Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Dealing with rejectors.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

What you are proposing can only be true if you throw out all the teachings on the role and place of women. I'll present here a short sermon that summarizes such:

Again, these are not "mine" teaching but what anyone can simply read in the Bible.

BTW, I commend you on being a preacher's wife and a mother to five children.

Sir, the "sermon" you posted here does nothing to refute my comments on English grammar. You must have missed my point, which was that the word "man" in the Bible often (but not always) refers to "humans," both male and female. This is an elementary concept which is easily shown in verses such as the ones posted by amblivion. Here are some more:

Genesis 6
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 7
21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

There are so many more cases in which the masculine word is used to refer to mankind in general, including both males and females. As I said before, this is inherent in language usage, and not just in English. Not until very recently (in English) did it become common to use "he or she" and "him or her" to mean the same thing that "he" did before.

Another point to consider is that Scripture clearly uses words like "whosoever" (a word that doesn't place limitations on gender) in verses which explain the way of salvation. See John 3:16; John 4:13-14; John 11:26; 12:46; etc., etc., etc. (too many more passages to list here).

Did you check out those links I sent you? Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



There are so many more cases in which the masculine word is used to refer to mankind in general, including both males and females. As I said before, this is inherent in language usage, and not just in English. Not until very recently (in English) did it become common to use "he or she" and "him or her" to mean the same thing that "he" did before.




That's a fact and the changeover was greatly influenced by the radical feminists. I find the use of "he or she" to be annoying, a waste of print and time. It's also a shame that most Christians and supposed conservatives have adopted this new style of writing.

As to the actual point of your post, you are certainly correct, both grammatically and biblically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

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

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

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

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

Among other things, the word "saved" can mean "not wasted", "unrestrained" "absolved" "liberated" and even "emancipated" Look up the synonyms.
In the context, the subject is about a woman teaching men. She is to be in silence and subjection because of her tendency to be deceived. The "transgression" here, in context, simply means that Eve was in the wrong just like Adam was. Notice the second part of verse 15; the word "THEY". This is refering to her children. Put it all together and verse 15 is basicly saying that all the silent learning of a Godly, submitted woman will not be wasted if she uses her knowledge to teach and raise Godly children. So a truly emancipated, Biblically liberated woman, is one lives right, dresses in a Godly manner, doesn't usurp authority over men, But trains up her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You can read about her in Proverbs 31. But the verse has nothing to do with "salvation" as in salvation from Hell.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a woman cannot have children, it is because of her transgressions! If a woman truly believes, she will be forgiven, and will be able to get a husband and to have children. How old was Sarah when Isaac was born? All a woman has to do is to truly believe. Jesus heals and Jesus provides for his faithful! Praise!


So it can never be because of the man's transgressions? A lot of couples can't have children because the man is sterile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thomas are you saying you would kill someone because they don't agree with the Bible or rather your view of the Bible? Would you go and blow up an abortion clinic because of what they do?

Anyways, I have noticed you have not answered a lot points that people have brought up. You can not just ignore the truth. If you have truth, you should be able to logically and Biblically refute what is not true. Be sure your answers are in context and not what you think the Bible says.

Edited by amblivion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thomas are you saying you would kill someone because they don't agree with the Bible or rather your view of the Bible? Would you go and blow up an abortion clinic because of what they do?

Anyways, I have noticed you have not answered a lot points that people have brought up. You can not just ignore the truth. If you have truth, you should be able to logically and Biblically refute what is not true. Be sure your answers are in context and not what you think the Bible says.



Very much agreed. I would like to see Thomas engage with the rest of us in some meaningful dialogue instead of throwing up some vapid sermons and scripture taken out of context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thomas are you saying you would kill someone because they don't agree with the Bible or rather your view of the Bible? Would you go and blow up an abortion clinic because of what they do?

I would always follow the Bible. Again, there is such thing as "my view of the Bible". Bible is the authority, not me! About the slaughterhouses for the unborn, there is a need for political change to outlaw these.

Anyways, I have noticed you have not answered a lot points that people have brought up.


One man can only do so much.

You can not just ignore the truth. If you have truth, you should be able to logically and Biblically refute what is not true. Be sure your answers are in context and not what you think the Bible says.

My answers are in context, without any "interpretations".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would always follow the Bible. Again, there is such thing as "my view of the Bible". Bible is the authority, not me!


Oh dear. There is such a thing as law that we are no longer bound by because we are now under grace. If you go around killing everyone because you have labeled them a rejector and you think it is sanctioned by the OT then you belong in jail. By that logic, we should prOBably burn people who plant different crops side by side or stone pretty much everyone for ever wearing clothing made from two different fabrics. Anyone with a brain knows that that is flat out ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
One man can only do so much.

True, but if you're going to drop bombs like you're dropping here (asserting that only males are saved by grace/faith alone), you're going to need to engage the questions that come as a result. You're evading the main issue, sir. You have not answered some pretty important OBjections to your view that women must bear children to enter heaven:
--You haven't posted the Scripture BroMatt requested which indicates that all infertility is due to personal sin.
--You have ignored amblivion's and my comments about how masculine words can be used to encompass both genders, as in the Scriptures we posted.
--You have not engaged other possible interpretations of the passage in question (I Timothy 2).

If you could attempt an answer to these questions, I'd appreciate it, as they get to the heart of the issue you brought up in the original post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

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

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

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

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

Among other things, the word "saved" can mean "not wasted", "unrestrained" "absolved" "liberated" and even "emancipated" Look up the synonyms.
In the context, the subject is about a woman teaching men. She is to be in silence and subjection because of her tendency to be deceived. The "transgression" here, in context, simply means that Eve was in the wrong just like Adam was. Notice the second part of verse 15; the word "THEY". This is refering to her children. Put it all together and verse 15 is basicly saying that all the silent learning of a Godly, submitted woman will not be wasted if she uses her knowledge to teach and raise Godly children. So a truly emancipated, Biblically liberated woman, is one lives right, dresses in a Godly manner, doesn't usurp authority over men, But trains up her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You can read about her in Proverbs 31. But the verse has nothing to do with "salvation" as in salvation from Hell.

That's an interpretation. Bible says no such thing. We are not to add to the Word, remember?!
These verses state, plain and simple that the woman is secondary to the man, and that she was in transgression but will be saved. That's what the Bible says, and so this is what we are to believe. Not more, not less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

True, but if you're going to drop bombs like you're dropping here (asserting that only males are saved by grace/faith alone), you're going to need to engage the questions that come as a result. You're evading the main issue, sir. You have not answered some pretty important OBjections to your view that women must bear children to enter heaven:
--You haven't posted the Scripture BroMatt requested which indicates that all infertility is due to personal sin.

Like I said, a man can only do so much. I don't live on the Internet, dear.

Regarding these scriptures:
Exodus 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Leviticus 5:17
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

--You have ignored amblivion's and my comments about how masculine words can be used to encompass both genders, as in the Scriptures we posted.

The question of masculine words would require a rather lengthy explanation. I will address it in more detail, but to put it simply, much can be understood from the context. But much can be missed because of our feminazi and sin based bias. The theme throughout the Bible is that woman is more or less an accessory to the man. Like, say, a pair of shoes. It is indeed ridiculous to use terms like "he or she", but much more so in the Biblical context. It's like saying, "you and your shoes". Nevertheless, if you are talking specifically about someone's shoes, then you do say "shoes". Likewise when something is related to the women's issues, Bible is very specific in stating so. Like in 1 Timothy 2:15.

--You have not engaged other possible interpretations of the passage in question (I Timothy 2).

I do not engage in interpretations. I read the Bible, and I believe and follow what it says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I do not engage in interpretations. I read the Bible, and I believe and follow what it says.




And your point is valid? Please read John 6:47- 58
John 6:47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

So have you eaten Jesus' physical flesh or drank his physical blood at anytime since you were born? I would say not. So by your own admission to what the bible says, I guess you don't have eternal life right?


How come you never addressed Kleptes post here. He has a very valid point in your understanding of the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Like I said, a man can only do so much. I don't live on the Internet, dear.

Regarding these scriptures:
Exodus 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Leviticus 5:17
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.


The question of masculine words would require a rather lengthy explanation. I will address it in more detail, but to put it simply, much can be understood from the context. But much can be missed because of our feminazi and sin based bias. The theme throughout the Bible is that woman is more or less an accessory to the man. Like, say, a pair of shoes. It is indeed ridiculous to use terms like "he or she", but much more so in the Biblical context. It's like saying, "you and your shoes". Nevertheless, if you are talking specifically about someone's shoes, then you do say "shoes". Likewise when something is related to the women's issues, Bible is very specific in stating so. Like in 1 Timothy 2:15.


I do not engage in interpretations. I read the Bible, and I believe and follow what it says.


First of all, there is absolutely no reason for your condescending tone towards Annie or anyone else for that matter. I have no idea why you are talking about shoes, but I know that my Lord and Savior does not view me tantamount to a pair of shoes. He gave me a brain (with a higher IQ than many men mind you) and has given me specific gifts and skills to use for his glory. Women have a specific and special role just like men, but it is not to be an accessory like a pair of shoes. If the Bible is only speaking to women when it says women then I guess women don't have to follow then 10 Commandments or a whole lot of other things for that matter.

And finally, if you engage in communication then yes, you do engage in interpretation. We interpret what we read, see, hear, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...