History of Women Elders and Pastors

[Stan]

Re knowledge of Greek or Hebrew on English or the Bible.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

It would not be right, when someone like me posted a comment about Black Beans, and be told that 'Who do you think you am trying to give the impression that you am a MD".

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

re-read as needed

:)

[John317]

[quote

I very much enjoyed meeting you and Stan and the others in Riverside about a year ago. We had a very good time. I would like to do it again sometime. I'm the same person you met and "liked" at that time. I haven't changed a bit. The problem is that it's impossible to transfer everything about a person's thinking and personality across the electrical cables and onto someone's flat screen.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Quote:

Agreed..it is hard over the internet for people to know what is being said, because facial expression is not visible and voice inflection is not either.

I'd love to meet in Riverside also again sometime. I agree, it was fun!

OK, great. Where's Stan and Cyberguy and Dr. Ben, now?!!

Quote:

Does Loma Linda still offer a degree in Theology?

I don't know for certain, but LLU did offer an advanced theological degree. Most everything theological is now under La Sierra U.

I graduated when LLU consisted of both campuses. One of my favorite profs there was Dr. Lynn Mallory.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Re knowledge of Greek or Hebrew on English or the Bible.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

It would not be right, when someone like me posted a comment about Black Beans, and be told that 'Who do you think you am trying to give the impression that you am a MD".

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

Remember this is a Discussion Forum.

re-read as needed

Thank you Stan. This was SO needed. Can we now dispense with the Greek "opinions". I am tired of reading Greek.

[Woody]

Quote:

I guess we could go back to the idea that ONLY the scholars can read or interpret scripture. We could ban Bibles for the unlearned.

Yes, my thoughts exactly! We should return to the days before Christ came. Even the days of early popes. What we have seen here, on the forums, is exactly the reason everyday people were not allowed to study or see the Bible. Look at all the trouble it has caused!

We would be a much more theologically correct, have no need to fall into discussions like this and others while maintaining a high degree of servanthood. Getting to heaven would be so much easier, the straight and narrow path would be readily apparent.

Frankly, I think the personal use of your own mind is highly overrated. If we rely on the "HS" for our guidance, how do we really know that it is the "HS"? Can we rely on our own understanding, of course not! We must rely on the Bible! If it is not clear, then go look for sources approved by 'someone' in authority.....wait a minute...ah...we were relying on the Bible only...lets go back to useing the HS....no..no...don't know if it really is the "HS" because I have to use my own mind...so......Argh! :s

Exactly CoA

[John317]

There is a remarkable consistency among the various translations of 1 Tim. 5:2, John.

It seems to me that the siezure of this verse as a proof-text of women elders & bishops assumes much too much. It is on par with Jacques Douhkan's claim that God's clothing Adam & Eve with animal skins to cover their nakedness made Eve a priest !! huh?

It's been a good year (so far).

oG

That surprises me about Jacques Douhkan. I have met him before and talked personally with him, and I have read some of his writings. He appears to be a very sound scholar and thinker. But I certainly wouldn't agree with him that God's covering Eve with animal skins made her a priest, at least before hearing what his reasoning or evidence is for that concept.

Would you mind telling me what the source is for that statement?

Regards.

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

I graduated when LLU consisted of both campuses. One of my favorite profs there was Dr. Lynn Mallory.

Did you listen carefully when he taught about women? I did.

[John317]

Quote:

I graduated when LLU consisted of both campuses. One of my favorite profs there was Dr. Lynn Mallory.

Did you listen carefully when he taught about women? I did.

While I knew he was definitely supportive of women's ministries and women in ministry, he didn't talk about the Biblical aspect of it. And I didn't take any classes from him in which he would have discussed the Bible evidence for it, because he didn't teach Pauline Epistles or any other classes in which we analyzed or discussed the meaning of Bible passages. Dr. Mallory taught Evangelism, Pastoral Ministry, and Homiletics, and in those, he was the best I ever saw.

But I know that he would have said that anyone was wrong for believing that 50+ translations of 1 Tim. 5: 2 were all in error.

Like I said, you don't need to know anything about Greek to understand the Bible-- all you need is the Holy Spirit and to know how to read about 4 or 5 good English translations.

What courses by Lynn Mallory did you take, anyway? What was your major?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

You know John317 ... I could talk about my degree from Loma Linda ... but I am just not into that kind of stuff. So, I will pass. Sorry ... the Greek and 50 books and texts do just not impress me. Like I said ... I take the word of God as a whole and do not accept some isolated misunderstood context to base my faith on.

[John317]

Quote:

In fact, discussing the Greek with people who either don't know it or haven't studied it, can be counterproductive and downright confusing rather than illuminating.

Perhaps this would be good advice to follow. Like I say ... there are plenty of scholars who disagree and WHO cares. I will not base my faith on a few isolated misunderstood texts that are taken out of context. I base my faith on Jesus and the Bible as a whole.

All translations of 1 Tim. 5: 2 agree, as do all Greek Lexicons in their translation of the word at that verse. There is no disagreement on that verse as it appears in any of the translations that you read.

Of course your and my faith is based on Jesus, but the written word of God is essential for understanding who Jesus is and how to obey Him.

Regards.

John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

written word of God is essential for understanding who Jesus is and how to obey Him.

It really doesn't matter HOW clear the Bible is ... there will always be those who interpret it differently on what it means and how to apply it. This is very evident to me especially here on CA.

[olger]

John, that statement was made in the book Women in Ministry, in Doukhan's Chapter "Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence."

I was astonished by his suggestion in Women in Ministry that women actually served as priests in the Old Testament. The reason given to support the suggestion is even more amazing. The suggestion is that in the Garden of Eden God ordained Eve as a priest alongside Adam. Doukhan argues:

"Adam and Eve were, indeed, dressed as priests, with one difference, however: instead of the fine linen that characterizes the priestly garment (Exodus 28:39), God chose animal skin. This specification not only implies the killing of an animal, the first sacrifice in history, but by the same token, confirms the identification of Adam and Eve as priests, for the skin of the atonement sacrifice was specifically set apart for the officiating priests (Leviticus 7:8). By bestowing on Adam and Eve the skin of the sin offering, a gift strictly reserved to priests, the Genesis story implicitly recognizes Eve as priest alongside Adam."

best wishes,

oG

[John317]

You know John317 ... I could talk about my degree from Loma Linda ... but I am just not into that kind of stuff. So, I will pass. Sorry ... the Greek and 50 books and texts do just not impress me. Like I said ... I take the word of God as a whole and do not accept some isolated misunderstood context to base my faith on.

Perhaps you didn't see that I was responding to Taylor's question about whether the school I went to offered a degree in Theology, and before that she was saying she didn't know I studied the Greek language. I'm not ashamed of having studied it or of having graduated at LLU.

Why do you seem to read the worst in everything I do? A person cannot tell where they went to school and what kind of degree they earned without your making it sound as if they are bragging? Yet you claim to hate it when people feel they can read your mind. Why then do yo do the same thing?

It's time you stop making these kinds of personal attacks. You have been told this over and over again by several moderators yet you continue to do it. If you keep practicing this, you are going to force me to take it up with the moderators. I don't want to do that, but it looks like this is what I have to do to get you to stop.

Quote:

Sorry ... the Greek and 50 books and texts do just not impress me. Like I said ... I take the word of God as a whole and do not accept some isolated misunderstood context to base my faith on.

How about simply reading your English Bibles? What do all of them say at 1 Tim 5: 2?

[John317]

Quote:

written word of God is essential for understanding who Jesus is and how to obey Him.

It really doesn't matter HOW clear the Bible is ... there will always be those who interpret it differently on what it means and how to apply it. This is very evident to me especially here on CA.

But when the English says, "Appeal to the older women as mothers and to the younger women as sisters," there is no way anyone can interpret that to mean female officers of the church, unless they believe they know better than all the English translations. It doesn't require any interpretation any more than does the statement, "Talk to older women." No one is going to think it means, "Talk to church officers." That would require a substitution of two totally different words for the two words used in the original statement.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

You know John317 ... I could talk about my degree from Loma Linda ... but I am just not into that kind of stuff. So, I will pass. Sorry ... the Greek and 50 books and texts do just not impress me. Like I said ... I take the word of God as a whole and do not accept some isolated misunderstood context to base my faith on.

What classes did you take from Dr. Mallory and what was your major at that time?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

Why do you seem to read the worst in everything I do?

I didn't read anything into what you said ... I simply expressed my feelings. I hope you are not going to silence my personal feelings since it did not infer anything about you. That was your reading something into it that was not there.

Quote:

A person cannot tell where they went to school and what kind of degree they earned without your making it sound as if they are bragging?

Yes, by all means talk about your school and degrees. That is not bragging. I did not say it was. I said that I am just not into that stuff. I am glad you clarified before jumping to wrong conclusions John317.

Quote:

Yet you claim to hate it when people feel they can read your mind. Why then do yo do the same thing?

I haven't done as you accuse.I simply voiced my opinion that you object to. It is YOU jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

It's time you stop making these kinds of personal attacks.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I have not made ANY personal attacks. If you feel that ... I think you have read something into it that is not there. Perhaps you could paste for me what you feel is a personal attack so I can clarify for you. I have no need to attack you personally. I am opposed to that on CA. I have experienced it so I am very much opposed to such behavior ... as I am to false accusations. I would suggest that you ask for clarification before you assume things.

If there are personal attacks ... I would hope that they would be deleted. Is that not the job of the moderator.

Quote:

You have been told this over and over again by several moderators yet you continue to do it.

This statement is simply untrue. I TOTALLY deny this character attack on me. Even IF it was true ... I would find this a breach of confidentiality to use this information as a public weapon. Therefore I just consider it a personal attack on me. And I find it totally inappropriate. I consider it to be nothing but pure unadultrated gossip.

Quote:

If you keep practicing this, you are going to force me to take it up with the moderators.

Feel free to follow Matt.18 any time you need to. I encourage this. But I would first suggest you follow the first step which is to come to me in private and show me what statements you "consider" to be personal attacks so that I can clarify. Would that not be fair John ... before going to some third party?

Misunderstandings happen very easily through the internet. So, I can understand that you might misunderstand those who disagree with you. Therefore ... I will personally like to offer you an apology if you are offended by any words that I have made. For no offense was intended. I would still like for you to specify what words were offensive ... as I do not see them as you do. If you would come to me in private I am sure we could have all this clarified.

I only wish you the best John317. And I do respect your abilities and degrees. That is all good. You have much skill.

I just hope we can agree to disagree. That seems to be SO lacking here on CA.

What I would encourage you to do is to sleep on this ... then come back and present to me your concerns in private so that things can be clarified. I think that this is always a good idea before threats are made. Also ... I think you would find that I am actually a reasonable and likeable guy. I promise not to bite.

[John317]

John, that statement was made in the book Women in Ministry, in Doukhan's Chapter "Women Priests in Israel: A Case for Their Absence."

I was astonished by his suggestion in Women in Ministry that women actually served as priests in the Old Testament. The reason given to support the suggestion is even more amazing. The suggestion is that in the Garden of Eden God ordained Eve as a priest alongside Adam. Doukhan argues:

"Adam and Eve were, indeed, dressed as priests, with one difference, however: instead of the fine linen that characterizes the priestly garment (Exodus 28:39), God chose animal skin. This specification not only implies the killing of an animal, the first sacrifice in history, but by the same token, confirms the identification of Adam and Eve as priests, for the skin of the atonement sacrifice was specifically set apart for the officiating priests (Leviticus 7:8). By bestowing on Adam and Eve the skin of the sin offering, a gift strictly reserved to priests, the Genesis story implicitly recognizes Eve as priest alongside Adam."

best wishes,

oG

I can't see that, because the text implies that there was a direct connection between the mere fact of their nakedness and God's clothing them with skins of animals. Both needed the skins because both were naked. It wouldn't have made any sense only to cloth Adam with skins and not clothe Eve with them, since the necessity was the same for both.

But thanks for the source and the exact quote. I would like to ask him what he knows about the text, if anything, that sheds light on that.

Regards,

John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

A person cannot tell where they went to school and what kind of degree they earned without your making it sound as if they are bragging?

The context of that remark makes it clear you were attempting to gain leverage in the debate with that claim. It was not about bragging, it was about manipulation.

Quote:

It's time you stop making these kinds of personal attacks. You have been told this over and over again by several moderators yet you continue to do it. If you keep practicing this, you are going to force me to take it up with the moderators.

A personal attack? So I looked to see what this is in response to, and I found this:

Quote:

You know John317 ... I could talk about my degree from Loma Linda ... but I am just not into that kind of stuff. So, I will pass.

Some attack.

Quote:

I was responding to Taylor's question about whether the school I went to offered a degree in Theology, and before that she was saying she didn't know I studied the Greek language.

Which wouldn't have been necessary except for all the claims about Greek, and offhand remarks about 'discussing with those who are ignorant.'

[there buster]

Quote:

"Adam and Eve were, indeed, dressed as priests, with one difference, however: instead of the fine linen that characterizes the priestly garment (Exodus 28:39), God chose animal skin. This specification not only implies the killing of an animal, the first sacrifice in history, but by the same token, confirms the identification of Adam and Eve as priests, for the skin of the atonement sacrifice was specifically set apart for the officiating priests (Leviticus 7:8). By bestowing on Adam and Eve the skin of the sin offering, a gift strictly reserved to priests, the Genesis story implicitly recognizes Eve as priest alongside Adam."

This is precisely the sort of reasoning my Seminary professors presented.

[there buster]

Quote:

Both needed the skins because both were naked. It wouldn't have made any sense only to cloth Adam with skins and not clothe Eve with them, since the necessity was the same for both.

But the point is, if Adam were the priest, and Eve not, then God would have given Adam the skins, and Adam would have clothed his wife. This would have made him the mediator of this covering, which is clearly the replacement for the covering of light.

It is possible to simply shrug off this text, and say it has nothing to do with the priesthood, although the Leviticus text argues against that. But then if small things like this have little significance, other, more central issues, may be shrugged off as well.

Biblical authors tend to be very economical with their words, and it is unwise to ignore details they choose to include.

[olger]

Yo Ich.

Numerous contextual flaws arise in Doukhan's suggestion regarding the clothing of A&E.

1) Were our Father establishing unisex priesthood, Sarah sure missed out on it, as did Rebekhah et al.

2) The animal sacrifice represented in the clothing that God gave A&E had more to do with His rejection of the figleaves (man's attempt to cover his brokenness) than it does with the establishment of a universal, unisex priesthood. Even Dederen had a hard time swallowing this one.

3) The skin covering of Adam & Eve is simply a practical gift of clothing to the newly naked pair. The camel's hair & leather (animal skin) of John the Baptizer did not make him a priest, nor did the leather belt of Elijah. The common (Ezekiel 16:10) leather shoes of an Israelite did not qualify King Saul to be a priest as evidenced by divine rebuke.

4) It is the new raiment that our High Priest bids us to buy in Revelation 3:18 that qualifies us for the kingdom of heaven.

Best wishes,

oG

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: Taylor

[quote

I very much enjoyed meeting you and Stan and the others in Riverside about a year ago. We had a very good time. I would like to do it again sometime. I'm the same person you met and "liked" at that time. I haven't changed a bit. The problem is that it's impossible to transfer everything about a person's thinking and personality across the electrical cables and onto someone's flat screen.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Quote:

Agreed..it is hard over the internet for people to know what is being said, because facial expression is not visible and voice inflection is not either.

I'd love to meet in Riverside also again sometime. I agree, it was fun!

OK, great. Where's Stan and Cyberguy and Dr. Ben, now?!!

Quote:

Does Loma Linda still offer a degree in Theology?

I don't know for certain, but LLU did offer an advanced theological degree. Most everything theological is now under La Sierra U.

I graduated when LLU consisted of both campuses. One of my favorite profs there was Dr. Lynn Mallory.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Intersting. I have no idea where Dr. Ben went but he moved. I really liked him and his sweet wife. It was great to see a couple so madly in love after so many years! Stan is home but next time he comes down maybe we can get the CA people in our area together. That would be fun!

I was intrigued that you went to Loma Linda because currently they don't have a theology degree though La Sierra does. But they have great Bible classes at Loma Linda I am told.

[David Koot]

It would not be right, when someone like me posted a comment about Black Beans, and be told that 'Who do you think you am trying to give the impression that you am a MD".

However, talking about black beans certainly wouldn't seem to involve or require an MD's training--unless the issue has to do with diseases, for example, caused by black beans, perhaps.

In this case, I understand the thread to be about women as elders and pastors. That certainly wouldn't seem to require a knowledge of Greek. However, in the course of this thread, statements were made about the meaning of a NT Greek word, under color of some authority. The statements were misleading--not intentionally so, but simply through ignorance of the subject and of the proper use of study tools. The misleading statements could foreseeably, and did in fact, result in erroneous understandings about the word itself. Surely, this concern needed to be addressed. As a discussion forum, this is an issue highly relevant to the discussion. And generally, if individuals propound opinions or questions on technical issues which may be resolved through reference to competent sources, one would surely think that an open discussion would welcome such input.

Dave

[there buster]

Quote:

Numerous contextual flaws arise in Doukhan's suggestion regarding the clothing of A&E.

1) Were our Father establishing unisex priesthood, Sarah sure missed out on it, as did Rebekhah et al.

2) The animal sacrifice represented in the clothing that God gave A&E had more to do with His rejection of the figleaves (man's attempt to cover his brokenness) than it does with the establishment of a universal, unisex priesthood. Even Dederen had a hard time swallowing this one.

3) The skin covering of Adam & Eve is simply a practical gift of clothing to the newly naked pair. The camel's hair & leather (animal skin) of John the Baptizer did not make him a priest, nor did the leather belt of Elijah. The common (Ezekiel 16:10) leather shoes of an Israelite did not qualify King Saul to be a priest as evidenced by divine rebuke.

4) It is the new raiment that our High Priest bids us to buy in Revelation 3:18 that qualifies us for the kingdom of heaven.

Best wishes,

oG

As one of my NT professors would have said, 'You jumped all over the place with that.'

We'll take this one unrelated assertion at a time.

Quote:

1) Were our Father establishing unisex priesthood, Sarah sure missed out on it, as did Rebekhah et al.

This would be a non-starter in any serious OT class. Let's just say we know a few things changed and got lost during the intervening thousands of years.

confusion of languages

corruption of marriage--polygamy

change from protection of murderers to capital punishment

the flood

Noah's sin

The denigration of women started well before the flood. The knowledge of the true God nearly vanished. In a society which took polygamy, slavery, and human sacrifice for granted, a counter-cultural detail like this gets lost very easily.

Quote:

2) The animal sacrifice represented in the clothing that God gave A&E had more to do with His rejection of the figleaves (man's attempt to cover his brokenness) than it does with the establishment of a universal, unisex priesthood. Even Dederen had a hard time swallowing this one.

So you say. That is a naked assertion (no pun intended). Even it were correct, 'more to do with' hardly eliminates other implications. Such multiple meanings are common in OT usage.

Warren Austin Gage and Graeme Goldsworthy are two excellent sources of such multiple meanings.

By the way, is "even Dederen" a slap at Dederen, or just Doukhan?

Quote:

3) The skin covering of Adam & Eve is simply a practical gift of clothing to the newly naked pair. The camel's hair & leather (animal skin) of John the Baptizer did not make him a priest, nor did the leather belt of Elijah. The common (Ezekiel 16:10) leather shoes of an Israelite did not qualify King Saul to be a priest as evidenced by divine rebuke.

Talk about numerous holes.

Dismiss the skin covering as 'simply a practical gift?' That's why they teach an entry level course in OT. As Walter Kaiser points out, it is the choice of details and their arrangement that the careful student pays attention to.

The whole point of including the details of John the Baptist's attire is to indicate that he is indeed a prophet. Of course the clothing did not 'qualify' him to be a prophet, but it's inclusion is precisely the sort of thing actual Bible students pay attention to.

Ellen White found it worth mention: "Dedicated to God as a Nazarite from his birth, he made the vow his own in a life-long consecration. His dress was that of the ancient prophets, a garment of camel's hair, confined by a leather girdle. DA 102."

I'm sure she would be surprised to discover, on your authority, that it had no significance.

So, here in Genesis, we have a particular piece of attire presented directly by God, and it gets dismissed as 'simply a practical gift.'

Quote:

4) It is the new raiment that our High Priest bids us to buy in Revelation 3:18 that qualifies us for the kingdom of heaven.

It's totally irrelevant to this passage.

No one made any claims that animal skins "qualify us for the kingdom of heaven."

Might as well add that "the Holy Spirit communicates our prayers to heaven." It's true. It's pious. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage in question.

God clothed both Adam and Eve directly, He did not give the clothing to Adam for his wife.

It may not be conclusive, but no serious Bible student would just ignore it. Or denigrate it.

blessings

[David Koot]

Reminds me of the story my mother used to tell me...about the kettle calling the pot black!

A conclusionary statement, and one in your usual mode. Let's see some supporting evidence. So far on this thread, two individuals who received professional training in NT Greek, and who have done and are doing exegesis, have cited on this thread recognized authorities which are on point to the specific occurrence of the Greek word at issue. If you contend that John317 and/or myself are mistaken in our cites, then please present yours--as part of the discussion.

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

I guess we could go back to the idea that ONLY the scholars can read or interpret scripture. We could ban Bibles for the unlearned.

Yes, my thoughts exactly! We should return to the days before Christ came. Even the days of early popes. What we have seen here, on the forums, is exactly the reason everyday people were not allowed to study or see the Bible.

And I agree with you. One needs only read English in order to understand the verse we're discussing here, 1 Tim. 5: 2. With all of today's excellent translations, a person doesn't need to know the original Greek in order to understand God's Word.

As has been mentioned before, all the translations of that verse read the same way: "the older women," etc. It was Tom who brought up the Greek and argued that the underlying Greek text says something different from what we have in every translation in the English language. In almost all instances, the correct translation is the one given in 3 or 4 of the most dependable English translations. I would encourage the ordinary meaning that everyday people get out of this verse: Paul tells Timothy to "appeal to the older women as mothers..." It is really a very simple statement.

Regards.

"John 3: 17"