11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
In the context of a wife learning, she should not teach or "authenteō" the husband
Which means from the strong's: 1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself 2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic 3) an absolute master 4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
We know that Paul is speaking of the wife/husband because from another verse "she should ask her husband at home" indicates that it was the husband teaching the wife what she didn't know. It also commands her to be in "full submission" and she can not be that to any other man but her husband.
We also know that Paul believed that one is decieved through a lack of knowledge and that is why he is having those women that need to learn to be updated through their husbands so that they "be not decieved" like Eve, "for Adam was formed first" indicating that Eve was created after the command to not eat was given, and her little addition to the command shows that she lacked proper knowledge of the truth.
"and she will be redeemed/restored through the childbirth/childbearing" indicates to me that Paul is trying to do that very thing by teaching women once again where before they were prohibited.
Based on your first response given above to what I first said in my last post to you, and to my intended meaning (the point of this thread which has been PROOF) which I've spelled out all along (PROOF) - at this point I will say this, you are playing a semantic GAME...
This is not a semantic game. Did you miss that Paul's saying, "It's not Adam who was deceived, but the woman ...." Exactly what woman was around at the time when Adam wasn't deceived?
No, it's you playing the semantic game. Paul intended a meaning to get across to Timothy. Once accepted that something must be going across, anyone realizes the words point into the context, what meaning is going across.
You're gaming the verses to demand that the intended meaning wasn't what Paul said. But it deprives the verse of meaning for Timothy. Paul has no reason to communicate such to Timothy. So it's excluded. And when the impossible is excluded, what remains is the truth.
Originally Posted by Timothy2
You can fit Eve into the verse by interpretation but NOT proof. And according to the rules of the Greek a noun can be definate depending on the context. Therefore, I EXPECTED (requested) your replies to my posts to be in line with PROOF AND the rules of the Greek grammar.
Who said an interpretation can't be proved?
The proof is on the clear assumption that Paul intended to communicate with his words here. His words are intended to communicate, not to deconstruct themselves into meaninglessness and inapplicability.
Originally Posted by Timothy2
Will respond with more later (am not going to PLAY your game)...
I never made a switch from "give me proof" to "give me your interpretation"!
As if the semantics of a sentence aren't proof enough .... You can't relabel the proof and expect it not to remain proof.
You can't chop Paul's letter up so that the words don't create a context for each other. They do. Conjunctions connect clauses into sentences. You're asserting that the only specific woman in the sentence, "Eve", is not the specific woman, "the woman", also "not Adam", in the sentence. You claim :13 and :14 aren't connected this way. They are. You said so.
Who could it possibly be, that Paul could communicate to Timothy -- other than the specific woman in the same sentence with "the woman"?
It really doesn't matter how much you protest that "It's not proof!" It is proof, based on the linguistic semantics you've used throughout this process of argument. Your own assumptions betray you here. Without these rules -- you wouldn't have been able to post.
Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. 1 Tim 1:6-7
Paul isn't playing your game here. Learn the rules of semantics and how grammar communicates meaning, then we'll talk.
You've lost this argument. Your denial lacks credulity, now.
Your bar of "proof" is such that you might as well chuck all of the language of the Bible, because once it is gerrymandered as this verse now has been gerrymandered, it shouldn't be saying anything to you. Your "proof" bar at this point defies the rules of linguistics and semantics.
Semantics is not a game. According to Scripture it's a matter of life & death.
__________________ "... not an unconcerned sitting of God in heaven, from which He merely observes the things that are done in the world; but that all-active and all-concerned seatedness on His throne above, by which He governs the world which He Himself hath made." John Calvin regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms Canons of Dordt, 1.16
"Have I become your enemy by telling the truth?" Paul
Last edited by heymikey80; 21st June 2009 at 06:46 PM.
Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)
I would love to know.
__________________ Why don't men come to Christ? What is at the core, or at the heart, of disbelief and rejection of the Gospel? Well, it's because of their love for darkness and hatred of light (John 3:16-20). But what is the reason, or cause, of those who do come to the light? It lies within God. "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).
All Scriptures quoted from NASB unless otherwise noted.
This is not a semantic game. Did you miss that Paul's saying, "It's not Adam who was deceived, but the woman ...." Exactly what woman was around at the time when Adam wasn't deceived?
No, it's you playing the semantic game. Paul intended a meaning to get across to Timothy. Once accepted that something must be going across, anyone realizes the words point into the context, what meaning is going across.
When Paul speaks of the past Genesis deception of the female he refers to her by name “Eve”:
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Co 11:3
Then when Paul later speaks of the past Genesis creation of the female he again refers to her by name “Eve”:
“For Adam was created first then Eve” 1 Tim 2:14
When Eve was created after Adam (“then Eve”, 1 Tim 2:13) and when Eve was deceived (2 Co 11:3), she had not been named “Eve” yet - Genesis.
In Genesis Eve admitted she was deceived and confessed her sin to God, and then she was named “Eve”. But in 1Tim 2:14 we have “the woman IN SIN”, unlike Eve who confessed hers to God and was promised the Savior to come through her seed alone. Eve was not IN SIN when Paul wrote v14. So Paul could have named Eve in v14, just like he did in v13, and he also could have named her twice just like he named Adam twice, "For Adam was created first", "and Adam was not deceived" but he did not. The woman’s sin in v14 comes from being in deception, but Eve came out of deception and her sin and she was dead anyway when v14 was written.
And I didn’t miss what Paul said before he said “and Adam was not deceived.” “For Adam was created first then Eve and Adam was not deceived”. Paul therefore (only) connects Adam being created first to Adam not being deceived. This is because from Genesis we know that he had learned things about God and creation that kept him from being deceived unlike Eve who did not learn the same things because she was created after Adam.
BUT the woman being deceived has become in transgressionBUTshe will be saved…if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Since v15 which is in the future tense is conjoined to v14 which is the perfect saying, “But she (refering back to “the woman IN SIN“) will be saved if they continue…” therefore only the woman IN SIN can do something to be saved, because a dead person, Eve cannot “continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” So it’s the perfect tense of v14 along with the future tense of v15 that prove that “the woman” cannot be Eve.
The woman in sin will be saved if they (a/the woman and a man) continue in faith...
Last edited by Timothy2; 22nd June 2009 at 02:27 PM.
Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)
I would love to know.
Bump for anyone interested...
__________________ Why don't men come to Christ? What is at the core, or at the heart, of disbelief and rejection of the Gospel? Well, it's because of their love for darkness and hatred of light (John 3:16-20). But what is the reason, or cause, of those who do come to the light? It lies within God. "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21).
All Scriptures quoted from NASB unless otherwise noted.
keep in mind, that A man and A woman is not specific, it's general, as in A cat doesn't mean that I can identify which of my cats or if it is even referring to my cats....None specific, therefore woman in general, which then refers back to the idea of this isn't a repremand for a church discipline thing, but rather a church wide, if it helps, look at it this way...if you X or if your church is experiencing X then Y.
No problem, right in line with what I said...
Can I ask you a question, why are you hung up on "correction", "repremand" "disciplne"? Is your church background made up of that kind of culture? I'm just curious where this is coming from. We're discussing a passage that has been traditionaly thought to prohibit women from leadership but you keep posting on "correction" and "discipline".
The "correction" Paul makes here is to stop the woman from teaching while commanding that she learn.
For those interested, the author below makes some VERY important points:
In other words, Adam’s lack of deception was not his crowning achievement but his condemnation. Eve had an excuse (yet didn’t try to hid behind it), while Adam did not, and it is Adam who is solely blamed by scripture for sin entering the world. Again, it is preposterous to conclude that this somehow qualified Adam– and all males after him– to be the spiritual “keepers” of women (a phrase, incidentally, that is found in the Quran!). And have all the male supremacists forgotten that it was the seed of the woman alone that God would use to undo what Adam did? What great significance there is in that simple statement by God! The woman is not being cursed but honored, because she owned up to her sin and did not blame God for anything.
Then Arp notes that Paul switches from Eve to “the woman”, yet like all the other male supremacists, simply inserts his presupposition of a generic plural here and glosses over the significance of the shift. As he should know, the original writings (that is, the copies we have) are written in all capitals with no punctuation. So where a sentence breaks or where a comma should be is very much a matter of guesswork. Here is the Greek rendering of 1 Tim. 2:13-14:
Adam for before-most was-molded thereafter Eve and Adam not was-seduced the yet woman being-out-seduced in beside-stepping has-become
It would be perfectly legitimate to render it “Adam was formed first and Eve next, and Adam was not deceived. But this woman, being deceived, has fallen into sin”. Note also that “has fallen” indicates a past event with continuing effects. Male supremacists take that to mean Eve’s personal sin was passed on to all women, but since whether Paul is talking about one women or many is the point of debate, one cannot presume this meaning.
2. The Greek is written in such a way that allows both men and women to aspire to being a Pastor/Elder/Overseer.
1 Timothy 3:1 says: Trustworthy [is] the word: If anyone aspires to [the] position of overseer [Gr. episkope], he desires a good work. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
The Greek word used is NOT “aner” which would mean “If any male aspires…” Instead of the Greek word for males, the generic Greek word for”anyone” is used which is “tis”. “Tis” means men or women and has the exact same Greek grammatical structure as “anyone” in John 6:51 and every other passage concerning salvation.
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”
All of the salvation verses are just like 1 Timothy 3:1 and they are singular masculine in the Greek grammar but all of them use the generic Greek wording which includes men and women. If we dispute that the Greek can include men and women because the grammar is singular masculine, then we must also be consistent and disallow women to be saved since all of the salvation passages are written in the same way as 1 Timothy 3:1 with generic words having a singular masculine tense in the Greek.
Linear Mode
