EvilBrain1:
@BabaGnoni

You accuse me of making things up, yet in the next breath you refer to OP who quoted this:

There is good evidence that these two verses were not part of Paul’s original writing, but were added to the text by scribes or copyists. It is never desirable to change Christian practice by omitting a verse of the Bible. Nevertheless, it is honest to recognize that occasionally the biblical text was changed, and in this case there are a number of pieces of evidence that certainly seem to warrant removing these verses that say women should be silent in the church. Before we examine those, however, it must be admitted that if these verses are an addition to the Greek text, it would have been an early addition, because the verses appear in the Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians.

EvilBrain1:
Then wrote this:

frosbel:

"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
- Jeremiah 8:8

EvilBrain1:
Do you have a short term memory problem? You should really get that looked at.
*Edit: I'll modify my last post so that it's clear that I was replying to OP if you like. Hopefully, that should make it stop confusing you.

Also, if Paul wrote Corinthians, then he was a misogynist by definition. Words have meanings which are not subject to your personal opinion..

EvilBrain1:
@BabaGnoni
You accuse me of making things up, yet in the next breath you refer to OP who quoted this:
Then wrote this:
Do you have a short term memory problem? You should really get that looked at.
*Edit: I'll modify my last post so that it's clear that I was replying to OP if you like.
Hopefully, that should make it stop confusing you.

Also, if Paul wrote Corinthians, then he was a misogynist by definition. Words have meanings which are not subject to your personal opinion.

BabaGnoni:


I beg to differ sir, as I would only agree that "lying" scribes made the changes to verses like 1 John 5:7 AND NOT TO 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Yes "unskilled" scribes were not able to properly transcribe the message 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as the question mark in English only got invented afterward most or the early translations

Tradition or ignorance let later translators, instead of inserting question marks, left the semi colon in English translations, just as it was in the original Greek text

There are good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian services of worship. This is the theme of verses 26-33, and it is the theme again of verses 36-40. If one removes verses 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets. The discussion of women appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different matter.

Not only do the verses seem intrusive in the context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to chapter 11, when they pray and prophesy—activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship—they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16). In this passage, which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women both can and do speak in church. In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that "Paul" forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views—either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the short space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derive from Paul
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/03/Did-Scribes-Edit-Women-Out-Of-The-Bible.aspx#TcGo568wWa15eTcI.99

esere826:
@BabaGnoni
Tnx for the video and transcript
I've gone through them.

BabaGnoni:
^^^
frosbel, it beats me why you forced yourself out of hibernation just to knee jerk post the above

You too, like EvilBrain1, obviously haven't watched the video I posted nor read the transcript before trigger happy pulling out the above.

Watch the video and if you and EvilBrain1 are honest about it, both will find Paul been vindicated of misogyny,
furthermore the result of watching it will be a surprising eye-opener!

ifeness:


Nothing holy about those books.

mcfynest:



thats your opinion sir

EvilBrain1:
I didn't reply to your earlier posts because I didn't deem them worthy of a response.
I have limited time and since your arguments are self-evidently nonsense, I decided to spend my energy on the one that seemed more sensible i.e Frosbel's.

I mean first you claimed that Paul was being sarcastic (lol!) with no real evidence outside your own imagination. Then you posted that long-winded video in an attempt to complicate a statement that is really quite simple and clear-cut.

Trying to win an argument by burying your opponent in grammar is a very cheap tactic that does not work here.

I know your pastors are fond of dancing from bible verse to bible verse, reading them out of context and twisting themselves into knots in trying to form a coherent-sounding argument, but this is not church we are not so easily fooled.

Even though I think he's wrong, Frosbel was at least using the legitimate methods of textual analysis and comparison of different texts to make his point that the passage was an interpolation.
There are even notable biblical scholars who agree with him.

I however disagree because I think its cherry-picking by those who want to rehabilitate Paul. If we were to discard every passage that seems to "break the flow of the passage" or "appears in a different location in some manuscripts" or looks suspicious for some other reason; there'll be very little left of the New Testament. We have to accept the fact that it is a hodgepodge written, edited, interpolated, redacted and manipulated by god knows how many people over centuries. We can't just delete one passage in isolation and claim that as proof that Saint Paul was actually a lovely guy instead of the horrible bigot he appears to be. If you remove that passage you'll have to also get rid of all those that suffer the same problems, and you'll end up with a completely different new testament that can fit on one sheet of paper.

ifeness:


A god who is claimed to have destroyed the human race with flood only to preserve the wrong human can't be a good god. Lies. The bible needs to be re edited.

mcfynest:



why would you think he preserved the wrong race

ifeness:


Because it is pure mythology. A flood cannot wipe out the whole world. I am smart,I cannot believe in such evidence-less story

mcfynest:



it has total historical backings and it can also be seen in the myth of other cultures. if it wasnt real, then you can say dragons didnt exists.

ifeness:


Historical back such as......? (care to fill in the gap?). I do not know about dragons,but there is historical evidence of Dinosaurs but not the flood. There can be a flood,but it can only happen in a part of the planet,not water covering the earth. The earth is not flat.