Womens roles in the church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And now your beginning to understand the subtle attack on the family from the other versions.

Not at all.
Firstly, if a word is in a number of versions of the Bible, especially the original Greek, that suggests to me that it should be there.
Secondly, women were not allowed to have more than one husband, so when Paul says "they should ask their husbands at home", it means that they should go home and ask their husbands. The word "own" suggests to me that women were asking their questions to the nearest available man in the meeting, whether he was her husband or not.
"Asking your husband at home" suggests that the time and place to ask questions was in private - your home - and to your husband; not calling out in the meeting. This actually fits with the idea of submission and man as head, if you think about it, although that is not the emphasis of the passage.
To emphasise "your own" husband, instead of just "your husband", is not an attack on the family.

. The King James is different than most other bibles.

Which doesn't make it the REAL Bible, implying that others are false, tarnished or misleading.

The family is very important to God and anything that makes women dominate or rule over their husbands and usurp their authority is false and dangerous to the church.

MAKES women rule over their husbands??

Firstly, the issue of women being called to preach, or lead a church, is not connected to the issue of male headship. For those who insist that a woman must be under male authority, it is likely that she would have a male vicar, senior vicar, dean, Superintendent, suffragan bishop, bishop, archbishop, President or Pope. So her "boss" or "superiors" would likely be male. But even if they weren't, a vicar or Minister cannot go into a church, tell people what to do, throw their weight around etc; decisions are referred to, and made by, the church council/PCC/leadership team/elders. The vicar/Minister chairs the meeting but cannot even vote, unless the vote is tied.
This has nothing to do with how a husband and wife make their own decisions about their family/future.

Secondly, in Scripture, women sometimes advised their husbands.
In Genesis, God told Abraham to listen to his wife.
Moses was apparently about to be killed by God, until his wife saved him, Exodus 4:25.
When Ruth lay down under Boaz's blanket she was, in effect, proposing to him.
Deborah had a husband. Whatever the relationship between the two of them, she was still called to lead the whole nation, Judges 4:4.
Pontius Pilate's wife had a dream about Jesus, and told her husband not to have anything to do with him. Pilate didn't listen, and has been known ever since as the man who washed his hands of involvement in Jesus' death - and who didn't listen to his wife.

Thirdly, there are Christian men who don't step up to their responsibility as head of the household - or maybe even agree that they should be. Husbands and wives, in my experience, make decisions together, before the Lord. True, if there is disagreement, the husband is maybe meant to have the casting vote, but this doesn't happen all the time. There may be areas which are the wife's responsibility, or about which she has more knowledge. Then the husband might willingly leave it to her.

You seem to be saying that if a woman is called to lead a church, family life will disintegrate and her husband will feel emasculated. That is not necessarily the case.
It also goes without saying that not all female clergy/preachers have husbands.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not here to argue, you're entitled to your opinions. The scripture is straightforward about this and trying to find examples to invalidate the clear teaching of the word of God is something I'll leave between you and the Lord.
If Scripture was so straightforward, there would be no disagreement among Christians on this issue.
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@LoveofTruth post #120
Um you are twisting the Bible here. Please read James 2:1-9 in multiple versions. I give you the benefit of doubt that the old word meanings in the KJV cause you confusion. The respect mentioned here is about favouring or discriminating people on how well dressed or poor they are. This isn't the first time in this thread I have seen this occur.

I shall pray for you that the other places you have misinterpreted meanings gets revealed to you. God bless you brother.
I am not twisting anything I simply pointed out your error from the “real bible”.(My correction here it was Cassia not you who I was addressing here)

I don’t need to read other versions to point out what Cassia said.

God is no respect or of persons
James first points out a general truth that we are not to have our faith of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. Then he shows in their particular case how they were doing this .
For the two statements (made by Cassia) of how men must have respect and how if we love our neighbour we have to respect as well we’re both directly in error according to the bible.

The word “respect” of persons is never used in the KJV in the New Testament a positive sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,256
8,174
41
United Kingdom
✟53,491.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am not twisting anything I simply pointed out your error from the “real bible”.

I don’t need to read other versions to point out what you said.

God is no respect or of persons
James first points out a general truth that we are not to have our faith of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. Then he shows in their particular case how they were doing this .
For your two statements of how men must have respect and how if we love our neighbour we have to respect as well we’re both directly in error according to the bible.

The word “respect” of persons is never used in the KJV in the New Testament a positive sense.



I said what? Where? Someone else said about respect. You said that to respect someone is sin. I pointed out that the passages you editted are 'respect of person' means to not treat the rich better than the poor. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

As to my not favouring KJV it is because I have witnessed Christians not understanding the Bible purely based on tge fact that semantics have changed over the years and what meant one thing a few centurues means something else now. For example:

'Mortify' the flesh. Mortify now means embarass. However, it used to mean put to death. The root 'mort' meaning death.

In the above passage 'respect to person' does not mean the more common use of the word today and the way Cassia used the word. You then quoted James 2 and said that respecting people is sinful. However, respect in that verse means how we could say 'with respect to this or that' as in to not be prejudicial. Different uses of words.

You did the same thing with the use of the word 'elder' in... Titus perhaps. The greek text proves that it was used towards female in the terms of age and not the office of elder.

To say that I was in error both times is rather unfair to say the least. People would need to go through posts to see that I wasn't and ther are not going to do so.

I should be seeking to please God and not others so I will just forgive you and move on and take the knock to the pride, which I shouldn't have anyway.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I said what? Where?
I apologize if I said that you made those statements

That was for another person who made them I believe it was cassia. I will correct my post

I apologize Someone else said about respect.

You said that to respect someone is sin.

I quoted two scriptures.

I pointed out that the passages you editted are 'respect of person' means to not treat the rich better than the poor. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

That is false. First James says

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

This is a general principle that can be applied to many situations. Then he difines how it relates to their situation of favoring and being partial , respect of the rich over the poor etc.

But we read of this respect of persons in relation to many aspects,

Romans 2:11
"For there is no respect of persons with God.". The context here is not rich and poor or clothing,


Colossians 3:25
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." The context here is not rich and poor or clothing.


Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"The context here is not rich and poor or clothing.


Each verse ( and others that could be quoted) relate to a different aspect of respect of persons. So James general words in chapter 2:1 still stand for all in a wide variety of situations and not just in respecting the rich over the poor or one with gay clothing over the poor clothing.

Even the word "gay clothing" as used in James has been twisted in our modern world. "Gay" now relates to a homosexual relationship or man. But the word "gay" does not mean that. i choose to follow the ancient way and the way we see it in scripture. Who knows if tomorrow the word truth will be turn to mean an error. Would you try to charge a person who stood by the word "truth" even if the modern corrupt versions called it "error"?

As to my not favouring KJV it is because I have witnessed Christians not understanding the Bible purely based on tge fact that semantics have changed over the years and what meant one thing a few centurues means something else now. For example:

'Mortify' the flesh. Mortify now means embarass. However, it used to mean put to death. The root 'mort' meaning death.

I dealt with this above

In the above passage 'respect to person' does not mean the more common use of the word today and the way Cassia used the word. You then quoted James 2 and said that respecting people is sinful. However, respect in that verse means how we could say 'with respect to this or that' as in to not be prejudicial. Different uses of words.

No you are apparently trying to escape the clear meaning of the verse and how it directly corrected cassias words. She said men should have respect and that we are to love one another and respect. Respect in her words was towards persons. you are not right here in this charge.

And I simply quoted the real bible to her, which directly corrected her in her words. I am aware that today many say things that are not right according to scripture and I simply pointed that out to her.

For example many believers even say things like "be proud of yourself my son, you won the game" or
"I am proud of what i did at work" etc. yet pride goes before the fall and we are not to be proud. I may use scripture against pride and being proud in any way and the same attack on scripture and myself for doing so would be charged to me. This is sad. And very troubling.

You did the same thing with the use of the word 'elder' in... Titus perhaps. The greek text proves that it was used towards female in the terms of age and not the office of elder.

The KJV does not use the word "office" connected to the elder women there and I did not use it that way either. And office simply can mean a function.

I used the word "respect" in the proper way, is does mean to have favoritsim or partiallity. Thats the way the scripture uses it and the way I used it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I used the word "respect" in the proper way, is does mean to have favoritsim or partiallity. Thats the way the scripture uses it and I used it.

To respect someone means to be mindful, and considerate, of them, their beliefs, values or whatever.
Like in Psalm 119:6 where the Psalmist says that he respects the Lord's commandments, verse 15 where he says that he respects the Lord's ways and verse 17 where he respects the Lord's statutes.
In Exodus 2:25 we are told that the Lord had respect for the children of Israel. (KJV since you seem to think that is a superior Bible.)

So I could show respect to you as a person made in the image of God, while still disagreeing with your views.

The verse "God is not a respecter of persons", means that God doesn't discriminate between people and show favouritism to one person/group over another.

You gave an example with the word "gay". Yes, this meaning has changed over time; language does. This, imo, is another reason why the KJV is not the best translation around - the NT was written in Koine Greek, which was very informal, colloquial, the language of the streets. The language of the KJV NT is not informal - no one speaks in thees, thous, mayest, canst etc nowadays; not even you.
And because language has changed, we need to use different words to convey the meaning of the original. Another example is "wicked", which in Biblical context means sinful, even very sinful. But if you told a teenager today that their behaviour was wicked, they'd think that you approved of it.

You can use "gay" if you wish. But I can almost guarantee that if you told someone that you thought they looked gay, they would understand it to mean that you thought they looked like a homosexual, and would be offended.
 
Upvote 0

thesunisout

growing in grace
Supporter
Mar 24, 2011
4,761
1,399
He lifts me up
✟159,601.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Forming the conclusion that a Christian who disagrees with you is deliberately looking for examples that will invalidate the word of God is a judgement. Implying that a Christian seeks to discredit what, you believe, to be the teaching of God's word, is not only unfair, but somewhat arrogant.

I'll leave that between you and the Lord.

I'm not judging you or anyone else here. I give all of you the credit that you love the Lord. It's not a Salvation issue. However, these paper thin "examples" of Mary being a preacher or Priscilla being a teacher of men are about a million miles away from proving your point. There is nothing in the scripture that proves what you're trying to prove; if there was you already would have quoted it. So all that's left is to try to prove that there is some doubt about what Paul said even though it is crystal clear. I don't believe you have made your case even for that. In any case I'm going to withdraw from the thread have a good one God bless
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
no one speaks in thees, thous,
Thee , ye thou etc are very important to the meaning of the text, they stress singular and plural meanings in the text. If you blurr this the meaning is not known properly.

and i will not change the words of holy scripture to fit the modern evil corrupt speech of today.

Woe to men when they call good evil and evil good. We are in a perilous time and a woeful time. It is even more important to stick with sound doctrine and sound words

The woman's issue is a sound doctrine and the KJV has sound words.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not judging you or anyone else here. I give all of you the credit that you love the Lord. It's not a Salvation issue.

I know. People on both "sides" of this debate are still saved.

However, these paper thin "examples" of Mary being a preacher or Priscilla being a teacher of men are about a million miles away from proving your point.

Not really.
The issue is that some people take 1 Timothy 2:12 literally. Maybe not in this thread, but some have said that women can't speak in church, which means they cannot pray, prophesy or sing as well as preach. Some have said that women cannot say anything which teaches a man because once they teach, they are "having authority over" him. The argument is, again, from some, that because these words are in the Bible, they are from God, are his command or will and as applicable to us now as they were then.
This latter point, in particular, is not so. If God didn't, and doesn't, want women to say anything to teach, lead, inform men or take his word to them, then we would see women in very passive roles, throughout Scripture; not being at all active in public, or church, life, not exercising the gifts that the Spirit gives us, and so on.

But this is not the case.
In the NT alone, the fact that women prophesied and spoke for God, tells us that God does not want women to be silent. The fact that they were involved in evangelism, took the word of God to others and were chosen by God to do so, tells us that God wanted, and chose, women to speak for him and to others about him. So it is unlikely that God has commanded that women should be silent.
The fact that Paul worked alongside many women, whom he commended for their work for the Gospel, tells us that he did not have a problem with women. So it is unlikely that, towards the end of his life, he would suddenly write a letter saying that he did not want women to speak or teach in church.

The bottom line is that if the role that God always intended for women was a passive one - being led, being taught, listening quietly - instead of leading, teaching, speaking and so on, that is what we would see; throughout Scripture. Because Scripture is the revelation of God by God; of his nature, his ways, his character, his will and so on. It would have been taught by everyone, including and especially Jesus, and demonstrated by the fat that women were never used in these roles.
And yet, that is not the case. What we see from Scripture is that in a Patriarchal society, where women were often of very little importance and had few rights; God, in Jesus, reminded his people that women were also created by him, in his image. God called, empowered, appointed and used them to spread his word, teach his message and serve him.
This should not be very surprising as this is what he does - uses those whom the world considers to be foolish and weak, 1 Corinthians 1:18, to bring glory to himself.

So the fact that there are women in the Bible who taught and so on, tells me that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not intended to be applied literally by us today.
It's not "crystal clear" in any case. "Crystal clear" would be, "this is a command from God, women must never lead or teach in church. This command will apply for years to come, even if society and the culture changes".
God would also have shown his word by his actions and not have appointed women - ever.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thee , ye thou etc are very important to the meaning of the text, they stress singular and plural meanings in the text.

My point was that this is not how people speak today, therefore they do not represent the colloquial language in which the NT was written.
If something is written in informal language and we replace that with formal - and what are now - archaic words, it may even change the sense and meaning.

and i will not change the words of holy scripture to fit the modern evil corrupt speech of today.

That's up to you, but that is a slightly extreme attitude and you may well find that you have problems because of it. For example, telling teenagers that they are wicked, or men that they are gay.

Woe to men when they call good evil and evil good. We are in a perilous time and a woeful time. It is even more important to stick with sound doctrine and sound words

Are you seriously saying that using "thee" and "thou" is good because it is the language of Scripture and to deviate from it is to embrace "unsound doctrine" and "unsound words"?

So why don't you write in this way?
None of your posts use phrases like "I darest not change the words of Scripture", "God speaketh to his children", "thou misseth the meaning here", and so on. You are writing in modern English with modern phrases and turns of expression.

The Bible wasn't written in English, but in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Greek and Latin and then into English. The English language has changed since the KJV was written, like it or not, words now have different meanings. There may also not be the exact English word to convey what was expressed in the Hebrew, Greek or Latin - like the word "love" in Greek, for example.
New Biblical documents have also been found over the years and new scholarship realised. A translation that refuses to recognise these things, may actually end up teaching something different from what was meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I
For example many believers even say things like "be proud of yourself my son, you won the game" or
"I am proud of what i did at work" etc. yet pride goes before the fall and we are not to be proud. I may use scripture against pride and being proud in any way

It is not sinful to take pride in your work, be proud of what God has done, be proud of others' achievements and so on.
What would be wrong would be to say "I did this, all by myself, in my own strength, with my own gifts".
All that we have, do, say and are comes from God. Sinful pride is not acknowledging this but believing that everything is down to you and your own cleverness.
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is not sinful to take pride in your work, be proud of what God has done, be proud of others' achievements and so on.
What would be wrong would be to say "I did this, all by myself, in my own strength, with my own gifts".
All that we have, do, say and are comes from God. Sinful pride is not acknowledging this but believing that everything is down to you and your own cleverness.
Again we have scripture against pride or being proud it relates to
The proud heart, proud words, proud looks, by pride comes contention etc

Pride is not used in a good way for men or women to be in scripture as I am aware
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again we have scripture against pride or being proud it relates to
The proud heart, proud words, proud looks, by pride comes contention etc

Sinful, self-centred pride, yes.

But it is not wrong to be proud of someone else, their achievements, perseverance, faith etc.
If you had a child who had worked hard at school and come top of their class, or had won an award, or passed exams inspite of disability, bereavement etc; wouldn't you feel proud of them?

Pride is not used in a good way for men or women to be in scripture as I am aware

It's true that the word "pride" is used in mostly a negative way.
In 2 Corinthians, the NIV says that Paul has pride in the Corinthians and wants to give them an opportunity to be proud of him. I guess you won't accept that for not being "the real Bible", but it is still Scripture.

But if you really can't accept the word "pride/proud", how about words which express a similar sentiment?
In Genesis 1 we are told that God saw that his creation was good, and after he created man in his own image, he saw that it was very good.
In Isaiah 42:21 we are told "the Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake"
At Jesus' baptism and transfiguration God said "This is my Son, with him I am well pleased"
Psalm 18:19 says that the Lord "delighted in me".
In Zephaniah 3:17 we are told "God will rejoice over thee with joy, he will joy over thee with singing".

God can't sin, yet it sounds like he was pretty pleased with his creation and his Son.
If God is pleased when he creates something and says that it was good; if he is well pleased with his Son ans his own righteousness, why do you consider it wrong to be pleased of something you may do?

Or is it a semantics thing and you won't accept that the word pride can have a good meaning because the KJV doesn't say so?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Andrew Jeremiah

Biblical Christian
Supporter
Jan 24, 2018
364
78
TExas
✟28,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Exactly.
So a woman may not, and probably should not, be head of her own household; yet that does not mean she cannot be called to lead a church.
The Scripture applies to those in Covenant with God (born again Christians).

One cannot take a goat and make them sheep. Something called The Decree of God in the Garden which God dictated how offspring were to be born.

"After their kind..."

This means an angel cannot impregnate a woman of human birth.

Nor does God allow anyone who is a goat to magically become a sheep in life.

If you agree with my statement on taking a marriage teaching and present it in Church as Doctrine, nor take a Church Doctrine and apply it to marriage, nor can we take a Covenant Doctrine and apply it to unbelievers/unsaved/Non-Covenant people.
The Word of God is for believers ONLY.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

Andrew Jeremiah

Biblical Christian
Supporter
Jan 24, 2018
364
78
TExas
✟28,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was male. Mary was woman.

A woman taught the Lord.

And was subject to her (and him).

What's this about women not supposed to teach men?

In spiritual matters there is neither male nor female...so, it's God, Christ, everyone else. Horizontal.

In natural order there is God, Christ, man and woman. Vertical.
 
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was male. Mary was woman.

A woman taught the Lord.

And was subject to her (and him).

What's this about women not supposed to teach men?

In spiritual matters there is neither male nor female...so, it's God, Christ, everyone else. Horizontal.

In natural order there is God, Christ, man and woman. Vertical.
wrong,

I am speaking of in the church to other men, and in the home a submission to their husbands in everything. The man is to rule well his own house. Yes women can teach younger women and children. A child is not a "man".

But as far as her teaching Jesus I think in time we will see more about the reality of who Jesus really is. When Jesus was found in the temple the leaders were amazed at his words and questions even as a young man. His parents asked him a question and he taught them we read about this story.

"46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them."

We know for example Mary never had to rebuke Jesus for any sin in his whole life. He was always an obedient child as well, fullfilling the law. But he is God manifest in the flesh. I think you are entering into deeper waters here about his mind and understanding even as a child, Yes he was fully man and fully God and he grew in wisdom and stature. But he never sinned, never had to be rebuked for sin, never disobeyed, never lied, never had pride, never was corrupt in any way.

51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sinful, self-centred pride, yes.

No all pride. God resisteth the proud and gives grace to the humble.

But it is not wrong to be proud of someone else, their achievements, perseverance, faith etc.
If you had a child who had worked hard at school and come top of their class, or had won an award, or passed exams inspite of disability, bereavement etc; wouldn't you feel proud of them?

This kind of pride is also wrong. many will say "I am proud of my son". Really they have a secret glorying in their flesh and THIER son, and want others to look at them. This is also pride.

Now a father can esteem and honour his son and visa versa. And rejoice in their accomplishments, and encourage him etc, but pride is the wrong word. Just as respect its the wrong word. We esteem other elders and honour them not have respect of persons ( favoritism and partiality)

It's true that the word "pride" is used in mostly a negative way.
In 2 Corinthians, the NIV says that Paul has pride in the Corinthians and wants to give them an opportunity to be proud of him. I guess you won't accept that for not being "the real Bible", but it is still Scripture.

Another verse from the corrupt bibles trying to make men proud. The word pride is not there. In the real bible it says

"12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward."

The word rejoicing is not being proud. The word "rejoicing in Greek is "glorying, boasting, rejoicing". He was rejoicing with them and for their good. He honoured them and esteemed them.

The wrong versions may say things like this

"12 Here is what we take pride in. Our sense of what is right and wrong tells us how we have acted. We have lived with honor and godly honesty. We have depended on God’s grace and not on the world’s wisdom. We lived that way most of all when we were dealing with you. "

Yet God resisteth the proud and hates a proud look, and pride is not in a positive way in scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,273
1,744
✟164,106.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sinful, self-centred pride, yes.

But it is not wrong to be proud of someone else, their achievements, perseverance, faith etc.
If you had a child who had worked hard at school and come top of their class, or had won an award, or passed exams inspite of disability, bereavement etc; wouldn't you feel proud of them?



It's true that the word "pride" is used in mostly a negative way.
In 2 Corinthians, the NIV says that Paul has pride in the Corinthians and wants to give them an opportunity to be proud of him. I guess you won't accept that for not being "the real Bible", but it is still Scripture.

But if you really can't accept the word "pride/proud", how about words which express a similar sentiment?
In Genesis 1 we are told that God saw that his creation was good, and after he created man in his own image, he saw that it was very good.
In Isaiah 42:21 we are told "the Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake"
At Jesus' baptism and transfiguration God said "This is my Son, with him I am well pleased"
Psalm 18:19 says that the Lord "delighted in me".
In Zephaniah 3:17 we are told "God will rejoice over thee with joy, he will joy over thee with singing".

God can't sin, yet it sounds like he was pretty pleased with his creation and his Son.
If God is pleased when he creates something and says that it was good; if he is well pleased with his Son ans his own righteousness, why do you consider it wrong to be pleased of something you may do?

Or is it a semantics thing and you won't accept that the word pride can have a good meaning because the KJV doesn't say so?

Here are some verses about pride

Job 40:12
Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place."

Psalm 12:3
The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"

Psalm 94:2
Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud."

Psalm 119:78
Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts."

Psalm 119:78
Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts."


Ecclesiastes 7:8
Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit."

Romans 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,"

Luke 1:51
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts."

James 4:6
But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."


Pride is also connected to lack of submission, this could also extend to women not submitting to their husbands etc.

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Proverbs 13:10
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom."

Proverbs 11:2
When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.


too many verses to quote

but the word pride in 1 Cor 1:12 is not there in Greek, the Greek word for pride is "Tuphoo - to envelope with smoke inflate with self conceit, high minded, be lifted up

This is very different than the word used in 1 Cor 1:12.

So again the real bible (the KJV) is right and we can see the subtle attack on the believers in other versions to make them proud.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.