Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Shaker

C of E to have female bishops after all

Not going to happen any time soon - nothing happens quickly in the religious world - but it's now pretty much a cert.

Quote:
The Church of England is on course to give its final approval to female bishops next year after its General Synod voted in favour of new proposals to bring women into the episcopate, raising hopes of an end to the damaging and frequently bitter 20-year standoff between modernisers and traditionalists.

On the third and final day of its meeting in London, the synod voted in favour of the new plans by an overwhelming majority of 378 to eight, with 25 abstentions.

Proposing the new draft legislation, the bishop of Rochester, James Langstaff, recognised that the synod had been given a "second bite of the cherry" but said that it had come a long way since last November, when the last moves to introduce female bishops fell.
Derek

It is a denominational not Christianity. It is man's decision and not God's. The act is meaningless to Christianity. It is just men assuming authority again. God has made it clear that women should not teach in the church or have authority over men in the church. Satan wants to thwart the plan of salvation. He is being successful at the moment. Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.

Timothy 2

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
God has made it clear that women should not teach in the church or have authority over men in the church.

You missed out the middle man. Somebody wrote that they thought that God has made it clear that women should not teach in the church or have authority over men in the church.

Quote:
Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.

If it's all the same to you I think I will judge this particular denomination on its actions and at the moment I'm judging: "Hmmm. Long, long overdue, but better late than never. Good job."
Derek

[quote="Shaker:99368"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
God has made it clear that women should not teach in the church or have authority over men in the church.


You missed out the middle man. Somebody wrote that they thought that God has made it clear that women should not teach in the church or have authority over men in the church.


What ever is written in scripture is what God wants written in scripture. Man has written words and God has compiled those word by inspiration. There is no middle man. The bible contains the literal word of God.

Quote:
Quote:
Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.

If it's all the same to you I think I will judge this particular denomination on its actions and at the moment I'm judging: "Hmmm. Long, long overdue, but better late than never. Good job."


Which is what I said. Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
What ever is written in scripture is what God wants written in scripture.

Does this include talking snakes, talking donkeys and suchlike?

Quote:
Man has written words and God has compiled those word by inspiration. There is no middle man.

Except that you've just said that men wrote the words, and those men would have been - as everybody inescapably always has been, is and ever will be - products of the very specific times and places and cultures in which they lived.

Quote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.


In other words you're a fundamentalist. Without the fun. Or even without the da, come to that.

Quote:
Which is what I said. Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.

Why not? Could it be because were I to do so - judging Christianity as a whole against this latest development within one particular denomination - for the most part, with other notable exceptions, Christianity doesn't come out so well?
trentvoyager

It is interesting how many relgious people ignore the obvious connections between the culture dominant in a place and at a time, and how that shapes the various religions around the world.

I also find it very odd that some will make a claim that theirs is the only true way (in terms of religion) completely ignoring the fact that had they been born in India they would more likely than not be Hindu and insisting theirs is the only true religion, or born in much of the Middle East and insisting theirs is the only true religion.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
I also find it very odd that some will make a claim that theirs is the only true way (in terms of religion) completely ignoring the fact that had they been born in India they would more likely than not be Hindu and insisting theirs is the only true religion, or born in much of the Middle East and insisting theirs is the only true religion.

One small caveat or even, dare I say, correction if I may: while not unknown - hey, people are people - Hindus are pretty unlikely to come the old one-true-way bit. A religious tradition that old and that syncretistic, that used to picking up bits and bobs here and there over thousands of years, has to a large degree outgrown that sort of narrow nonsense.

Hinduism (a Western word and concept, by the way) isn't polytheistic as is so often and wrongly thought, but then it isn't monotheistic either. Generally speaking it's only in monotheistic traditions that you find this sort of my-way-or-the-fry-way twaddle and that's because when there's only one deity to worship, there's only one right way of going about the religious life and everything outside of that is wrong.
gone

The bible contains the literal word of God.

One hopes not. If the deity is anything like the psychopath portrayed in the not so good book, humans are really stuffed!
Derek

[quote="Shaker:99373"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
What ever is written in scripture is what God wants written in scripture.

Does this include talking snakes, talking donkeys and suchlike?


Yes, of course.

Quote:
Quote:
Man has written words and God has compiled those word by inspiration. There is no middle man.

Except that you've just said that men wrote the words, and those men would have been - as everybody inescapably always has been, is and ever will be - products of the very specific times and places and cultures in which they lived.

Really. Are you serious about this. I could easily take words from the Welsh version of Moby Dick and organise them into a different story without evidence of culture, dialect and history. They are words.  

Quote:
Quote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.


Quote:
In other words you're a fundamentalist. Without the fun. Or even without the da, come to that.


Yes, I would not disagree with being a fundamentalist.

We all believe that we have characteristics of a mentalist.

Quote:
Quote:
Which is what I said. Do not judge Christianity on individual denominations.

Why not? Could it be because were I to do so - judging Christianity as a whole against this latest development within one particular denomination - for the most part, with other notable exceptions, Christianity doesn't come out so well?


Because pure Christianity is God inspired where as denominations are man's interpretation. Pure Christianity leads to certain eternal life if adhered to 100% and denominational beliefs are risky for not achieving anything. It is man's interpretation of God's words versus God's undiluted word. Denominational doctrine is for congregations. Christianity is for individual relationships with God.
Derek

Floo wrote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.

One hopes not. If the deity is anything like the psychopath portrayed in the not so good book, humans are really stuffed!


The flood. A reality or a parable? Both can be expressed as the literal word of God. A literal parable or a literal flood. Which one is it?
gone

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.

One hopes not. If the deity is anything like the psychopath portrayed in the not so good book, humans are really stuffed!


The flood. A reality or a parable? Both can be expressed as the literal word of God. A literal parable or a literal flood. Which one is it?


The Bible was written by humans, with NO input from any deity, imo.
Jim

I don't want to get into the debate about bishops, but there is ample evidence of women in the New Testament leading churches. Also, in those congregations today where women are called to be ministers or pastors, if people come to know Christ through their leadership;
If people's faith is strengthened through their leadership'
If the Gospel is preached and lived through their leadership.....
Is God wrong to allow them to be called to minister?
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.

One hopes not. If the deity is anything like the psychopath portrayed in the not so good book, humans are really stuffed!


The flood. A reality or a parable? Both can be expressed as the literal word of God. A literal parable or a literal flood. Which one is it?


The Bible was written by humans, with NO input from any deity, imo.


By saying ,imo, makes your statement perfectly acceptable. It is your right to believe that as much as it is mine to believe the opposite.
gone

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
The bible contains the literal word of God.

One hopes not. If the deity is anything like the psychopath portrayed in the not so good book, humans are really stuffed!


The flood. A reality or a parable? Both can be expressed as the literal word of God. A literal parable or a literal flood. Which one is it?


The Bible was written by humans, with NO input from any deity, imo.


By saying ,imo, makes your statement perfectly acceptable. It is your right to believe that as much as it is mine to believe the opposite.


And for once I agree with you.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Yes, of course.

Which is sheer insanity.

Quote:
Really. Are you serious about this.

Perfectly.

Quote:
I could easily take words from the Welsh version of Moby Dick and organise them into a different story without evidence of culture, dialect and history. They are words.

I don't even see how this has any relevance whatever to anything I've written. The Welsh version of Moby Dick would be just that, a version: a rendering into Welsh of a book written in English, therefore a translation - which is always imperfect and a matter of compromise - from one language to another. Oh, hang on: perhaps the comparison with the Bible is a bit closer than I originally thought.

Quote:
Because pure Christianity

Which is what?

Quote:
is God inspired

Begging the question.

Quote:
Pure Christianity leads to certain eternal life if adhered to 100%

A certain belief (and then, only for some), not a certain reality.
Quote:
It is man's interpretation of God's words versus God's undiluted word.

There's no such thing. Your opinion that there's such a thing as as an undiluted word of God is itself another interpretation.
Derek

Jim wrote:
I don't want to get into the debate about bishops, but there is ample evidence of women in the New Testament leading churches. Also, in those congregations today where women are called to be ministers or pastors, if people come to know Christ through their leadership;
If people's faith is strengthened through their leadership'
If the Gospel is preached and lived through their leadership.....
Is God wrong to allow them to be called to minister?


God said, via Timothy

Timothy 2

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now you can dissect the scriptures and reform them, you can twist the words and add man's authority to then, you can have them read whatever you want by manipulation and misrepresentation but God said, in no uncertain terms "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" Now, my opinion on it is irrelevant. It matters not what I think, or what you think and interpreter. That is God's word and, therefore, I am compelled to follow his teachings, without to much questioning. When one comes to know Christ one will know that he wants us to follow his teachings. This is his teachings that will lead us to life eternal.
trentvoyager

Quote:
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.



You see - its always the womans fault. I knew it.  

Seriously though Ralph, don't you see that this is just a product of the patriarchal society that existed at that time and reflects their desires and their wishes to control the direction of the society they lived in?

Not any decree of God.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:99397"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Yes, of course.

Which is sheer insanity.


Or a parable or symbolism

Quote:
Quote:
I could easily take words from the Welsh version of Moby Dick and organise them into a different story without evidence of culture, dialect and history. They are words.

I don't even see how this has any relevance whatever to anything I've written. The Welsh version of Moby Dick would be just that, a version: a rendering into Welsh of a book written in English, therefore a translation - which is always imperfect and a matter of compromise - from one language to another. Oh, hang on: perhaps the comparison with the Bible is a bit closer than I originally thought.


The cultures, idioms, dialects, colloquialism would all be irrelevant when compiling the scriptures. It is not a history book, the New Testament is not even chronologically correct. It is not a story book. It was never intended to demonstrate cultures and how they lived. It is a book of commandments, principles and precepts in the form of parables, symbolises, facts and allegories which, if adhered to, will lead to life eternal.

Quote:
Quote:
Because pure Christianity

Which is what?


The Holy Bible

Quote:
is God inspired

Begging the question.

Quote:
Quote:
Pure Christianity leads to certain eternal life if adhered to 100%

A certain belief (and then, only for some), not a certain reality.
Quote:
It is man's interpretation of God's words versus God's undiluted word.

There's no such thing. Your opinion that there's such a thing as as an undiluted word of God is itself another interpretation.


Yes, my interpretation for me and nobody else. Denominational interpretation are supposed to be for entire congregation as though they are all clones of each other. They effect groups of people mine effects me. They impose those interpretations on their congregation. Mine only effects me. I am not forcing anyone to believe me. It is a belief right now with the faith and hope that it will become a reality.
Jim

Ah, thanks, Ralph.
So those women who led, and lead, folk to Christ through their leadership and the preaching of the Gospel of Christ* are mistakes God has made?



& The Gospel of sins forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, Himself God....the only God.
Derek

[quote="Jim:99406"]

Quote:
Ah, thanks, Ralph.
So those women who led, and lead, folk to Christ through their leadership and the preaching of the Gospel of Christ* are mistakes God has made?

How do you come to that conclusions. Timothy words specifically mean Bishops vicar's, priest and such the like. Women are good teachers and leaders in other areas, as good as any man. They are just forbidden to teach in church and have authority over man within the church. It is not a hard concept to understand, plus, it makes no difference what you and I think. It is a commandment that we are expected to keep. We just don't change it because we do not like what it says. The old saying of men doing whatever they want, instead of what they ought to do. Just do it. Just follow Jesus Christ's teachings without question.

Quote:
& The Gospel of sins forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, Himself God....the only God.


I do not know how you are able to come to conclusions like this. The scriptures are simple and true so how you come to think this, I do not know.

1. Jesus Christ atoned for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane making it possible for all of us to be made perfect in Christ. If possible his atonement will make up the difference between perfection and imperfection.

2. He laid down his own life in the crucifixion in preparation for the resurrection.

3. Three days later he took it back up again to lead the way for our own salvation.

The gospel of sin relates to the atonement. The Gospel of salvation relates to the crucifixion and resurrection. How do you relate his death to the forgiveness of sin.

I read your words saying that your friend is now in the arms of God. Where on earth did you get that one from. Is it just your romantic view or is it what you hope will happen, because it is not scriptural. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God and live. The spirit that rises on death is the same in nature as that spirit in life. If we were frightened of spiders here we will be frightened there. If we make unrighteous judgements here we will do the same there. Only when we have been judged, and Christ has abridged our imperfections, will we be in the presence of God. What you are saying is that this person has been judged, Jesus has reasoned with him to abridge those sins and then he has been emitted into heaven. Who told you that? The scriptures say what I have just said so it is not from there. So have you made it up, have you rewritten scripture to suit yourself, have you sacked God and replaced his words with your own? I am genuine, who gave you the authority to speak false doctrine like this. Your friend is in the spirit world being taught the true and everlasting gospel as God intended for it to be taught.
Jim

Er....
But, Ralph, the women to whom I refer, some in the New Testament (You HAVE read the Book of Acts, haven't you?), others in churches today ARE LEADERS...you can call them ministers, elders, presbyters, pastors, whatever.
THey are the focus for leadership in their particular congregation.
Got that?
And, through their leadership - which you claim is wrong and unscriptural - churches grow as people come to know Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as their personal LORD and SAVIOUR.
That means, in layman's terms, they are born again into a new life in Christ.
Is God in error for calling them to leadership in His Church and then blessing His church through their leadership?
Ketty

Jim wrote:
I don't want to get into the debate about bishops, but there is ample evidence of women in the New Testament leading churches. Also, in those congregations today where women are called to be ministers or pastors, if people come to know Christ through their leadership;
If people's faith is strengthened through their leadership'
If the Gospel is preached and lived through their leadership.....
Is God wrong to allow them to be called to minister?


Men tell God He's wrong.

I agree with you Jim, and I'm sure like yourself, I know many women who have the anointing to be a great teacher and preacher of the Word, and pastors of the flock.
Derek

[quote="Jim:99408"]
Quote:
Er....
But, Ralph, the women to whom I refer, some in the New Testament (You HAVE read the Book of Acts, haven't you?), others in churches today ARE LEADERS...you can call them ministers, elders, presbyters, pastors, whatever.
THey are the focus for leadership in their particular congregation.


Why do you have to be so very demeaning? Was there a need for the insertion of "Er...." I have put forward a perfectly good argument. Please do me the honour of responding accordingly, with pious.

Quote:
Got that?


Got What?

Quote:
And, through their leadership - which you claim is wrong and unscriptural - churches grow as people come to know Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as their personal LORD and SAVIOUR.


Do you know that making false claims has been the cause of many altercations between religions.

So, you claim that I think it is wrong and unscriptural for women to be in positions of authority in the church. Please can you provide evidence to substantiate your claim or be branded as a liar.

I said no such thing. I told you that Timothy 2 says that women are not to teach in church. I told you that my personal opinion are irrelevant in the matter. I said that we just have to do what we are commanded to do.

The growth of the church is not dependant on women clergy. Women do not need to be clergy to help bring people into the church. There is no absolute reason for women to administer in church, other then they want to and people today do what they want and not what they ought to do.

The Holy Ghost converts, not men. Nobody comes to Christ unless the Holy Ghost testifies of Him.

Quote:
That means, in layman's terms, they are born again into a new life in Christ.
Is God in error for calling them to leadership in His Church and then blessing His church through their leadership?


So, in layman's terms. Do you feel a sense of superiority when you say that? What does that mean to be born again "In Christ" How is one born in someone else or is that the in words of your religion. Only I followed the admonition of James and the Holy Ghost testified to my soul that Jesus is the Christ. From then on my life changed. Why all the drama of being "born in Christ."

God has called them into leadership. When, how, by whom. Who, in any of the denominations, has the authority to act in the name of God. How did God tell anyone that they are called into a clerical position in the church. Most importantly, why would God say that women should not teach in the church and then call women to teach in the church?  Are you saying that your God is a contradictory God, a liar?  I see no more positivity in our churches that have women priest as opposed to men. I would think that the opposite would be true as women priests are apostate. They are not permitted to hold the Holy priesthood so the whole position is a sham. It is a sign of the time where our churches will be infested with false prophet and doctrines that will take the churches away from that which was established by Jesus Christ. With all due respects, your words are wrong. Your beliefs obscured and the doctrine you preach is false, but hey, I am imperfect to.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Jim wrote:
I don't want to get into the debate about bishops, but there is ample evidence of women in the New Testament leading churches. Also, in those congregations today where women are called to be ministers or pastors, if people come to know Christ through their leadership;
If people's faith is strengthened through their leadership'
If the Gospel is preached and lived through their leadership.....
Is God wrong to allow them to be called to minister?


Men tell God He's wrong.

I agree with you Jim, and I'm sure like yourself, I know many women who have the anointing to be a great teacher and preacher of the Word, and pastors of the flock.


To agree with Jim does not make it right it just makes you both wrong. If God says no women should teach in church then you disobey his commandments all you like. I will do what I am told.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Er....
But, Ralph, the women to whom I refer, some in the New Testament (You HAVE read the Book of Acts, haven't you?), others in churches today ARE LEADERS...you can call them ministers, elders, presbyters, pastors, whatever.
THey are the focus for leadership in their particular congregation.
Got that?
And, through their leadership - which you claim is wrong and unscriptural - churches grow as people come to know Christ Jesus, God Incarnate, as their personal LORD and SAVIOUR.
That means, in layman's terms, they are born again into a new life in Christ.
Is God in error for calling them to leadership in His Church and then blessing His church through their leadership?


Again, you're correct Jim, but as we've observed there are men who think they know better than God.  However it suits their own 'male' agenda to keep women in slavery and subjugation (or at least think they do - a clever woman sometimes allows that).
Lexilogio

Ralph2 wrote:


12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


I teach most weeks. Its my job. I also have managed males.

The Bible was written in context, at a point in time. There are parts of the Bible which insist people cover their heads in church (1 Corinthians)

I do not know of a single Christian church which insists women are silent while in the building - or during the service.

Usurp authority? No one should usurp authority over anyone else. That is different to being granted the authority during a fair and just process.

And as for teach? Titus 2:1-5 - states older women are to teach....
Derek

[quote="Lexilogio:99436"]
Ralph2 wrote:


12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


Quote:
I teach most weeks. Its my job. I also have managed males


If you are talking about your personal job then Timothy's scripture does not apply outside of church. If you act in the position of a called and set apart clergy and have rule over the men of the clergy than you are wrong. Not by my standard but by God's standard. He has forbidden that.

Quote:
The Bible was written in context, at a point in time. There are parts of the Bible which insist people cover their heads in church (1 Corinthians)


It is my belief that the bible was compiled for men of all ages. It is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago. To commit adultery today is no different then to commit adultery when Christ walked the earth. The bible has been written in a way that there are no constraints caused due to history and culture. It is a book of commandments. It was never intended to be a historical record or a reference book for the cultures of those tines. It is a book of commandments, precepts and principles in the form of parables, symbolism, facts and allegories. It was intended to bring men unto Christ's teaching so that we can lead a life that will lead us to life eternal.


Quote:
I do not know of a single Christian church which insists women are silent while in the building - or during the service.


I think you are taking the silience as literal. I took it to mean "not act in a position of authority" not to literally say nothing.

Quote:
Usurp authority? No one should usurp authority over anyone else. That is different to being granted the authority during a fair and just process


Then you agree with that scripture, which says, a woman should not usurp, take away, the authority of men in the church.

Quote:
And as for teach? Titus 2:1-5 - states older women are to teach....


That is not true Lexi. That scripture refers to proclaiming the gospel and not acting as a cleric in the church. It refers to teaching correct principles to our young girls. It does not condone passing and preparing the sacrament.

Titus 2:1-5

1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
gone

I wonder if Mrs Ralphie is obedient to her lord and master?
Derek

Floo wrote:
I wonder if Mrs Ralphie is obedient to her lord and master?


I do not usurp authority over my wife. She wouldn't let me and I wouldn't want to. She lets me do what I like. The washing up first or the hoovering, my choice.
trentvoyager

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
I wonder if Mrs Ralphie is obedient to her lord and master?


I do not usurp authority over my wife. She wouldn't let me and I wouldn't want to. She lets me do what I like. The washing up first or the hoovering, my choice.


 
Quizzimodo

Ralph2 wrote:
Floo wrote:
I wonder if Mrs Ralphie is obedient to her lord and master?


I do not usurp authority over my wife. She wouldn't let me and I wouldn't want to. She lets me do what I like. The washing up first or the hoovering, my choice.
Lexilogio

[quote="Ralph2:99438"]
Lexilogio wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


Quote:
I teach most weeks. Its my job. I also have managed males


If you are talking about your personal job then Timothy's scripture does not apply outside of church. If you act in the position of a called and set apart clergy and have rule over the men of the clergy than you are wrong. Not by my standard but by God's standard. He has forbidden that.

Quote:
The Bible was written in context, at a point in time. There are parts of the Bible which insist people cover their heads in church (1 Corinthians)


It is my belief that the bible was compiled for men of all ages. It is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago. To commit adultery today is no different then to commit adultery when Christ walked the earth. The bible has been written in a way that there are no constraints caused due to history and culture. It is a book of commandments. It was never intended to be a historical record or a reference book for the cultures of those tines. It is a book of commandments, precepts and principles in the form of parables, symbolism, facts and allegories. It was intended to bring men unto Christ's teaching so that we can lead a life that will lead us to life eternal.


Quote:
I do not know of a single Christian church which insists women are silent while in the building - or during the service.


I think you are taking the silience as literal. I took it to mean "not act in a position of authority" not to literally say nothing.

Quote:
Usurp authority? No one should usurp authority over anyone else. That is different to being granted the authority during a fair and just process


Then you agree with that scripture, which says, a woman should not usurp, take away, the authority of men in the church.

Quote:
And as for teach? Titus 2:1-5 - states older women are to teach....


That is not true Lexi. That scripture refers to proclaiming the gospel and not acting as a cleric in the church. It refers to teaching correct principles to our young girls. It does not condone passing and preparing the sacrament.

Titus 2:1-5

1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


You can't have it both ways. You are either literal - and therefore it is silence, not teaching in church (the scripture clearly says silent - in Greek, that is quite clear and unequivocal), or you accept that some of it is metaphor.

The world has moved on. This was contextual written for its time.
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You are either literal - and therefore it is silence, not teaching in church (the scripture clearly says silent - in Greek, that is quite clear and unequivocal), or you accept that some of it is metaphor.

The world has moved on. This was contextual written for its time.

Are we not nibbling at the edges of a broader point here, namely, that the reason that so often forms of religion (and not politics or anything else) attract people who dislike and fear change is that they actively and explicitly want something to be not just eternal but static, which will never move on, alter or metamorphose in any way, and they think that religion gives it to them? Hebrews 13:8 describes Jesus as the same yesterday, today and for ever and there are a great many more statements saying similar things throughout the entire Bible - even though the most absolutely basic and fundamental thing about the cosmos itself is constant, ceaseless change.

It is not remotely surprising to me that the elements most opposed to any kind of forward movement in society - the emancipation of women; easier access to divorce; control over fertility (contraception and abortion); same-sex marriage - are drawn predominantly from the ranks of the various religions.
Derek

Lexilogio

That is how I took it. I know that silience means to say nothing, however, a silent partner does not mean someone who says nothing. It just means he does not get involved. I saw this the same way. That a woman in church is to be a silent partner, not to say nothing.

God is the same today, tomorrow and for ever. The world can move on but he remains the same, never changing. Personally, I believe the context in which it was written is as relevant today as it was then. A principle set in stone will always be a principle. A battle ship can steer its way around a light house. The light house, like the principle, is set in stone.

For me the whole idea of women preachers is irrelevant. I don't attend any organised religion.

Hebrews 13

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles
Shaker

I know the source, Ralph, I cited it in my previous post.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You are either literal - and therefore it is silence, not teaching in church (the scripture clearly says silent - in Greek, that is quite clear and unequivocal), or you accept that some of it is metaphor.

The world has moved on. This was contextual written for its time.

Are we not nibbling at the edges of a broader point here, namely, that the reason that so often forms of religion (and not politics or anything else) attract people who dislike and fear change is that they actively and explicitly want something to be not just eternal but static, which will never move on, alter or metamorphose in any way, and they think that religion gives it to to them? Hebrews 13:8 describes Jesus as the same yesterday, today and for ever and there are a great many more statements saying similar things throughout the entire Bible - even though the most absolutely basic and fundamental thing about the cosmos itself is constant, ceaseless change.

It is not remotely surprising to me that the elements most opposed to any kind of forward movement in society - the emancipation of women; easier access to divorce; control over fertility (contraception and abortion); same-sex marriage - are drawn predominantly from the ranks of the various religions.


Hmmm... You are assuming that because God is the same yesterday, today and forever that he must be static. What is static is universal principles. Thou shalt not kill, will be the same principle for all eternity. Christianity is a progressive belief. How is it progressive? In the accumulation of knowledge. We are constantly learning every second of our existence here. In my opinion, it is a major factor in why we are here. The mysteries of God are being revealed to us all as we pass through this mortal existence, and we have merely scratched the surface in our knowledge of God. Every time I read the scriptures I learn something new. Something I never knew before. When I apply the principles of the gospel in my life I see new effects and behaviours from those I interact with. It is wonderful how you continually acquire new knowledge. Look at science. You will say that is down to the accumulation of men's knowledge, and it plays a part, however, I believe that God spoon feeds our scientists a bit at a time. That the knowledge they gain is only a small part of the knowledge that God has and will reveal to us. No, religion is far from static, however, the principles of the gospel are fixed and set in stone. We stand in the refiners fire being honed for perfection. We are learning how to do that and then applying that new knowledge building on the go r m foundation that we make for ourselves. We are preparing to meet good and that requires progression through the accumulation of knowledge.


7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Thou shalt to kill,


What does that mean in real language?  

God* gives prominence to many significant women in the Bible: going against the culture and traditions of history and the time in which the stories were set . . . and precisely because God* is Alpha and Omega, and His* word is the same throughout time, we can see from the examples He gives us that women are every bit as equal to men when it comes to teaching, preaching, praying and pastoring the flock.

Simples.

And because we have people here who will knowingly preach heresy and LDS propoganda for example, we need to be clear which God* we mean, and  I mean:

* the real One: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Jim

Incidentally, "Thiou shalt not kill" is another KJV poor translation.
A more ACCURATE translation would be "You shall not commit murder."
The two are not the same.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Incidentally, "Thiou shalt not kill" is another KJV poor translation.
A more ACCURATE translation would be "You shall not commit murder."
The two are not the same.


What is the difference
Jim

Quite a lot, surely?
Some have used the KJB version as a justification for pacifism, or the total abstainance of war.
(I'm not saying whether they are right or wrong, here, but only that they have taken the command as read in a very broad sense)
The more correct translation puts a more personal imperative on the text, individualising rather than generalising it.
Derek

[quote="Ketty:99457"]

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Thou shalt to kill,


What does that mean in real language?  

God* gives prominence to many significant women in the Bible: going against the culture and traditions of history and the time in which the stories were set . . . and precisely because God* is Alpha and Omega, and His* word is the same throughout time, we can see from the examples He gives us that women are every bit as equal to men when it comes to teaching, preaching, praying and pastoring the flock.

Simples.


You will have to forgive me. I didn't see who wrote that women were not equal with men. Of course they are in almost everything. Who every wrote that should know that that is not the reason why God said they should not teach in the church. It is not that they should not as much as it is that the cannot, imo. The priesthood is a male thing. As with Adam, all men are to provide both physically and emotionally for their wives and offspring. They have been given the Holy priesthood, after the order of the son of God, to help them do that. To give sickness blessings, comfort blessing, bless the sacrament, give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, speak in tongues and discern. Women simply do not have that priesthood. They simply cannot administer, especially the sacrament. So your assertion that women are not to teach because they are not equal to man is wrong, although I am assuming that you are putting words in the mouths of the innocent again and no one actually said that.

Timothy says that they screwed up with Eve so they are not allowed to have it now.

Quote:
And because we have people here who will knowingly preach heresy


There are a variety of different people here but I know of nobody who would intentionally preach heresy. That is a tad vitriolic, don't you think. I am sure that you are mistaken, or are you trying to wind someone up again. You do that a lot.

Quote:
and LDS propoganda for example, we need to be clear which God* we mean, and  I mean

* the real One: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.


Are you knocking other religions again Ketty. If you do that you must expect a retaliation. LDS believe in the same God as everyone else and in his son Jesus Christ. They are Christians. Only those who make additions to scripture, and promote unauthorized versions of the bible, are not Christians. Oh, that's you.

When someone can show me credible evidence that the nature of the triune, as  you are persistent to describe here, then I will believe it. I am sceptical of men adding to God's word so until then I will believe in the Godhead, as described in scripture.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Quite a lot, surely?
Some have used the KJB version as a justification for pacifism, or the total abstainance of war.
(I'm not saying whether they are right or wrong, here, but only that they have taken the command as read in a very broad sense)
The more correct translation puts a more personal imperative on the text, individualising rather than generalising it.


Anyone who intentionally takes another person's life, without just cause or reason, is guilty of the sin to not kill. The semantics will be sorted out on judgement day. You just do not change scripture because it reads better. That is sacrilege. Whatever next, a redefinition of adultery, a change in not baring false witness to accommodate the exclusion of white lies. Do you really accept that. What happens when you revise the revision. Will we even recognise the bible in a hundred years time?
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:


Anyone who intentionally takes another person's life, without just cause or reason, is guilty of the sin to not kill. The semantics will be sorted out on judgement day.?


Just curious as to what just cause or reasons might be?
I can think of self defence of person/family etc
Soldiers killing other soldiers in wartime?

What else?
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:


Are you knocking other religions again Ketty.


By jove he's gottit!  Other religions:  precisely!  But not all others "Ralph" - only those who are false preachers and teachers in the guise of being 'christian', dear "Ralph"iepoos.  You know, like LDS and their heretical and untrue add-ons which make a mockery of Christ Jesus - the real One: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.  I wouldn't want those who do not yet understand to be led astray and/or misinformed.  
Shaker

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Anyone who intentionally takes another person's life, without just cause or reason, is guilty of the sin to not kill. The semantics will be sorted out on judgement day.?


Just curious as to what just cause or reasons might be?
I can think of self defence of person/family etc
Soldiers killing other soldiers in wartime?

What else?

Mercy killing/euthanasia in the presence of (a) inevitable death anyway and (b) relentless and unmanageable extreme suffering would be one on my list, personally, as well as those.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Incidentally, "Thiou shalt not kill" is another KJV poor translation.
A more ACCURATE translation would be "You shall not commit murder."
The two are not the same.

Thanks for that Jim - I've read of this too and would have said exactly the same. Murder is inherently unlawful killing because that's how the word is defined: the illegality is the factory pre-set, built into the concept. That doesn't apply to the word killing.
Jim

Shaker;
The anti-abortion and anti-euthenasia* lobbies used the KJV translation, which is an error, as justification for their cause.
That's why Christians should use as accurate a version as possible - even if it lacks the Jacobean literal beauty. Whole movements and doctrines are founded on mistranslations ( se WTBTS).

( he said, trying not to derail the thread too much. I have several reservations against euthenasia, but am broadly in favour of assisted suicide in certain circumstances)
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Are you knocking other religions again Ketty.


By jove he's gottit!  Other religions:  precisely!  But not all others "Ralph" - only those who are false preachers and teachers in the guise of being 'christian', dear "Ralph"iepoos.  You know, like LDS and their heretical and untrue add-ons which make a mockery of Christ Jesus - the real One: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.  I wouldn't want those who do not yet understand to be led astray and/or misinformed.  



Right, that is where we differ then because I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. I try hard not to critique other people's choice of religion. I think that is fair.

Well then, let me correct you, again. I was a LDS for 25 years so feel that I am qualified to put you straight on your inaccurate statements on LDS beliefs.

The LDS claim to have received a book, via inspiration, called the Book of Mormon, after the man who abridged it and compiled it. That book is called a companion to the Holy Bible. It is not an addition it is a companion. There is nothing in the BoM that is not in the bible. So no mockery of Jesus Christ, as you inaccurately claim. They are both books of commandments that are identical in principles and precepts. So the fallacious fallacy that you claim it to be an additional set of scriptures is incorrect and deceiving. Now that you know that there is no need to repeat the false claim ever again. Know doubt you will though, just to wind me up.

As for misinformed. Your religion has taken doctrine created by men and have added it to scriptures that warm man not to add or take away from them

Revelations 22

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

That doctrine, that has been created and added to our scriptures, is the doctrine of the trinity and God incarnate. In effect, it is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ, as he never taught that principle. That makes such a belief apostate and false, rendering the believer void of the title of Christian. That actually means that by definition of the word Christian, you are not one, so you are throwing stones from a glass house.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
Shaker;
The anti-abortion and anti-euthenasia* lobbies used the KJV translation, which is an error, as justification for their cause.
That's why Christians should use as accurate a version as possible - even if it lacks the Jacobean literal beauty. Whole movements and doctrines are founded on mistranslations ( se WTBTS).

( he said, trying not to derail the thread too much. I have several reservations against euthenasia, but am broadly in favour of assisted suicide in certain circumstances)

Pretty well spot on, Jimbo  
Derek

Jim wrote:
Shaker;
The anti-abortion and anti-euthenasia* lobbies used the KJV translation, which is an error, as justification for their cause.
That's why Christians should use as accurate a version as possible - even if it lacks the Jacobean literal beauty. Whole movements and doctrines are founded on mistranslations ( se WTBTS).

( he said, trying not to derail the thread too much. I have several reservations against euthenasia, but am broadly in favour of assisted suicide in certain circumstances)


Regardless as to how men think it should read it is sacrilege to change the words, contained within holy writ, so that it reads better. It is a mockery of God saying that he made a mistake when inspiring the translation. If you keep changing words to suit you will end up with concepts added to scriptures that Christ never taught, like the trinity or God incarnate.
Jim

It is indeed wrong to change the words to suit one's own definition.
You have read the Septuagint, the Codex Sinitica, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae and extant mss in the Greek and koine Greek, then?
Derek

Jim wrote:
It is indeed wrong to change the words to suit one's own definition.
You have read the Septuagint, the Codex Sinitica, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae and extant mss in the Greek and koine Greek, then?


No, I have read and studied the King James version of the bible many times. That is all that God requires of us. The simplicity of his inspired word compiled by God for the simplest of minds, mine. I then strive to apply the principles I found there into my personal life. God is omniscient. He knew about any translation difficulties long before the happened. We have what He wants us to have. Revising to suit us is bad manners and disrespectful to deity. My opinion. My belief, My choice.
Jim

You have already been informed that, though the language of the KJV is excellent, its' bias and the paucity of the material used in its' translation means that it is not accurate to the texts used by the earlier (3-6th century ) versions, and, indeed, takes liberties with the available mss making it somewhat unreliable for serious students of the actual Scriptures.
gone

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
It is indeed wrong to change the words to suit one's own definition.
You have read the Septuagint, the Codex Sinitica, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae and extant mss in the Greek and koine Greek, then?


No, I have read and studied the King James version of the bible many times. That is all that God requires of us. The simplicity of his inspired word compiled by God for the simplest of minds, mine. I then strive to apply the principles I found there into my personal life. God is omniscient. He knew about any translation difficulties long before the happened. We have what He wants us to have. Revising to suit us is bad manners and disrespectful to deity. My opinion. My belief, My choice.


Derek

Jim wrote:
You have already been informed that, though the language of the KJV is excellent, its' bias and the paucity of the material used in its' translation means that it is not accurate to the texts used by the earlier (3-6th century ) versions, and, indeed, takes liberties with the available mss making it somewhat unreliable for serious students of the actual Scriptures.


Just because you informed me of what you believe to be true does not make it true. The internet is full of articles stating that the KJV is the most accurate translation still. They say that those 40 odd scholars were inspired when they translated and that they were all impeccably educated and wise. You say it is not. You say that newer versions change words. I am suspicious when I read that changes have been made.

Quote:
We believe that "the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Tradiional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorised Version and say This is the Word of God!' while at the same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture." (The Dean Burgon Society, "Articles of Faith," section II.A.)

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm


Quote:
Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.

Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating expose on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled, "The King James Version of 1611--the Myth of Early Revisions."

Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety

Introduction

Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

revisions.http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_the_king_james_revised.htm
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Just because you informed me of what you believe to be true does not make it true. The internet is full of articles stating that the KJV is the most accurate translation still.

Reverse the order of those two sentences and you've pretty much got it.
Jim

Can I suggest that you accept more scholarly sites such as the Universities of Glasgow, Oxford, St Andrews and Cambridge as the starting point, rather than 'bible-belters' which are inherantly biased?

Why would God reject the earlier msss in favour of copied, re-copied, edited and fragmentd mss, to give His'inspired word'
Aren't all translations of Scripture undertaken in the name of Christ Jesus, by scholars and academics steeped in linguistic and semantics?

Why is the KJV any more inspired than the Wycliffe?
The Geneva?
The NRSV?
The NIV,
or a dozen more?
If Biblica - the International Bible Society - endorses a translation, you can be assured that within the shiifting sands of English usage, it is accurate to the best mss we have.
Lexilogio

I find referral to other versions can be useful. I grew up with KJV, and I do love the poetry of it - and feel it does add to the meaning. However, occasionally it is worth referring to the original language, eg. septugaint, to examine the linguistics for meaning. For me, this is particularly apt because the way greek works as a language is different to English, and therefore some of the meaning is subtly different.

I'm not a scholar of Hebrew though - so would have to bow to others expertise on OT.
Ketty

Jim wrote:

If Biblica - the International Bible Society - endorses a translation, you can be assured that within the shiifting sands of English usage, it is accurate to the best mss we have.


cyberman

Re: C of E to have female bishops after all

Shaker wrote:
Not going to happen any time soon - nothing happens quickly in the religious world - but it's now pretty much a cert.

Quote:
The Church of England is on course to give its final approval to female bishops next year after its General Synod voted in favour of new proposals to bring women into the episcopate, raising hopes of an end to the damaging and frequently bitter 20-year standoff between modernisers and traditionalists.

On the third and final day of its meeting in London, the synod voted in favour of the new plans by an overwhelming majority of 378 to eight, with 25 abstentions.

Proposing the new draft legislation, the bishop of Rochester, James Langstaff, recognised that the synod had been given a "second bite of the cherry" but said that it had come a long way since last November, when the last moves to introduce female bishops fell.


I am pleased to see an Archbishop of Canterbury finally being assertive on this. Predecessors have been far too ready to bend to accommodate those who don't approve.

Some might leave the Anglican communion as a result - though I would guess fewer than the numbers who threaten to - but he will have a stronger more coherent church going forward.
Paul

Strange, but the great ecumenists the liberal wing of the Anglican Church like to think themselves to be, by doing this they put the final nail in the coffin of ecumenical talks with the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. Not that what they do is any of our business, of course, but it's no point throwing a wobbler when we won't talk any more.
Jim

Be honest, Paul.
The CofE would never have done much more than talk about joining the RC communion anyway.
There are too many factions opposed to transubstantiation, veneration of Nary and saints, central authority, received tradition, etc.
Whether it wants to admit it or not, the CofE is more Reformed than Anglo-Catholic.
Plus, the Evangelical wing would probably leave en masse, leaving a massive hole in the CofE budget.

Ecumenism is going quite well as it is!
After all, up here, the CofS and RC churches in my small town share joint Holy Week worship, and the priest and minister swap pulpits annually. There are also housegroups and study groups set up by the congregations of both churches.
`
Paul

Well, I've never been an ecumenist myself or at least I view ecumenism in a completely different way. It starts off with "First you must confess etc."

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum