₦airaland Forum

mihai:
. . . so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

Lol. . . good sense of humour!

islampride:
those that burnt down the civilisations of spain and kiled its inhabitants were not muslims, thise that did and supported the jenin massacre were not muslims either.they are the people u took your religion from./ those that made u today a "slave to the game" by being in trinidad are not muslims but bloody religious christians, the slave master wasnt muslim, the slave breaker wasnt. the hiroshima bombers werent and we know how Bush blowed down the towers, thanks to KRS one, Paris and the rest. also farheneiitt 9-11.
now lwts face it dummie, why would i have to come to trini when i m kool in nigeria? what wil i come for? stare at the naked women on the beaches, ok, just like the priests do to their wards in the confines of their rooms.lol or come drink some liquor just as the anglican bishop of cardiff. .
if all u know about life is wear some bikini and look like a bitch even while going to church so the pastor too like sto get down, try and look for something else, like i ll alwayssay:GET A LIFE.

Goodness gracious! This is bad for the country O!!
Haven't people gone past this low level IQ and reverse education??

The confusion has nothing to do with going to any length to prove anything or bastardise Islam. Muhammad went far beyond conceivable lengths to bastadise other people, cultures and faiths that didn't seek his hurt. The least anyone can do is remove the scales and expose the tyrant for who he is.

My heartfelt prayers for him is that God may mercifully open his eyes, bless him and his family, and save him from the lies from the pits of Muhammad's jinn that continually plague and vex him.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD; and no weapon fashioned against us shall prevail!

TV01:
Any takers for powerful homosexual preachers? Or how about powerful preachers who steal, kill etc etc.

Believe it or not, I've heard adherents of such leaders say precisely the very same thing as worded in neelsel. No harm meant to her, but it came as a surprise to read those lines in exactly as I've heard them defended by members of a homo-church leader:

"My pastor is gay, and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended, . . ."

One such person defending that idea was asked by a friend about the texts the gay pastor used to defend his position. Guess what the answer was? "Look, it just doesn't matter. We should not criticise anybody as long as they're preaching Bible."(sic).

If that terse response held any substance, then for crying out loud, Reverend King should have been left alone - was he not "preaching Bible"??

Anybody can claim to be powerful; we owe ourselves the responsibility of checking out the sources of their claims.

Cheers.

babyosisi:
@ Islam pride . . .

when you begin to threaten harm and tango with demons you must be ready to bear the consequences.

His type never listen - they're called R-I-Qs (Reversed Intelligence Quotients) and slobber on and on about what they have no idea of. If you pray for him, he'll only go super-gaga! If you keep quite, he'll do the viallage dance! Either way, we've got nothing to lose in warning and schooling him - who knows if he'll wake up and grow up.

@topic,

There are clearly different dispensations revealed in God's Word. Those who see anything dispensational as cultic have passed a wrong definition through the backdoor to pep up their misconceptions.

Powerful or not, they probably will not be able to tell you what the texts we've examined say.

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
Another wrong interpretation? because if you say so,there are several other areas permitting lies, from whence that came.

Let's just play with our muslim friends for a while. . . it sort of spices their theories and lies all the more. Please don't release the several other areas until we read their reaction to the above.

Lol. . . lafile

Anyway, let's see if we can make this thread a bit more interesting.

I'm not so sure that the mountain represents closeness to heaven, though the exhortation about the mountain is very interesting. Strictly speaking, Jewish tradition did not view things that way. Remember the Psalmist's question in Psa. 121:1? Many people read this verse as if it is a statement: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills; from whence cometh my help?" In verse 2, the Psalmist himself gives the answer: "My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth."

Jeremiah confirms this when he said: "Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel" (Jer. 3:23). How very encouraging.

@Analytical,

Analytical:
I am using a Parallel Translations Bible that has 10 different translations and comparing all of them, with their Greek lexicons, not just NIV.

It matters what sources those "translations" were patterned after. Most scholars will tell you that the NIV and kindred other "translations" cannot serve as study tools unless the student is looking for lines to buttress preconceived ideas.

Analytical:
You see, it depends on which translations you use, but more translations put Priscilla first.  Not that this means so much nor take anything away from either of them.  The truth is that Priscilla taught and pastored.

You haven't been able to establish this from any version or translation that Priscilla taught in the church.

Analytical:
I disagree with this.  The feminine Nympha predated later manuscripts that rendered it Nymphas.  In fact, you have to do something to it to make it masculine.

Take a simple test: if you are interested in the Greek language, ask yourself "what precedes what" between masculine and feminine constructs. The accents have to be added to make certain constructs feminine; and where scribes were not certain, rather than use a feminine, they used a neuter (it or them). This serves as well in the case in point; and I'm happy to see that not even the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) and ALT (Analytical Literal Translation) missed that reference.

Analytical:
The natural rendition of that name is that of a woman.  The reference to her house church made it clearer.  Consider the Greek used "oikon autees ekkleesian" meaning "her house church"!

As discussed just above - the YLT and ALT will point out the difference.

Analytical:
Stephen was so called, and Philip, they did not just serve tables, they taught.

I'll like some references, please.

Analytical:
The Greek word translated 'succour' is "prostatis" which according to Thayer's Greek Definitions also means "A woman set over others."   How can she be set over others and still be their waiter running errands?

This is what Thayer says:

προστάτις
prostatis
Thayer Definition:
1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

What is wrong here is that some have taken this various meanings to mean that Pheobe was a teacher! This is just pushing the buck. If she was recognized as a patroness set over others to care for their affairs and aid them with (her) resources, how does that translate into teaching??

A kindred sense is given in both Heb. 2:18 and II Cor. 6:2 - both rendered succour and succoured in English, but carrying the very same understanding, as Thayer makes clear:

βοηθέω
boētheō
Thayer Definition:
1) to help, succour, bring aid

As you can see here, it does not convey the idea of teaching; rather, it points to bringing aid or help - in the same sense as Pheobe was recognised for and commended. It does not mean to teach, and to push that idea is to miss the point.

Analytical:
I'm talking about Gunee and andros used for wife or woman and husband/man.

As applied in their context, woman and man fits just the sense.

Analytical:
As can be shown from all these, it's either way.  The discussion has been going on for a long time and may not cease until Jesus comes.  Let us then as men and women serve God in whichever capacity He puts us.  Let it not be traditions of men that limit us in our service of the Master, the only One to whom we shall be accountable at that day.

Great help I've received, no doubt. And may God be sovereign over our ideas. Many blessings. 

Analytical:
NB. All I have shown is from the Word.  Do you ask for my own personal opinion?

Just like any other person's opinion, perhaps it may not be far wide of what I think. But do please share! 

Well, I think mrpataki might be coming from another angle to his question: "is Christianity a religion or a relationship?"

Depending on the perspective of the user of the term, Christianity can be a religion - or, if strictly speaking on Christian theological terms, it's more a relationship than a religion.

For me, what sets Christianity apart from the concept of "religion" is the fact that believers are regarded as the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God. Believers confess God as the Father; Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Lord of all; and the Holy Spirit as the Comforter Who brings the reality of the presence of God in our lives.

A second element about this relationship is the divine nature, life and love that believers have enjoy and express. These are not just high-sounding theological terminologies - they are tangible experiences communicated to those who confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

There are various religious elements observed in Christianity, no doubt - such as prayer, worship, and fellowship. From a socio-political and cultural perspective, when you mention any such words in public concourse, the general feeling is that you're religious! However, it is not a metter of devotion to rituals that defines Christianity. Rather, it is the power and reality of the living God in the spirit of man that establishes the relationship that Christianity offers.

@babs787,

Yes, I saw your "response up" and was posting this when you anticipated me! Here it is anyway:

Refreshing to read your rejoinder with such forthrightness and calm disposition - I just wish the rascals like Jacksnake and islampride who think they're trying to help your cause would borrow a leaf from you.

In anycase, I'm not quite satisfied with your propositions (or, allegations?) of anyone lying against Muhammad by the various links you proffered; so no cheap glory there. Infact, it is because of my concern thereto that I offered the framework for evaluating the life and career of Muhammad himself, notwithstanding what other websites say about the subject.

Unfortunately, you sound very askance to pretend you haven't seen the quotes from the Qur'an and the Hadith that have flooded so many threads to the point. What I offered in that framework was to invite your confirmation or otherwise denial that the quotes are not true, and that Muhammad could not have done what those quotes insinuate.

I quite appreciate your call for posting some of those references - which I will oblige you on the basis of your denial of the questions in the framework offered. While I await your response, please accept my offer to dress warmly for what follows.

Nne trini, I accept that song as proof o jare!

But a stronger proof _{(when the record scratch!)} is found is Scripture - and ishmael and so many others have helped outlined some of them. Bravo to y'all.

Analytical:
1 Cor 3:5 (KJV)
. . .
Ephe 1:7
. . .
The word translated minister here is the same word used for Phoebe in Rom 16:1- The word 'diakonon'. Strong's Greek Dictionary reference for 'diakonon' gives it's meaning as

'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

I repeat, Phoebe ministered or taught like the others called deacons like Stephen etc.

Without much ado, I'll grant that to you; but with just this subscript: The primary meaning of diakonos is not a teacher. Strong's Dictionary:

diakonos
dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties);

No boubt you offered the technical meaning in the context of Rom. 16:1; but in connection to the allusion that Stephen was one of the teachers in that context throws the debate out. Check the references for Stephen chosen in Acts 6, and you'll see there that he was not chosen to be a teacher, but to serve in the daily ministration of those being neglected. The ministration does not point to teaching in church.

Yet, Pheobe being a servant of the church in Rom. 16:1 should not be treated in isolation of its proper context which verse 2 offers. I think mihai has been of very good help in this regard to call our attention to that. It would be dificult for anyone to push the agenda that Pheobe taught in the church unless verse 2 is ignored. She "succoured" many - that's the sense in which she was a "servant"; and this is made clear even in Strong's Dictionary primarily seeing the word "servant" in Rom. 16:1 as an attendant, one who runs errands, a waiter.

Analytical:
I flow with your reasoning, but why won't the rendition of those words be husband and wife under the context they were used, seeing the words were used interchangeably for them?

The words used were specifically 'Adam' and 'Eve', not 'husband' and 'wife' - they were not used interchangeably. Besides, Paul made the same allusion in discussing church matters in I Cor. 11:8-12 as a basis for divine order.

Analytical:
If a woman bears a children and she is not a wife, then the child is a bastard. The scripture does not recommend that and certainly Paul wouldn't have supported what the scripture calls sin.

The point I tried to make is that, for one to suggest that only married women are capable of bearing children is not supported in Scripture or biological science. Paul's allusion to Adam and Eve was not meant to address matters in the home, but rather in the church - again to show divine order in God's economy among His people.

Analytical:
There are many instructions passed to Timothy and Titus, both Bishops actually because they oversee a group of churches, that touched on home issues, because homes and individuals make a church and not a building.

Check again: the context was what happens in church, rather than how people lead their lives in the home. When the church is gathered together, the apostle recommends that women were not to teach or take the lead as speakers.

Have you wondered for a moment why none of the apostles made a similar recommendation concerning any other gifts of the Spirit, such as praying, prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, etc? Why do we infact find the recommendation alone as concerning teaching? Can one use the same arguments of the culture and carnal background in Corinth and Ephesus to make the same recommendation regarding other gifts as regards women in church?

These questions should help shape our thinking about this subject; for my persuasion is that while women can preach and teach in certain settings, they are not recommended to assume the roles of teaching in church!

Of course, I have learnt and am still learning from all inputs; yet, I fail to see how the texts advanced in support of women teaching in church have been able to justify the notion.

Cheers.

Well, luckyCO. . . I've gained much from everyone's input. And God bless you more than your heart's desire!

@Analytical,

Thanks for adding to our understanding and helping us to see your perspective.

Analytical:
Nympha was a woman. It's a feminine name, just like Junia. The same argument against Junia is being used against Nympha, depending on the rendition of the Greek words and where the accent is placed. Four Bible translations, (The New American Standard, The New American Standard Update, The New International Version, and the Revised Standard Version ) all called her a woman. Check the references. Also the word translated 'his' in KJV was translated 'her' in the others.

It's going to take a very indepth analysis to elucidate why the KJV and other kindred translations used the masculine pronoun instead of the feminine. First, the pronoun used there is a perculiar one that could be used for either sexes (him or her) or the neuter (it). It is the persuasion of many translators that the context and background seems to support the masculine pronoun than the feminine. Even YLT uses "his" instead of her, to lend credence that Nymphas was well known to be a male.

Notice I used Nympha[b]s[/b] (not Nympha, which is feminine); however, as above, more of the scholarly translators believe it to be masculine, since the feminine will need an accent to make it so; and early Greek did not use accentuations.

Thirdly, the versions you offered are very helpful indeed in many instances. However, I'm not one to often use the NIV (New International Version) for indepth study. Now this may cause an uproar, but until one comes to the understanding that the NIV is a version and not a translation, it would be difficult to see the point.

Take for instance the NIV rendering of John 9:35 - was Jesus referring to Himself as "Son of Man" or "Son of God"? The NIV says Son of Man; other translations use "Son of God". If you were treating that subject, what would be your persuasion from the point of reference of careful study?

That may be an off topic here, but it's just an example of why I may not class as one to use the NIV and other listed versions in yours as tools for indepth study. Nonetheless, please don't take my views as standard - they are just mine - and I may be wrong!

Analytical:
Priscilla in the references was mentioned first more than her husband. Please check them. I did say, she seems to be more prominent than her husband.

Here:

Acts 18:2,18,26
²And finding a certain Jew by name ^aAquila, of Pontus by race, having recently come from Italy with his wife ^bPriscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome, he came to them. . .
¹⁸And having remained many days more, having taken leave of the brothers, Paul sailed to Syria, having shaved his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow. And ^bPriscilla and ^aAquila were with him. . .
²⁶this one also began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and ^aAquilas and ^bPriscilla having heard of him, took him to them , and did more exactly expound to him the way of God. . ._{YLT, KJV, LITV}

1 Cor. 16:19
Salute you do the assemblies of Asia; salute you much in the Lord do ^aAquilas and ^bPriscilla, with the assembly in their house. . ._{YLT, KJV, LITV}

Romans 16:3
Greet ^bPriscilla and ^aAquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.

Total number of verses quoted = 5
Total number of times Aquila mentioned before Priscilla = 3
Total number of times Priscilla mentioned before Aquila = 2

Analytical:
Phoebe was a deacon. The word translated servant is 'diakonon' which means minister. Check Strong's Greek Dictionary to confirm. The same word was used by Paul to severally refer to himself as a minister in I Cor. 3:5. and Ephesians 3:7

I wouldn't be that simplistic. The occurence of the word does not suggest that all deacons, ministers, or elders were teachers. Check this:

I Tim. 5:17 - "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

There are some who are not to be teachers of doctrine, which I assume is in context with what we have been trying to set forth.

Cheers.

@Islampride,

You really have your eyes turned in your sockets if you think I've been running. . . lol. There's really no need for you to foam in the mouth if you can't keep up. Tip: you can enlarge the fonts to point 24 and embolden them to shout all you want; it won't change the truth of the Bible even if Muhammad denied them to his doom. Just dress warm and keep reading - you will learn a thing or two that will help your reverse-IQ.

islampride:
i say again: Oh All Mighty God, destroy the liar between me and shahan.don't let him live long to enjoy th egoodnessof this world and in the hereafter , make hima loser.

Amen to that - for God has already reserved Muhammad the liar for divine judgement in that great day. If Muhammad encouraged lying, then he is the liar you have cursed. Check the facts:

Ishaq:519
"Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.' Having got Muhammad's permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.' The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.'"

So, if Muhammad was encouraging lies among his followers, I'm sorry to say that your prayers are well suited to him; and may God destroy him, as you said!

islampride:
u claim that a religion that worships three god heads is monotheistic and the one that articulates the unique unity of God as poytheistic?

Islam is refined paganistic polytheism. Period. And I've posted it once and again how the many instances of this in the Qur'an shows that there are more than one pagan idol claiming the same status as the *allah of Muhammad's religion - in creation, worship, and prayer:

Sura 6 vs.94
"And behold! ye come to Us bare and alone as We created you for the first time. . ."

. . . so, who created you for the first time - *allah, or the jinns speaking to Muhammad?

Sura 7 vs.11
"It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate."

. . . who is claiming to have created you and gave you shape, Islampride??

Q.23 vs.12
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth"

. . . who is this impostor - Muhammad's idol (*allah) or his jinn?

Sura 10 vs.12
"When trouble toucheth a man, he crieth unto Us (in all postures)- lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!"

. . . who was this poor man crying out to - *allah and his jinn?

Q.21 vs.73
"And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve"  (transl. by Pickthal: "and they were worshippers of Us (alone)".

. . . worshippers of "US" alone - does that sound like monotheism?? what are you worshipping??

You obviously have not checked out what you have been taught by rote before blowing open your reverse-IQ on the Forum.

islampride:
i say again: Oh All Mighty God, destroy the liar between me and shahan.don't let him live long to enjoy th egoodnessof this world and in the hereafter , make hima loser.

Amen again! Keep shouting to your idol according to Sura 10:12 and 21:73 - shahan is well and alive. Rather than ask that God destroys anyone, my prayer is for you to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (II Pet. 3:9).

@Islampride,

If you only leave your infantile drivel for a moment and give us some of the facts you claim: (a) where is it that Abraham was accused of drunkenness? (b) what did Muhammad's companions claim about his sexual perversion?

@gist,

I must commend you for the level-headed rejoinders you have exuded of late, and encourage you to keep it up. We are all trying to dialogue and learn why issues are the way they are.

However, when you try to defend the conflicting events spelt out in the hadiths, ain't you conceeding to the fact that Islam is convoluted? Aisha confirms in one hadith that Muhammad struck her on the chest such that it caused her pain; then in another the same Aisha comes up denying that claim. Do I suspect that she made the denial under duress, being held to her throat by the prophet's sword?

From all indications, nevermind what the Qur'an claims, in practice women were regarded on the same level as domestic animals - and from Aisha's complaints, that situation was played out to the letter. Not only during the time of Muhammad, but even now the battering of women in Islamic cultures needs no microscope to see.

We would all have to agree that Muhammad was inconsistent in his claim to be speaking from God. For someone who claimed to be speaking the truth, what would you say about Muhammad's encouraging this:

Ishaq:519
"Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.' Having got Muhammad's permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.' The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.'"

@Islampride,

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you'll keep exposing your reverse-education in a public forum. Is this what Islam is doing to your IQ? Can't even construct a sane sentence, because you're so upset that your knuckles are digging into the keyboard. . . all because of shahan?? Titters!

Let me assure you: Muhammad declared with his own mouth that he was a sinner. Not only so, his sins were too numerous to be delineated that he said he turned in repentance to his *allah a hundred times a day! Now if that doesn't tell you anything about your own destiny, my advise is that you don't wait to find out your doom. No argument in capital letters on that day will make sense before the divine judge. You have the chance now to repent and commit your life to the only Saviour whom Muhammad denied. Jesus is called the Christ even in the Qur'an - "the Christ" (Messiah) for the express purpose of the Salvation He brought.

@TayoD,

I quite appreciate your exegesis of Heb. 9:27, although I may not really agree with you that it points more to spiritual death than to physical. Reason being simply that all men die spiritually once (which I agree with what you said), but the construct seems to hold that the writer was pointing more to when men are raised from the dead to face the judgement.

I had formerly reasoned a few years ago that it had to be spiritual death. What gave me the idea of my former position on this was Rom 5:12 & 14 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. . .Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

But then I had a rethink to understand it as a play of words that the writer of Hebrews is characteristically known to punctuate throughout this epistle. Another example is when he states in Heb. 11:17 that Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son when we know that Ishmael preceded Isaac.

What the writer wants us to understand (judging from the construct) is that the common lot of all men (the way of all the earth - I Kings 2:2) is death before the judgement - and you'll see there what the patriarch David meant by that. I'll not push this too strongly, even though I once held your position; but perhaps one day you'll come to see it is not what you might be suggesting. If not, no qualms.


Now regarding the case of Samuel's spirit in I Sam. 28:15, many people are persuaded it had to be a familiar spirit and not the prophet actually. Again, that's what I thought previously, until later study reveals otherwise that it was actually the prophet Samuel. This is one time that God in His sovereignty allowed a case like this in order to confirm to Saul that he had lost the kingdom. I'll wait to see your persuasions about why it is otherwise so, then share with you what you might be missing thereto.

Cheers.

@Ananlytical,

Good points, well articulated. . . but here are a few things that I may not agree with you on:

Analytical:
1 Tim 2 vs 12 (KJV, since YLT seems to be contentious!!)

Shahan requested for a Greek lexicon. The words translated woman and man are (from Strong's Greek-Hebrew Dictionary):

Gunee- meaning wife or woman; e.g. translated wife in I Cor. 7:3 and 27

Please confirm if there is anything contrary.

S[/b]trong's, [b]T[/b]hayer's [b]G[/b]reek [b]D[/b]efinitions, and [b]K[/b]ing [b]J[/b]ames [b]C[/b]oncordance all interpret Gunee as a woman in that verse. Thayer says as occuring in there, it refers to a woman of any age; whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.

Why is it unbalanced to interpret Gunee as [b]wife in I Tim. 2:12? In the first place, verse 10 uses the same generic word which in most Bibles is translated simply as woman or women. Even YLT uses the words "woman/women" in both verses 10 & 12:

". . but--which becometh women professing godly piety--through good works. . and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness."

Again, it is the same word used in John 19:26. Let us follow your rule of reasoning and substitute wife in place of woman: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, 'Wife, behold thy son!' " You do not suppose for one moment that Jesus would have referred to His mother as "wife" , would you?? The verse simply reads:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman [gune], behold thy son!"

Now, you see why YLT uses woman in I Tim. 2:12 instead of wife - because the translators knew it does not make any sense if they used wife there.

Analytical:
Andros-meaning husband or man; e.g. translated husband in Luke 2:36

The same word is used in John 1:30 - "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me".

You see that if you try substituting "husband" where the word "man" appears in the above verse, it doesn't make sense; even though they are the same Greek words. The point to understand is that the Greek expression is a generic word for "man", and the word "husband" is to be understood where it is connected in context with their Greek equivalent "wife/wives". This is not the case in I Tim. 2:12, and that is where YLT got it wrong to have used husband instead of the generic man. It is the same word in Greek that appears in both verses 10 and 12.

Analytical:
The usage of both words in this chapter points more to that of a wife and husband as the basic use.

Check again; I just pointed out the difference above - they're not the basic use.

Analytical:
Moreso, if you follow with the next verses 13-15, refering to Adam and Eve, and then childbearing. Please note, it is a wife that is associated with childbearing, not just every woman.

Lol, how you push that idea is not substantiated even in Scripture. A woman doesn't have to be a wife before she can bear children.

Analytical:
In essense, the words 'I am not allowing' is a present indicative tense that means he is not presently allowing.

There are loads of tenses in that construct that show a finality is meant.

Analytical:
But you may ask why? That brings us again to the context in which this instruction was passed. Remember that Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus, to whom Paul wrote this book -1 Tim 1 vs 3. He put Timothy in charge to properly instruct the young church at Ephesus against myths and false doctrines, where Paul was almost killed by preaching against their goddess.

Every culture presents the same dangers, and there was not a place where the apostles ministered where they didn't face these dangers. Now, if you agree that the epistle recognizes Timothy as a pastor of the church at Ephesus, how do you defend the idea that Paul was instructing him on issues about the home?

Analytical:
The people of Ephesus were neck-deep in the Artemis worship of the goddess Diana. Women were very prominent in the Artemis religion, Diana being their female goddess of fertility and birth. Part of the issues at stake in Ephesus was female superiority, dominance and insurbordination, all stemming from pagan worship of Diana, including the false doctines, part of which is that Diana is the one that delivers from childbearing. This was the background at Ephesus. And this explains why he was not allowing such myths to be carried into the church.

That is a weak premise - men also were found in the various cults in Ephesus. There was no place where the apostle used that as an excuse to ask men to refrain from teaching in church.

Analytical:
Not that Paul was commanding women everywhere not to speak!

We already dealt with that. The sense is universal.

Analytical:
There are enough examples of women in the New Testament church (I don't want to go into those in the Old Testament) even commended by Paul himself. Or was he contradicting himself? These were women that taught and preached in the church, contrary to what you wrote. Here is a list of them

You missed the context, and I'll deal with them momentarily.

Analytical:
Priscilla- She taught and pastored. She appeared to be more prominent than her husband. More often, she was mentioned first. See Acts 18:2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:19; and Romans 16:3.

I've checked up those texts and found that your assumptions were not correct. Priscilla was not more prominent than her husband, and was not more often mentioned first - check again. Second, none of the texts say that she taught or pastored in a church setting; and the only verse that might have been remotely in semblance of the idea to many people is Acts 18:26:

"And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

This does not suggest that the couple took him into church; rather, they invited him to their home and expounded the way of God more perfectly to him. Surely, the couple had a church in their house (I Cor. 16:19), but the case of Acts 18:26 didn't suggest that it was a church setting that Apollos was being discipled.

Analytical:
Priscilla and her husband Aquila co-pastored a church in their house! She even taught Apollos!! Note that there were churches in houses, comprising both men and women, in the early church.

As above.

Analytical:
Phoebe- was a deacon- greek 'diakonon' translated minister or servant. See Romans 16:1. She ministered.
Junia- was an outstanding Apostle, even with Paul's high standard! That should jostle you. Roman 16:7. She was an Apostle of the church, in Christ even before Paul, according to Paul's testimony. Now tell me what does apostle do?
Nympha- pastored a church in her house in Laodicea. She was the only leader mentioned by name there. See Col. 4:15.

mihai has hlped us on that, I think.

Analytical:
There were more in the early church, but these should suffice. Yes, they were not as many as the men, but they were teaching as leaders all the same.

You haven't been able to establish how they were teaching as leaders in the church as the men were, especially in light of the texts that seem to discourage the practice.

Analytical:
The same Paul commended all these. How could he have done that if he meant they should not teach in church when they were all teaching?

Nope, they were not all teaching. The texts didn't say so, and maybe they sounded like they did to you. In light of clear verses to the contrary, I'm not convinced that women were set as teachers in the church.

Cheers.

@mihai,

Very many thanks for pointing out those lines about Nymphia, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Junia. My rejoinder to Analytical's was delayed due to technicla hitches at my end. But we are all learning, and I loved his well-articulated arguments, though.

mrpataki:
When you begin to coerce men to pay to God, then something is wrong somewhere.

Exactly!

@luckyCo,

luckyCO:
What is your oppion on the article?

Here's my opinion about that article: in some sense they may be correct; in other matters, they have a slightly different view than we read in the Bible.

1. Ghosts are not always from Satan; although the devil uses this phenomena to deceive people - in just the same way that he can imitate the gifts of God to deceive some Christians. Recall in I Samuel 28 that the witch of endor used a diabolical art (witchcraft) to stir up the spirit/ghost of a godly man (Samuel) at the request of King Saul. The message delivered by Samuel's ghost/spirit was no different from that delievered by the same prophet when he was alive. Further, the spirit did not pretend to be Samuel, for he clearly queried Saul: "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" (verse 15).

2. Believers are especially warned to be careful not to engage in spiritism - including communicating with the dead (necromancy). That is what Scripture denounces as an abomination before God (Deut. 18:10-12).

3. The stronghold of satanism (including juju, jazz, etc.) can be broken by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. The enemy and his demonic emissaries know a true believer when they see one, because they understand the operations of the realms of spirits; and they know when the name of Jesus Christ is present in someone who lives to honour God in truth.

I hope that this helps, and will be glad to learn from anyone contributing to the subject.

Cheers.