles a diakonen in the original Greek (the word from which we get the English word deacon) in verse 1, and calls a prostatis in verse 2--which means a woman set in authority over others, according to Thayer's Bible Dictrionary (the standard reference which most translators go by). If you want to be faithful to what the Bible truly teaches, then be an honest and responsible student, and take everything in context that should properly be considered in context. Do not just blindly, stubbornly hold on to a superficial, overly literal interpretation--or you will be like Martin Luther, who caused unnecessary division in the Protestant Reformation by his blind adherence to a superficial, literal intepretation of Jesus' words, "This is my blood." The other reformers such as Ulrich Zwingle of Switzerland were very frustrated in trying to deal with his intransigence on this issue.

It's interesting... the NET stresses the uniqueness or newness part of the verse, while Rotherham puts a very strong emphasis on "a female", which gives the impression that it really is a novel idea. Keep at it!

We are make our life here on earth a foretate of heaven. Since gender will not separate us in haven why should we place such retrictions on the usefulness of one gender here on earth?

Thank you, Tom Wetmore, for bumping this reference to a most important artice in our MINISTRY MAGAZINE, the official General Conference publication for pastors world wide.

When I was young and we planned to go visit my grandparents, obviously I was excited about seeing them, but one of the things that I looked forward to was being with other family members my age and going exploring with them. We would love to see what Grandpa had out in the shed and in the backyard. I remember finding an old piece of equipment (a tool actually) once that I did not know what it was or how it was used. I pondered what it might be used for and eventually I found out what it was. That piece of equipment told me a little bit of what life was like on the farm for my Grandpa. As a kid we moved a lot too. And that ALWAYS brought out the explorer in me. I did not stop with just the first week either, it was a never-ending quest. What I am getting at is that even though our greatest desire is to see Jesus, our actions may not always be just looking into His face. We may want to go exploring to see what He has out in the "backyard" that we have never seen. We WILL find something out there that we have never seen of course and we will learn even more about our AMAZING GOD and come back praising Him even MORE! What we are doing here right now on this forum is dreaming about our visit and the move. None of us have ever seen photos of this new home and so our imaginations are running wild in expectation. What we are dreaming of is all based on what we have learned from "letters from home" found in the Bible, but we will never be able to imagine the beauties of our new home. (Even trying to write to someone about where we live right now cannot tell the real story, right?) Dream BIG my friends! We are moving to a NEW home!

Point of life: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8)

I believe it to be very mean-spirited to try to force a business to cater to you if your request violates their religious beliefs. You may have the law, the media, and the ACLU on your side, but to refuse to respect someone's beliefs and characterize them as hateful bigots for some minor issue is vengeful and cruel. Of course, as the above video seems to indicate, Muslim bakeries can refuse to make wedding cakes with specific gay messages or pictures, but Muslim business are not being demonized like Christian business who do the very same thing. The wake-up call is coming when Islam takes over America and gays will be thrown from tall buildings or dragged in the streets tied behind cars. The gays might very well start praying that the Christian principle of respect for life return to the nation. We all know that Christians and Jews will be persecuted, jailed, and killed for their beliefs in the Last Days. The targeted intolerance these days towards Christians and Jews is just a practice run.

Joe: Speed of light: That speed will be too slow. We will need to travel many times faster and we will. :)