Evidence for God from Science

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve." 1 Timothy 2:12-13

"If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:35

I think the bible makes it pretty clear that women should not talk in church.

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_de ... p?PRKey=16

So why are women allowed to talk in church?

The a lot of pages on the G & S website answers a lot of the questions your asking, including this one.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

Taken from the page:

On "headship" - This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn't have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her. Since he was legally and morally responsible for pretty much everything his wife did (Numbers 30:6-16), it made sense that she would defer to him in domestic matters. Besides, submission doesn't mean becoming a doormat - it means voluntarily laying aside one's own rights for the sake of the other, and husbands are instructed to love their wives sacrificially as well: "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25)

On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order. In addition, Paul emphasizes that his rules for church are given so that everything would be "done in a fitting and orderly way." (1 Corinthians 14:40) Disorderly communication, such as uninterrupted speaking in tongues, was also prohibited.

On "not being permitted to teach" - Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26). In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of authority in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1). Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12).8 Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, from teaching. To understand these verses (Ephesians 2:9-15), we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently, the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some women were apparently flaunting their new-found Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (1 Timothy 2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.

so if a letter from paul is only addressed to one region, it only applies to that region and not us?

so if a letter from paul is only addressed to one region, it only applies to that region and not us?

In this case it does...

Seraph wrote:

Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (1 Timothy 3:6). The same principle applies to churches today.

In this case it does...

Why only in this case? Because the rule of women being silent in church would be viewed as completely outrageous if implemented today?

No,

we understand this because we understand the historical context of the scripture in question as well as the translation of the scripture. The link examines this well...

Any thorough investigation of scripture must also examine the context of the scripture. We also need to understand whether the scripture is a narrative or historical account or even poetry, for this allows us to fully understand the meaning. For instance, our understanding of a book of poetry would be different than a narrative account of the kings.

You seem to be on the lookout for problems in scripture and your language border on antagonistic. Are you simply seeking excuses to reject scripture or are you honestly wanting to understand?

zoegirl wrote:No,

we understand this because we understand the historical context of the scripture in question as well as the translation of the scripture. The link examines this well...

Any thorough investigation of scripture must also examine the context of the scripture. We also need to understand whether the scripture is a narrative or historical account or even poetry, for this allows us to fully understand the meaning. For instance, our understanding of a book of poetry would be different than a narrative account of the kings.

You seem to be on the lookout for problems in scripture and your language border on antagonistic. Are you simply seeking excuses to reject scripture or are you honestly wanting to understand?

Yes, and the link also tells women to be silent in church

If the gospel only applies to a certain group of people in a certain place in a certain time period, why is it in our bible?

And of course I am looking for problems in scripture. Would it be right for me to just accept christianity without questioning it first? I would convert to christianity, same with any other religion if i knew it was the correct religion. but right now it doesn't look like the right one to me, so i am not christian.

It will be in the scripture because scripture is a recording of events that happened in history. Just like a proper understanding of Shakespeare requires an understanding of the events and culture in England in the time period, scripture requires understanding the culture in Biblical times.

You don't have a problem with that with regard to the books you read and the music you listen too, so scripture is the same.

zoegirl wrote:It will be in the scripture because scripture is a recording of events that happened in history. Just like a proper understanding of Shakespeare requires an understanding of the events and culture in England in the time period, scripture requires understanding the culture in Biblical times.

You don't have a problem with that with regard to the books you read and the music you listen too, so scripture is the same.

so should we just ignore everything in 2 Timothy as long as it isn't mentioned outside of that book? And why don't the gospels only apply to the certain people Jesus was talking to in that certain time period?

Jorge wrote:

zoegirl wrote:It will be in the scripture because scripture is a recording of events that happened in history. Just like a proper understanding of Shakespeare requires an understanding of the events and culture in England in the time period, scripture requires understanding the culture in Biblical times.

You don't have a problem with that with regard to the books you read and the music you listen too, so scripture is the same.

so should we just ignore everything in 2 Timothy as long as it isn't mentioned outside of that book? And why don't the gospels only apply to the certain people Jesus was talking to in that certain time period?

It's not that difficult. The gospel message cuts across social and cultural norms and speaks to the universal condition of man and the need for a savior.

Your premise in the question assumes there are not cultural issues within the gospels themselves too, which is not a valid assumption which makes the point of your question moot.

This is from another post...

"The Bible teaches the full equality of men and women in Creation and in Redemption (Gen 1:26-28, 2:23, 5:1-2; I Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:13, 28, 5:1).

Man and Women in Creation

1. The Bible teaches that both man and woman were created in God's image, had a direct relationship with God, and shared jointly the responsibilities of bearing and rearing children and having dominion over the created order (Gen 1:26-28 ).

2. Woman and man were created for full and equal partnership. The word "helper" (ezer) used to designate woman in Genesis 2:18 refers to God in most instances of Old Testament usage (e.g. I Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1-2). Consequently the word conveys no implication whatsoever of female subordination or inferiority.

3. The Bible teaches that the forming of woman from man demonstrates the fundamental unity and equality of human beings (Gen 2:21-23). In Genesis 2:18, 20 the word "suitable" (kenegdo) denotes equality and adequacy.

4. Man and woman were co-participants in the Fall: Adam was no less culpable than Eve (Gen 3:6; Rom 5:12-21; I Cor 15:21-22).

5. The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created order. Genesis 3:16 is a prediction of the effects of the Fall rather than a prescription of God's ideal order.

Redemption

6. Jesus Christ came to redeem women as well as men. Through faith in Christ we all become children of God, one in Christ, and heirs to the blessings of salvation without reference to racial, social, or gender distinctives (John 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26-28).

Community

7. The Bible teaches that at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came on men and women alike. Without distinction, the Holy Spirit indwells women and men, and sovereignly distributes gifts without preference as to gender (Acts 2:1-21; 1 Cor 12:7, 11, 14:31).

8. Both women and men are called to develop their spiritual gifts and to use them as stewards of the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10-11). Both men and women are divinely gifted and empowered to minister to the whole Body of Christ, under His authority (Acts 1:14, 18:26, 21:9; Rom 16:1-7, 12-13, 15; Phil 4:2-3; Col 4:15; see also Mark 15:40-41, 16:1-7; Luke 8:1-3; John 20:17-18; compare also Old Testament examples: Judges 4:4-14, 5:7; 2 Chron 34:22-28; Prov 31:30-31; Micah 6:4).

9. In the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1 Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:9-15).

10. The Bible defines the function of leadership as the empowerment of others for service rather than as the exercise of power over them (Matt 20:25-28, 23:8; Mark 10:42-45; John 13:13-17; Gal 5:13; 1 Peter 5:2-3).

Family

11. Husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1 Cor 7:3-5; Eph 5:21; 1 Peter 3:1-7; Gen 21:12). The husband's function as "head" (kephale) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7).

12. The Bible teaches that both mothers and fathers are to exercise leadership in the nurture, training, discipline and teaching of their children (Ex 20:12; Lev 19:3; Deut 6:6-9, 21:18-21, 27:16; Prov 1:8, 6:20; Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20; 2 Tim 1:5; see also Luke 2:51). "

Equality of the races

13. The Scriptures teach plainly that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men.” Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Also I thought this article by Rich Deem on sexism and the Bible was good as well..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

well than why does it say

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:12-15)

Even if we ignore the first sentence because it was a specific situation that no longer applies to us, what about the rest?

Jorge wrote:Even if we ignore the first sentence because it was a specific situation that no longer applies to us, what about the rest?

No one is ignoring the first sentence..

Paul was emphatically not excusing or absolving Adam of blame for the Fall. Elsewhere Paul put the responsibility squarely on Adam's shoulders Rom. 5:12-21.

"Silent" (GK 2484) is exactly the same phrase that is rendered "in quietness" in v.11. This is an important Christian virtue for both male and female. Paul was especially opposed to confusion in the public services of the church (l Co 14:33).

As for the second part, I'll quote from a NT commentary on that...

"Literally, the passage reads: "But she will be saved through the childbirth, if they continue in faith .... " The verb "save" (GK 5392) is used in the NT for both physical healing (mostly in the Gospels) and spiritual salvation (mostly in the letters).

Three interpretations of this verse have been suggested.

(1) Since there is a definite article with "childbirth," some have suggested it refers to the birth of Christ, through whom salvation has come to the world.

(2) Closely related to this is the interpretation that connects this statement with Ge 3:15. The seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head and bring salvation to humankind.

(3) By begetting children and thus fulfilling the design God appointed for women, a woman will be saved from becoming a prey to the social evils of her day and will take her part in the local church. This third interpretation fits best with the context and the main emphasis of this letter."

One of the problems with "Scripture" is it's full of rubbish. Messages not directly from God. If you're Christian then you should focus on the things Jesus actually preached and try to see the bigger picture. Don't take the Bible to literally.

There are many things modern churches try to teach you or have you do that are oposite to Christ's teachings. At the end of the day you need to form your own religion. No 2 people share exactly the same faith in the exactly the same thing.

Marcosll wrote:One of the problems with "Scripture" is it's full of rubbish. Messages not directly from God. If you're Christian then you should focus on the things Jesus actually preached and try to see the bigger picture. Don't take the Bible to literally.

There are many things modern churches try to teach you or have you do that are oposite to Christ's teachings. At the end of the day you need to form your own religion. No 2 people share exactly the same faith in the exactly the same thing.

Wow, great arguments there!! ...you just caused me to competely reject everything in the bible!