http://www.praize.com/forums/ en-us no-reply@praize.com Mon, 20 May 2013 14:33:26 GMT Gossamer Forum by Gossamer Threads, Inc. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification http://www.praize.com/forum/icons/gforum-logo.png http://www.praize.com/forums/ 50 50 http://www.praize.com/forums/Prayer_C24/Prayer_Requests_F100/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Friend's_son_in_a_coma_P119369/?page=unread#119369 God is SOOOOOOOOOOOO good! ff83c157a62af09daff0db94bc55c86c May 19, 2013, 3:30 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Prayer_C24/Prayer_Requests_F100/Re%3A_%5Bpraizeop2%5D_Friend's_son_in_a_coma_P119368/?page=unread#119368 Jake is now at home and is doing well. His mother has someone checking in with him several times each week. Thank everyone for your prayers and, thank God for His goodness. b9039a89dfdf2cabda7f133cd43d74cb May 19, 2013, 2:55 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BStratfan%5D_KJV_onlyism%3A_The_Great_Divider_P119367/?page=unread#119367 Concerning the New Living Translation, read the following: The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text. In reality, The New Living Translation is an extensive revision of Ken Taylor's Living Bible (published by Tyndale House in 1971). It was designed to improve the accuracy of Taylor's paraphrase. c2c98536e07b37d206237423a15056fb May 18, 2013, 11:21 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119366/?page=unread#119366 Question: What are the goals of hermeneutics? There are three basic goals: 1. To understand the message God has given us. 2. To avoid mistakes and errors about what the Bible teaches. 3. To properly apply the Word of God to our lives. Questin: What factors should we be aware of that might influence our interpretation? I have a list of 18 things to be aware of: 1. Your denomination's history or tradition. 2. Things you hold as values outside of the Bible. 3. Your personal theology. 4. Your race. 5. Your gender, male or female? 6. Your place or position in society. 7. Your education 8. The priorities of the community you live in. 9. Your political views 10. Your political associations. 11. Your exposure to the Bible. 12. The Bible translation you use. 13. Your use of other tools in studying the Bible. 14. Past preaching you have heard. 15. Your attitude towards Bible scholarship. 16. Family influences. 17. Things you have been through in life. 18. Your spirituality and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Feel free to add to those things and/or to question them as you wish. e3b6d6722d72bbd3fa88af48d8572394 May 18, 2013, 10:55 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Bpraizeop2%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119365/?page=unread#119365 Thank you Sarah. Prat with me that the Lord will show me where to use it best for His glory. de8baedc9bcbec69b8993d3a0c7e92cf May 17, 2013, 5:40 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/General_C76/General_Topics_F74/Re%3A_%5BNannrs%5D_How_do_we_know_if_something_is_God's_Will_P119364/?page=unread#119364 John 4:34 says, Jesus said unto them, My me is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. John 5:30, says ,I can of mine own self do nothing : as I hear, I judge in my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me . John 6:38 says ,For. I came down from heaven ,, not to do mine own will , but the will of him that sent me . God has purpose and a plan for each one of us . . God bless . Pastor Fred Wilson 30077672732f6fe263003dd496f00121 May 17, 2013, 6:50 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119363/?page=unread#119363 The question then is, to what extent was the situation imposed upon them by men , rather than it actually being the will of God , (scripture itself having been written down entirely by scribes of the male gender). It very possibly could be that if we are going to discuss the role of women in the church, we should start another thread. Perhaps Sarah can yell us if there is one started somewhere. I don't know of one ay this time. On the other hand, Why did God choose to use men to put His Word into writing? It was, after all, His choice and, I would say that Paul's words, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." is the answer. God never changes? That may be true of God, but it is certainly not true of human society, or do you hanker after the good old days when you would have legitimately held the power of life and death over your slaves, and The Bible would have backed you up in it. Things sometimes change for the better, they don't universally and irrevocably change ' for the worse '. Human society definitely changes but, it is always heading in a direction contrary to God. Here, Gay marriage is gaining ground rapidly and, it is clear from Scripture that we in the church can not accept it as valid. There are many things in society that need to be rejected. Women pastors i s one of them. It began with the feminist movement. John MacArthur states it quite well, "It is amazing to me that it all began with a sort of self-justifying effort on the part of a group of lesbians who wanted to have their day in the sun and gave birth to the modern feminist movement. Feminism rises out of sinful perversion and yet in spite of its origin it has found its way into the culture of our society in almost every area and even lately into the church. " Since I really didn't get an answer, What is your opinion of the Textus Receptus (Received Text) upon which the KJV was based? My information and research says, Textus Receptus ( Latin : " received text ") is the name retroactively given to the succession of printed Greek language texts of the New Testament which constituted the textual base for the original German Luther Bible , for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale (1526), Myles Coverdale 's Bible ( 1535 ), Matthew's Bible ( 1537 ), The Great Bible ( 1539 ), The Geneva Bible ( 1557 - 60 ), The Bishops' Bible ( 1568 ), and the King James Version ( 1611 ), and for most other Reformation -era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The Textus Receptus has been translated into hundreds of languages. (See Also The Word of God for All Nations ) The origin of the term " Textus Receptus " comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden: Note that it was used to translate the KJV. Also interesting is Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years. * All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus * Peshitta ( 150 A.D. ) was based on the Textus Receptus * Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus * The Italic Church in the Northern Italy ( 157 A.D. ) used the Textus Receptus * The Gallic Church of Southern France ( 177 A.D. ) used the Textus Receptus * The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus * The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus * The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus * Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus * Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus * Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus * Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus * The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them) * The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus . Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority. * 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus , only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort * 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus , only 9 manuscripts used text of WH * 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus , only 23 used text WH * 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus . I would be surprised and delighted if I were to learn that you accept scripture may have more than a single ‘meaning’. I am aware that there are sometimes double meanings within Scripture. A prophecy, for example, may have a current and a future fulfillment as well. The more common thing is for it to have multiple applications. A principle given in a passage could apply to several different circumstances or situations. Take care and, God bless, Allen 43bfa829de2f124cf48fd3b2207143e9 May 16, 2013, 9:39 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119362/?page=unread#119362 Congratulations, Allen! We here on Praize are very proud of you. May God abundantly bless you for your diligence in getting your degree at this time of your life. (((((((((((Allen)))))))))) Blessings ~ Sarah 4ae9dc40fe7b20ad7ad4d8fa44d8ec43 May 16, 2013, 8:50 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119361/?page=unread#119361 Awesome, Chris! I am enjoying your teachng. I did not realize that the man was supposed to be condemned also. Yeah!!! :) Blessings ~ Sarah d7c8c1287c9ba9e24c5a61bd5ffae83a May 16, 2013, 8:46 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/The_New_Testament_F58/Re%3A_%5Bstarrgazzer3%5D_One_or_two_doctrines..._P119360/?page=unread#119360 Tongues & rapture doctrine. Come all ye faithfull... 52623c185b098f5f14dd791594f6d4a3 May 15, 2013, 1:58 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119359/?page=unread#119359 Good post Chris, Like you, I wonder what was written and so have many scholars. Maybe the Lord will tell us when we get to see Him in Heaven someday. If not, then we don't need to know. I too am amazed and thankful for the grace, love and mercy of the Lord. He loved us and gave His life for us while we were sinners and rebels against Him. We have so much to be thankful and to praise Him for. I'll be back with more on the role of women etc. later. Studying hard for school. Only five more classes and I'll have my degree. Blessings, Allen c8c08d46b20f2683533be4c33ead6360 May 14, 2013, 4:11 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119358/?page=unread#119358 Hi Allen: One problem they had was that they were in violation of that law. The woman was caught in the act of adultery and, according to the law both the man and woman were to be stoned. The man wasn't there. This is further proof that this was a set up. Quite right! Jesus frequently accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy, this was an example of their biased application of the law, in their own interests, to their own ends. We are warned by Jesus not ever to ‘eat their bread’, (metaphorically to adopt their attitude to the ‘letter of the law’). But rather to understand and respect the ‘spirit’ of it. John says nothing about what Jesus wrote on the ground but, it was His words that convicted them and caused them to leave. I have often wondered what Jesus wrote there. I don’t think he was just stalling for time. Some have suggested he wrote the name of each ring leader, also naming their sins. I can imagine how that would have affected them. In any case they realized that their ploy had failed and they had neither goaded Jesus into breaking Roman law by usurping Rome’s self claimed exclusive right to exact the death penalty nor tricked him into failing to uphold the letter of the law of Moses, but had rigidly upheld the requirement that there must be 3 witnesses who are in no way implicated and also both male and female involved must be prosecuted and punished. Neither of these requirements of the law were actually met, you are quite right in pointing that out. However it is still remarkable, is it not, that Jesus himself declared that HE did not ‘condemn’ her either. Blanket condemnation of adulterers in the name of purity of 'religion' gets no support from this passage of scripture. But then again neither does promiscuous disregard for the standards expected of us by God as subjects in The Kingdom of His Son. “Neither do I condemn you”! ( .. Here is the miracle of the grace of God. There is no greater wonder than this. The turning of the water into wine, the healing of a dying lad by a word, the feeding of five thousand and more with a lad’s snack lunch, the walking on a storm-tossed inland sea; none of these, nor all of them together, compares with this, that Jesus said " neither do I condemn you ". In this sentence, and in the heart of mercy which lay behind it, is all our hope and all our salvation for ever.. ) ( .. .. ) From ‘The Message of John’ by Bruce Milne. You see; how we read and interpret this passage can profoundly affect how we deal with those who have broken ‘the law’. We have a choice to either have the attitude of the Pharisees, or the attitude of Jesus Christ. Some may interpret the passage we have just studied as a perfect example of how Christ upheld the law to the letter, insisting upon both the accused being punished at the testimony of three witnesses not implicated in the crime. They might then go on to imagine that God deals with miscreants today in the same fashion, God nor the law having changed. Others may see God, (in Jesus Christ), saying “Neither do I condemn you - Go now and leave your life of sin”. Mercy from God calls for a life lived unto God. As it says in ‘Les Mis‘; “To love another person is to see the face of God”. Regards Chris. ab12cdc2dfe2b88d58325476ef148968 May 14, 2013, 3:38 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119357/?page=unread#119357 Good Morning Chris, Looks like we have a lot ahead of us on this one but, that's OK. I don't mind if you don't and we will both learn something in the process. We both agree that comparing Scripture with Scripture is a vital first step for the proper interpretation of Scripture. Let's look at the example you supplied. So for example, the scriptural injunctions found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy requiring the stoning to death of miscreants for various crimes must be balanced against the teachings of Jesus Christ and his example in dealing with just such a situation, where he was required by law, and according to his own words to ‘pick up the first stone and deliver the penalty of the law’. Jesus refrained from picking up the first stone and casting it but not because he was sinful like everyone else, yet sinless though he was, and therefore qualified to throw, he did not follow his own advice, but chose rather to pardon the accused women, even though the affair (on a superficial scriptural analysis of the situation), was an open and shut case of adultery. I try to interpret scripture the way Jesus did. I try to have a mind like his. Consequently the verses I read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy have less force when balanced against the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Adultery is still against 'The Law' but we may deal with it differently now than the 'Children of Israel' did in Moses time. Things change! I assume that the passages you are speaking of are Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Also it says in Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Those are the ones that apply to the situation in John 8 at least. There is another factor to consider though and, that is the context of the passage you are studying. Let's take a look at it: John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. John 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, John 8:4 They say unto him, Maste r, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. The first thing I notice is who Jesus was dealing with. Verse 3 says it was the scribes and Pharisees. These are the ones Jesus had trouble with from the beginning of His ministry. In fact, these were the ones who conspired against Him to put Him to death (See John 11:53; Matthew 27:1 etc.) Next notice that in 4 they tell Jesus, " Maste r, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." They go on to describe the requirement of the law that she be stoned. Verse 6 tells us they were testing Him and looking for a reason to accuse Him of violating the Law of Moses. One problem they had was that they were in violation of that law. The woman was caught in the act of adultery and, according to the law both the man and woman were to be stoned. The man wasn't there. This is further proof that this was a set up. John says nothing about what Jesus wrote on the ground but, it was His words that convicted them and caused them to leave. Now there were no accusers and the law required at least two or three witnesses. In the absence of those witnesses, Jesus exercised another prerogative that He had. He forgave her sin and told her to go and sin no more. (see Mat_9:6; Mar_2:10; and Luke_5:24). Here, as in other places throughout Scripture, taking the context of the passage and comparing other Scriptures leads us to a proper interpretation of the passage. The law was upheld and was sill binding on the woman. I might add that it is just as binding on us today. We are to flee fornication and live righteous lives before God and man. I'll be back later with more on the remaining points of your post. If not, I'll write a book here and we will never make any progress. God bless, Allen 0527c7f94cbc2661517344ce5206c1a3 May 14, 2013, 3:47 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119356/?page=unread#119356 I knew what you meant, Chris. I was just pulling your chain. (an American expression for teasing!) I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here. Blessings ~ Sarah 5efe463408121f9cc81dd6284f128fc5 May 13, 2013, 12:30 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Bpraizeop2%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119355/?page=unread#119355 Hi Sarah: JUST a member? I was trying to get the idea across that whether we are in positions of church leadership with responsibility for organizing church assemblies along supposed, 'scriptural' lines, or if we are the people sitting in the pews who offer our time and talents in service to Christ, his cause and the lost; how we interpret and apply scripture, will have profound affects upon the effectiveness of our ministry. Affects which we may one day be called to answer for. It is well therefore to thoughtfully examine how our interpretation affects our actions. The answer to the question ' Are we being Christlike in our attitudes'? is more important than the question, 'Are we being conservatively orthodox in our scriptural interpretation'? Both are valid questions, but the first should come first, and the second be secondary. If the second takes priority then Christ is no longer preeminent over our conduct. The former question was something like what the original Apostles and disciples asked themselves when they studied the scriptures. It caused them to see scripture in a new way. The latter, more like the question Pharisees, the doctors of the law and Paul's opponents might have been trying to address. It caused them to view scripture in the traditionally established way. The answers therefore that come out when trying to interpret scripture, depend somewhat on what question is motivating the enquiry at the outset. Regards Chris. c79469172fb3425fbd13201d5544c649 May 13, 2013, 5:11 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119354/?page=unread#119354 I have enjoyed reading this thread. :) Except, Chris: The important thing about all this TO US is what affect it might have upon the way we put what we understand it to mean into affect in our daily walk with God and (if we are in leadership), how we structure church government, or (if just a member ), how we choose which assembly of believers to serve within. Really, Chris??? JUST a member? REALLY? Blessings ~ Sarah a0f6941133c28105d31ae24cf8550ba9 May 12, 2013, 6:37 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119353/?page=unread#119353 Hi Allen: One of the first rules of interpreting Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture. That is correct. An overview of what scripture says in general must override snippets of verses here and there that might tend towards contradicting the general thrust. So for example, the scriptural injunctions found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy requiring the stoning to death of miscreants for various crimes must be balanced against the teachings of Jesus Christ and his example in dealing with just such a situation, where he was required by law, and according to his own words to ‘pick up the first stone and deliver the penalty of the law’. Jesus refrained from picking up the first stone and casting it but not because he was sinful like everyone else, yet sinless though he was, and therefore qualified to throw, he did not follow his own advice, but chose rather to pardon the accused women, even though the affair (on a superficial scriptural analysis of the situation), was an open and shut case of adultery. I try to interpret scripture the way Jesus did. I try to have a mind like his. Consequently the verses I read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy have less force when balanced against the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Adultery is still against 'The Law' but we may deal with it differently now than the 'Children of Israel' did in Moses time. Things change! When you do, you discover that a woman's role in this life has been that of submission to her husband all through the Bible. Since God never changes, Why should it be any different in the church? The question then is, to what extent was the situation imposed upon them by men , rather than it actually being the will of God , (scripture itself having been written down entirely by scribes of the male gender). The Bible often merely honestly and accurately describes the situation as it is , not necessarily as it should be , in a Godly governed world. Things started changing for women, from when Jesus first started teaching about ‘The Kingdom of God’ and how it could become a God respecting society . Clearly it was not in Old Testament times, otherwise Jesus would never have needed to teach. God never changes? That may be true of God, but it is certainly not true of human society, or do you hanker after the good old days when you would have legitimately held the power of life and death over your slaves, and The Bible would have backed you up in it. Things sometimes change for the better, they don't universally and irrevocably change ' for the worse '. Our understanding of the true meaning of scripture has undergone tremendous changes which can easily be traced from the book of Judges through the book of Malachi and The Gospels to Paul’s letters and The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John. Changes in what was socially acceptable were at the very heart of what the church stood for, from Peter’s vision of the sheet coming down out of heaven, to Paul’s strictures on the irrelevance of circumcision. The church, in New Testament times was always in the front line of ‘ change ’. Indeed we should all be being changed , into the likeness of Christ. Nowadays the conservative elements in the church are all to often so afraid of ' change ', that they feel they are being dragged kicking, screaming and obstructing into reluctantly accepting it needs to change. Instead of setting an example of caring compassion supporting the downtrodden and powerless, it reacts to change badly, becoming intent on preserving the conservative status quo, instead of feeling ‘ it’s heart warmed within it ’ while the Holy Spirit opens its eyes to understand scripture in new ways consistent with where God is leading the church in this age. It prefers,( it would seem), to diet on the stale manna of established conservative interpretation, based quite often on traditionalist views handed down through generations of unquestioning, pious rule keepers. Good at keeping rules but not good at understanding why they should be kept or when it might be right to break them and wrong to keep them. In other words, lacking in wisdom but strong in zeal. Not a good or inspired combination. What is your opinion of the Textus Receptus (Received Text) upon which the KJV was based? The KJV relied too heavily on the Vulgate (Latin) translation, (an English translation of a Latin translation from the original Greek). More and better manuscripts in the language original language in which the Gospels and letters were written, have since been found, which have enabled some of the errors and omissions in the KJV to be corrected and the original to be more accurately restored. Hence The New KJV. For the most part the KJV was as good as was possible for the 16th century translators, but appallingly confusing for a 21st century American to understand without constantly consulting a 16th century English to 21st century American lexicon to explain how the hundreds of archaic words have changed their meanings since king James was on the throne of England. What you appear to be saying is that my belief allows only one meaning to the text of the Bible and that our goal is to discover that meaning. I would be surprised and delighted if I were to learn that you accept scripture may have more than a single ‘meaning’. I think it must have a multitude of ‘meanings’ apart from the obvious. The primary meaning would be what the author and his readers understood it to mean. Secondary meanings might be what it might mean in a 21st century context, what it might mean to a reader who has been led there by God after presenting God with a personal problem or question. ‘If anyone lacks knowledge, let them ask of God.’ There are allegorical meanings in scripture. There are parabolic meanings and so on. They should all be considered as valid interpretations, not dismissed as irrelevant or trivial, the words of God should never be regarded as such. In your case, however, you believe that the meaning of the text depends on how the reader perceives it. Am I right or wrong? You know Allen that I study the background to what I try to understand in the scripture. I don’t just take its meaning to be ‘self evident’ or ‘obvious’. Scripture is not a matter of ‘personal interpretation’. It does not mean whatever we might want it to mean, even when it might seem patently obvious to us or appeal to our most deeply held prejudices, it means what God intends it to mean to the reader, not what the reader decides for himself to make it mean. That is why I am suspicious of those who quote scripture verses to back up their criticism of others. Scripture has supernatural ways of exposing the hypocrisy of those who quote it but do not necessarily ‘live it themselves’. I have met many pious people who are inclined to do this though. It is a ditch I hope and pray I may not stumble into myself. Regards Chris. 0af882ea08853d1c34bcec7ac6022d0d May 11, 2013, 4:28 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119352/?page=unread#119352 Let me add to my previous post, Chris. What you appear to be saying is that my belief allows only one meaning to the text of the Bible and that our goal is to discover that meaning. In your case, however, you believe that the meaning of the text depends on how the reader perceives it. Am I right or wrong? 8e0c9aaea17f46286b9665436e47aa13 May 11, 2013, 1:20 PM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5Brdrcofe%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119351/?page=unread#119351 Hello Chris, One of the first rules of interpreting Scripture is to compare Scripture with Scripture. When you do, you discover that a woman's role in this life has been that of submission to her husband all through the Bible. Since God never changes, Why should it be any different in the church? As for our 'falling out' we won't. We will simple have an open, honest discussion about our differences. Who knows, we might even stumble across a subject we can agree on. (LOL) What is your opinion of the Textus Receptus (Received Text) upon which the KJV was based? Blessings, Allen a6afc7f668eaf126782f93035f28f352 May 11, 2013, 8:56 AM http://www.praize.com/forums/Bible__C4/Bible_Translations_F59/Re%3A_%5BProbiblos1948%5D_Interpretating_the_Bible_P119350/?page=unread#119350 Allen : The factions you mention in the church at Corinth are well known. That is why Paul was writing the letter if I'm not mistaken. You are absolutely right Allen. The big problem for Paul at Corinth was that some of the leadership seemed to have considered him a poor speaker and an inferior Apostle, with no real authority to comment on their conduct, (perhaps a typically male chauvinist attitude, LOL!), they seem though (reading between the lines), to have regarded Paul as having lesser qualifications than themselves, hence we get Paul in 2 Corinthians, justifying himself by rather sarcastic self congratulation, then jokingly berating himself for behaving foolishly, (a sideswipe at the kind of general but un-self aware attitude, which Paul abhors, but is prevalent among the Corinthian leadership). Whole sections of 2 Corinthians should really belong as a stand alone 3rd letter which was probably penned between 1 Cor. and other sections of 2 Cor. (which should then be 3 and 4 Corinthians). What we actually have though is 1 Cor. and an edited collection of other letters to Corinth which present a picture of the church there which is rather more 'favourable' than if we had the entire correspondence between Paul and Corinth, unedited. It is pretty clear though that we don’t have ALL of Paul’s correspondence to ALL the churches he wrote to, so it is not surprising that we only have bits of his dealings with Corinth as well. The Bible is ‘inspired’ scripture, not a complete account of all the dealings with the churches that Paul communicated with, just, and only, what God thinks appropriate for HIS purposes and our education. Which brings me to why it is possible for you and I to differ in how we interpret what we read there, and still to both possibly be right in the way we treat the evidence before us. You are inclined to take everything written there at face value because you are convinced that it means exactly and only what it actually says. That is a perfectly valid way of treating what is there, particularly if you start from the assumption that what you read in the KJV English is actually ‘The Word of God’, which we both agree should always be taken seriously. I on the other hand, want to compare what I see written there with lots of other stuff that Paul wrote and compare it all with these few individual words which appear to ‘go against the flow’ of his general arguments on ‘equality’ and ‘the law’ and our general conduct as followers of Christ and leaders of His people. Your conclusions, though simple and straightforward, are no less valid or accurate than are mine, given the actual evidence we have to go on. As I said, for the most part, we just don’t know exactly what Paul had in mind, nor exactly how much of the text is actually Paul’s, (though clearly MOST of it is, because it bears the stamp of his personality and style all over most of it. The important thing about all this TO US is what affect it might have upon the way we put what we understand it to mean into affect in our daily walk with God and (if we are in leadership), how we structure church government, or (if just a member), how we choose which assembly of believers to serve within. Your choices on all these issues would probably be different than mine, but that is because God is very generous with our freedom to choose. He places very few restrictions on what we believe, but has quite exact ideas on how we should behave toward Him and our neighbour. We both seem concerned to know God’s will in the matters of gender and how we should relate to one another. The fact that we reach different conclusions on how these two passages of scripture should affect our behaviour toward women who feel called by God to pastoring, teaching, preaching or leadership simply means that we have different priorities when weighing ‘the evidence’. WE can both ably justify those different priorities by the scripture we bring to bear on the issue but in the final analysis the only person who can really decide if either one of us or both has rightly or wrongly dealt with the evidence available to us, is Jesus Christ himself, and we will have to wait for the judgment to KNOW exactly what HE thinks about this issue. We are simply not in possession of all the relevant facts about the issue, so we have to use our ‘judgment’, our ‘faith’ and our 'knowledge and overview of scripture'. My guess is that God has deliberately made it so that we have to come to ‘individual’ decisions on the matter. The Bible is ‘inspired’, not an itemized and exact set of instructions to mankind intended to regulate their behaviour in each and every possible situation. If the latter were so it would reveal a God that would be no more than a controlling puppeteer. The God we actually have is one that has high expectations of each of us but whose disappointment never outweighs his love for us. We are actively encouraged by God to decide for ourselves , and think through the consequences, but also to take full responsibility for our ' decisions ' if they turn out to have been 'wrong'. Paul would say therefore that we should not ‘argue’ or ‘fall out’ over the issue, because God is a God of Peace not of confusion, and everything should be done in good order. Regards Chris. 6238dbb7b0c2000bb5a150f42c24a460 May 11, 2013, 12:48 AM