For ppl who take the bible literally?

Question

In 1st Timothy 2 verses 9-13, it says a lot about what women cant do. Do you people who take the bible literally think these things to be true. Ex: "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over man; she is to keep silent"

I n Revelation 12 verses 13-17 it talks about a dragon and about how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed a river. Do you people think a dragon existed at one time, and do you think the earth actually has a mouth?

Answer 1

I feel as if I've seen these before. Oh, that's right! They're on my list of questions asked by people who read the Bible like a newspaper! Well, here goes:

1 Timothy 2 is easy, but I don't feel like answering it because my Greek lexicon is tucked away in the attic and my interlinear Bible is nowhere to be found. But rest assured, I'll give you a quote from Glenn Miller, who gives an exhaustive exposition on what the passage really means:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Again, when we encounter this in English and with 20th-century Western-civi eyes, this looks relatively clear--but surely we have learned by now to pay attention to the textual and contextual details...

So, what facts to we have to note first?



Verse 11 is a non-issue, and actually provides limited evidence for preparation for a teaching ministry.
The women are to "learn in silence." Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders." (WS:WIC:128)
The phrase "in submission" is closely related to this notion, and together the two images call up the memory of Mary, "sitting at the feet of Jesus" in rabbinical student style (cf. Luke 10.39).

The interesting thing about this is that this was used of "future or current teachers"! Rabbincal students were generally preparing for a teaching ministry, 'wise men' and 'leaders' ALREADY were in teaching/authority roles. So, the very cast that this imperative is set in suggests a FUTURE teaching ministry for those women who learned in the proper fashion of students.


The "learning/teach others" cycle is 'standard' in Paul: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who (nb: generic 'anthropos') will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Tim 2.2).


This becomes a bit more obvious when we compare the 'life-style' teaching given women in more traditional roles (Titus 2.4-5: Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.). There seems to be a sort of 'teacher-track' in view in I Tim 2, and a 'lay person' track in the Titus passage.



When we look at verse 12, we run into a MAJOR exegetical uncertainty:


The verb translated as "exercise authority over" (authenteo) is only used here in the NT, and its meaning is HOTLY contested.

TWO things that ARE sure about its meaning--it is NOT the normal word for "authority" (exousia), "exercising authority" (exousiazo), or "power" (kyrieuo); and it is NOT a 'good' thing (suitable for ANYONE to do--even males!)...so Scholer in WS:WAB:204-205:

Another factor basic to the interpretation of 2.11-12 concerns Paul's use of the unusual word authentein (translated "to have authority over" RSV) in the second injunction (2:12). This is the only occurrence of this word in Paul's writings and, indeed, in the entire New Testament. The word is not frequently used in ancient Greek literature. The precise meaning of authentein and its use in 2:12 cannot be completely resolved at this time; scholars are currently in an extended debate on the issue.

Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.

It is VERY important to point out here that it is PURE FOLLY to base an entire doctrine affecting half the human race (!)--"women should not have authority over men"--on the basis of ONE SINGLE VERSE, and even worse--a single verse where the most important verb is (1) unusual; (2) negative; and (3) not even understood clearly!

Strictly speaking, given this cautionary note, we SHOULD BE able to rest the matter here, but I would like to at least probe a bit further to discover other dynamics in the passage that will either (1) illumine the argumentation somewhat or (2) circumscribe the application of the passage in keeping with the historical context.



The word 'teach' in the verse ("neither teach nor authentein a man") has a major issue associated with it, as well...

The verb is TOO 'big" to NOT be radically restricted in scope by whatever authentein means.


The situation is this. "Teach" takes an object in the accusative case and authentein takes an object in the genitive case. "Man" is in the genitive case, and is therefore the object of authentein. That means that 'teach' (unless it is 'connected' tightly to authentein) is UNRESTRICTED in scope. Paul would be prohibiting women from teaching anybody at any time--in direct contradiction to his plentiful commands for believers to teach/instruct/train each other (e.g. Tit 2.4; 1 Cor 14.26; Col 3.16). So the scope of the application must be limited somewhat in the context.


We have two streams of data that indicate 'qualification' on this verb: (1) the "pairings" in I Timothy and (2) the conjunctions used.


(1) The "pairings" data concerns the fact that the verb 'teach' is ALWAYS matched with another verb in I Timothy, which qualifies, hones, circumscribes its range. The cases are in 1.3-4; 4.11; 6.2b. This would mean that the 'teach' is somehow narrowed to 'revolutionary' or 'out-of-order' or 'disruptive' or 'destructive' teaching.


(2) The "conjunction" data concerns the fact that there is a 'but' between verse 11 and 12. So, we have Paul saying something like "Let the women study/learn as proper students...BUT I am not (currently) letting them (the students, having been under the influence of the false teachers--cf. 1.4-7; 5.13; 2 Tim 3.6) teach nor letting them 'overthrow' their teachers (until they are ready--cf. 2 Tim 2.2)". [The fact that 'teach' is present, active, indicative is indecisive as to whether it is a short-term or long-term command--the data is very divided in the extant literature.]


We also have the conjunction oude ("nor") connecting 'teach' and authentein. This conjunction often connects 'pairs' that mutually qualify one another. In this case, Kroeger (WS:ISNW:84) gives an illustration of how this would look: "I forbid a woman to teach or discuss differential calculus with a man"--the SUBJECT MATTER radically orients the range/scope of the 'teach' word.


Now, if we are dependent on authentein to clarify the meaning/scope of 'teach', and if we do not know what authentein means, then we sort of 'stuck'. The historical context suggests some limits, and the disruptive/destructive nature of authentein suggests some limits, but we need to keep looking for clues.



The word "man" in the authentein clause seems suggestive in context.

This appears to be a very gender-specific word (andros), suggesting that authentein was ONLY DIRECTED (whatever it was) at MEN--not at WOMEN. And, since the passage is apparently ABOUT women, we have women authentein-ing MEN only. Since there had been or were godly women teachers already in Ephesus (e.g. Priscilla and the deaconesses of 3.11), this would make a case that the immodest (3.9), gaudy (3.9), self-righteous (3.10b), unlearned (3.11), and disruptive (3.11) women under discussion in 2.9-15 (no doubt a subset of the women in Ephesus, 3.11; 5.2-9) were SPECIFICALLY teaching something about MEN that led them to seek to authentein them.






When we look at the passage in a bigger context, do we have anything in the text/context/historical setting that might give us a clue as to either WHAT the anti-male teaching was, or WHY there was anti-male teaching/activity?

Maybe.



textual clues:

First, the identical phrase "in quietness" BRACKETS the section on learning/teaching/authentein. This creates a 'packet' that stands alone. This suggests that the following data in verses 13-15 is not a critical support for the argument inside the bracket, but might be illustrative. If authentein is an obviously negative term, and if disruptive or out-of-order learning is commonly disapproved of as well, then Paul NEEDS NO SUPPORT for the 'packet'--his readership does not NEED any evidence or argument--they would ALREADY agree with him.


What they MIGHT need is some clarification of what SPECIFIC items of the teaching of these women would be objectionable to the Apostle Paul. And hence, perhaps 13-15 is an illustration of the false, anti-male teachings of these females who 'professed themselves to be godly'.


Second, the conjunction connecting vs. 13 and vs. 12 is a 'weak' one--gar. This conjunction CAN mean 'because' (as the traditional interpretation of the verse understands it), but that is a less pervasive translation than the softer "for". (The 'normal' word for 'because'--in the sense of supporting argument--is hoti). Gar can easily be understood as illustrative or explanatory--cf. Rom 7.2, "for example"=gar.)


In this case, it could either be an example of (1) the teaching and the authentein-ing; or (2) of the consequences of women NOT BEING TAUGHT, and therefore, vulnerable to the false teaching of evil men. And, since only the "middle" part--about the deception of Eve--makes sense relative to (2), I think (1) makes considerably more sense in the context.


This would allow us to understand the contents of 13-15 as semi-rebuttals of the false teaching. Paul's points in verses 13-15 look something like this:



Adam was created before Eve
It was NOT Adam who was deceived, but Eve.
Childbearing is important and good


IF, therefore, these are the rebuttals, what would the false teaching look like?



Eve was created before Adam (or at the same time?)
Adam was deceived; Eve was not.
Childbearing is 'bad'


Another clue that Paul is only using the material in 13ff as ILLUSTRATIVE rather than DOCTRINALLY NORMATIVE comes from his use of the "Eve/Deception" motif.

That Paul is selective in his use of Eve in 1 Timothy 2:14 seems clear from at least three other Pauline texts. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Eve's deception is a negative model, warning all Corinthian believers--men and women--against false teaching. This shows that Paul did not limit Eve's deceivability to women. In both Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, the apostle attributes sin and death to Adam, not Eve. (WS:WAB:210; cf. also BBC:in. loc.)
What is curious about this text, however, is that Paul does not draw any implication/message from it--he doesn't issue a command. It is like he is only stating the proposition ITSELF (as if the content itself is the issue).


contextual clues:

Our approach here is to find statements and descriptives about the false teaching that was apparently being taught by men, and held to/taught by certain women.



"It seems certain from 2:9-15, 5:11-15, and 2 Timothy 3:6-7 that these [false teachers] have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6-7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings" (Fee, cited in WS:ISNW:62)


it involved speaking nonsense or babbling (5.13) perhaps magic (translated as 'busybodies' in the text)


I Tim 4.7 uses the phrases "myths" and "old women" as purveyors of them.


I Tim 1.4 uses the phrase "myth" and "endless genealogies"


I Tim 1.7 associates it with a strange view of the 'law'


I Tim 4.3 show that they were anti-marriage and 4.4 that they were anti-creation.


I Tim 5.14 suggests that the false teachers were both anti-marriage and anti-childbearing.


I Tim 2.5 points out that there is "ONE mediator between God and Man"


It also points out that there is only ONE God!


Knight (NIGTC, p. 11) summarizes the false teaching in the Pastorals:
The false teachers are characterized by an interest in myths (I Tim 1:4; 4:7; Tit. 1:14; 2 Tim. 4:4) and genealogies (I Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9), a concern with the law or a Jewish orientation (I Tim. 1:7; Tit. 1:10, 14; 3:9), an interest in "antitheses" that they identify as "knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20), a tendency toward controversy, argumentation, and speculation (1 Tim. 1:4, 6: 6:4, 20; Tit. 1:10; 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16,23), deceptiveness (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Tit. 1:10-13: 2 Tim 3:6ff., especially v.13), immorality ( 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; Tit. 1:15, 16; 2 Ti. 2:16, 19; ch. 3), and desire to get material gain by means of their teaching (1 Tim. 6:5; Tit. 1:11; 2 Tim. 3:2, 4).
The historical setting:


Ephesus was legended to have been founded by the Amazons in the 12-13 centuries BC (ISBE, s.v. "Ephesus"), and maintained one of the strongest goddess worship centers in history (WS:ISNW:47-54). This was worship of the Great Mother or maternal principle, who allegedly gave birth to both humans and the gods.


"By the mid-third century B.C.E. Ephesus and surrounding parts of Ionia were already inhabited by Jews; and in the first century BCE, a vigorous Jewish community was able to contend successfully for its civil rights. The Jewish population may have numbered as many as seventy-five thousand persons. Many lamps bearing an inscribed menorah have been recovered, and there is evidence of the involvement of Ephesisan Jews in magic. The Jews of Asia Minor, especially those Phyrgia, had assimilated much of the culture of their surroundings, so that there was a saying, "the baths and wines of Phrygia separated the Ten Tribes from their brethren." Certain elements of Judaism, especially the biblical stories, were adopted by the larger society. At Apameia, coins minted in the reigns of three successive rulers showed Noah's ark. The legend above the box-like ark says "Noah"; but the two persons standing outside the ark indicate that the biblical account has been embellished, perhaps from the Greek flood story of Deucalion and Pyrrha." (WS:ISNW:54-55)


"From the earliest times in Anatolia, female religious officials known as 'old women' kept alive the ancient myths." (WS:ISNW:64).


"These Jewish myths or stories cannot be the traditional biblical sotires, for again and again the writer maintains that wrong teaching must be combatted with the use of Scripture...Ancient writers attest that distorted stories, including perversions of the Adam and Eve saga, were already circulating in the first century of the common era. Recent scholarship suggests that Gnostic-like myths opposed to traditional biblical values may have been afloat in Alexandria as early as the second or first century before Christ. Philo, who died in CE 45, utilizes the very theme which was to draw rebuttal by Paul; namely, mythologizing Eve as the one who brings knowledge and meaningful life to Adam" (WS:ISNW:65)


Full-blown Gnosticism will not emerge for another two centuries, but that a proto-Gnosticism, pre-Christian, perhaps Jewish in basis, circulated in the 1st century AD seems almost certain--the evidence we have "points not to the great Gnostic systems, but rather to a kind of Judaizing Gnosticism...as is found elsewhere" (Dibelius-Conzelmann, cited in NIGTC:28) and "there is no need...to look outside the first century, or indeed the span of Paul's life, for such an amalgam of Jewish and Gnostic traits in the Levant" (Hanson, cited in NIGTC:28).


The type of reverse-Bible story we have in the passage (that Eve was created first; and that Adam was the one deceived) is obviously a distortion of an OT teaching, in keeping with pre-Christian expansions/reversal stories of the time.


Expansions, embellishments, and even 'corrections' to the Biblical stories show up often in the Intertestamental literature--most notably the Pseudepigrapha. These do not necessarily represent "Gnostic-type" currents of thought, but they do demonstrate that people in various situations would 'change the biblical stories' for their purposes. [WS:EWEC:93-130; WS:WLT:67-82; 107-126; 145ff]


The cult of Artemis, the main revenue-generator and "claim to fame" for the city, was particularly woman-centered and immoral (ZPEB, s.v. "Ephesus"):
When the son of Codrus, last king of Athens, founded the city, he placed his colonists near the shrine of an ancient Anatolian goddess whom the Greeks, following the religious syncretism common in the ancient worlds, called after their own goddess Artemis. This was perhaps in the 10th, 11th, or 12th cent. B.C., so uncertain are dates in this borderland of legend and history. The cult thus recognized was that of a nature-goddess, associated with carnal fertility rituals, orgiastic rites, and religious prostitution.
The success of Paul's ministry at Ephesus would no doubt have included some of the priestesses of Artemis (cf. the story of the burning of incantation scrolls by cult practitioners in Acts 19.19). Mickelsen (cited in WS: WIC: 126) shows how these might be in view in a number of the textual situations:
In Ephesus with its huge temple to the goddess Artemis were hundreds of sacred priestesses who probably also served as sacred prostitutes. There were also hundreds of hetaerae, the most educated of Greek women who were the regular companions and often the extramarital sexual partners of upper-class Greek men. Possibly some of these women had been converted and were wearing their suggestive and expensive clothing to church. Since hetaerae were often respected teachers of men in Greece (many are named in Greek literature), they would be more likely to become teachers after they became part of the church.
Paul, of course, had lectured in a Greek secular school for two years there (Acts 19.9), and if the pattern was anything like that in Athens (Acts 17.34), educated women were probably there and were converted under his teaching.


The earliest strands of proto-gnostic and proto-mystery religions we know of had the characteristics of the false teaching in the Pastorals: nonsense syllables, ritual immorality, belief that the woman (variously Eve or other primal female figures) was the source of /origination of the man, belief that this primal Woman was NOT deceived but rather 'enlightened' by the Serpent--and subsequently 'enlightened' the deceived male; obsession with spiritual genealogies, and prohibition against marriage and childbirth.

[Cf. the childbearing issue, held up as 'good' in 1 tim 2.15 and elsewhere (WS:WAB:243): "If the passage is a reaction to a proto-Gnostic type of teaching, verse 15 becomes more comprehensible. Childbearing and marriage were forbidden by certain Gnostic groups because they pulled the soul-atoms back into material bodies instead of liberating them to ascend to their ultimate source."]



Okay, so it LOOKS LIKE Paul is trying to stop a dangerous heresy, by (1) forbidding women from teaching/authentein-ing "proto-something's" counter-biblical views relative to adam/eve/marriage/etc., and by (2) aggressive instruction for women, who could at some point help deal with the issue--esp. among the younger widows.





Now, given this overall pattern in the verse, do we have ANY LEXICAL DATA about authentein that would make sense in this context?

Apparently so.


The lexical work of Kroeger (WS:WAB:225-244) and Kroeger/Kroeger (WS: ISNW:87-104), although complex, documents one important strand of meaning as being "to proclaim as the originator or source of something" (op.cit.). Liefeld summarizes Kroeger in WS:WAB:246: "If Kroeger's understanding of authenteo is correct, the most straightforward translation of the verse would be, 'I do not permit a women to teach or to declare herself the originator of man.'"


WS:ISNW:103 states it thus: "If we were to read 1 Timothy 2:12 as 'I do not allow a women to teach nor to proclaim herself author of man,' we can understand the content of the forbidden teaching as being the notion that woman was somehow responsible for the creation of man."


And elsewhere: "I do not permit woman to teach nor to represent herself as originator of man but she is to be in [peaceful] conformity [ with the Scriptures, as a respectful student]. For Adam was first formed, then Eve..."



This claim to origination was not just some genealogical quibble--the gnostics claimed that their origination gave them access to a 'purer' stream of revelation, truth, and 'knowledge' than the apostolic circles. This was not a trivial matter--but an issue that would radically affect how the church approached the issue of community truth.




Now, if we try to peace this together, certain things seem to emerge:



There were false teachers, at least one of whom must have been a woman, that taught a reverse-bible story about adam/eve.


These teachers argued for their position that women preceded men, and also did not suffer from 'deception'.


They therefore would have claimed to be a source of 'purer' revelation than the apostolic circle and the OT scripture (a standard "Gnostic" claim).


Paul deals with this situation (1) defensively first--TEACH the women the Word; and (2) offensively--Forbid these false women teachers (also characterized by immodesty, pomp, and bragging of godliness) to teach/proclaim this doctrine, and make sure they take their place in the 'classroom' with the other people being discipled according to the Word.


What this would mean for our study, is that this passage does NOT restrict women's role in the early church, but only the roles of FALSE TEACHERS--in this case, with the special case of women heretics.


Remember also the I Cor 14 passage...If I was correct in my understanding of that, then Paul's scope of the 'not teaching' is ALREADY restricted to a VERY specific context confronting the Ephesians. He, accordingly, could not be issuing a 'gag order' without contradicting his earlier argumentation in I Corinthians (assuming that he had not changed his mind for some reason, of course, but we have no reason to assume that.).


[Now, in case I am wrong about this, the NEXT MOST LIKELY understanding of this verse keys off of another translation of authenteo, namely, "to domineer" or to "violently wrest authority from". Under this alternative interpretation, the error was not the 'having authority' (remember, that would have normally used Paul's "standard" authority words) but for "overthrow" or creating imbalance. Men and women were supposed to be 'co-rulers'; to "push the man off the platform and take it alone" is just as bad an error as "not getting up there" when you should be there! It is much more difficult to make sense of the adam/eve verses that follow that instruction, in my opinion, and the childbearing verse is extremely difficult to understand.]"

As for Revelation 12:13-17, the author of this question has obviously never heard of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Read up on it at tektonics.org

Answer 2

Yes, a woman is supposed to be subserviant to man. According to scriptures, she was responsible by her choices for the fall of mankind from the Grace of God (Genesis).
I do not believe it to the extreme that some people go to. A woman is supposed to be a help mate for her husband, and answer to him. She can provide ideas, but she is not to lead the man through life.
for the second part, Yes, dragons did exist, and maybe still do somewhere in a remote area of the world. Through the 1970's and into the early 1990's there was such a creature that attempted to fly off with small children in the Alton, Illinois area, called the Piasa Bird.
There are thousands of drawings that are centuries old of dragons, and after looking at some of the dinosaurs we have dug up, there could easily be a dragon in the mix.
But the Bible also lists another mythical creature....the unicorn. Ancient Chinese drawings show this animal to have existed, and there are other accounts of both dragons and unicorns through the Bible and mans history of art.
But sometimes the Bible says things only in ways that we can understand (or, only in the ways the the scribes were able to write in their level of knowledge.)
You and I know today that an airplane can fly across the country in a matter of hours. But take your mentality back to those ancient days...imagine seeing an airplane overhead for the first time and not having a word to describe it. You would paraphrase to get the point across of the things you have seen from the future.
With that in mind, it would be easier to scribe "the earth opened her mouth and swallowed a river" than to say that an earthquake parted the land and the entire river fell into it.
You've had to have heard the phrase "mouth of the river" before as an explanation for the source of the river coming out of a mountain facing....how different is it for the earth to open it's mouth to swallow another river? ;)

Answer 3

Parts of the Bible are literal - like the part about a woman not being able to have authority over a man (in church/bible related issues) and other parts are figurative - like the dragon and the Earth's mouth. Much of the book of Revelation is figurative while much of the books of Job, Song of Solomn, and Psalms are poetic in nature. The bible is the greatest book ever written so it actually takes some time to read through it and understand it - sorting through the parts that are figurative/poetic and literal. This doesn't mean that we should pick and choose the parts we like and throw other parts out but seriously shouldn't we be more concerned about the parts that are literal that we can deal with everyday - like whether or not women should be preaching and how to get to Heaven. :)

Answer 4

A lot of Christians say they believe the Bible, but they really only belive the parts they like and ignore what they don't. Think of all the women entering the priesthood and becoming pastors. They have authority over men, and the Bible says they're not supposed to!

Revelations is just a book of nonsense. Anyone can interpret it to mean anything at all--just take a look at the number of books written about it, each one interpreting it differently. Yet Christians claim that it tells what's going to happen in the future! THEY can't even figure out what it means, but expect everyone else to be afraid of it.

Answer 5

Hi. You are confused. I will explain.

When reading the bible, you want to remember two things: exegesis and hermeneutics. Basically, who wrote it, what it would have meant to them, and who they were writing to. 1st Timothy was written to a city where the women were upsetting the faithful men. THESE women were not allowed to teach. The reference in Timothy is strictly to those women, not all women.

Revelation is the description of the dream of a prophet (some suggest John). Of course I believe he dreamed of a dragon. Of course I believe that in his dream the earth had a mouth. Besides, if the Earth's mouth had to be opened, that would suggest it had been shut. If it's closed now, how could we possibly know it's there?

I think you need to put more thought into reading the bible. If reading it turns you away from God, I am sorry, but at least you'll have more logical reasons for your disbelief.

Peace!
--Ginny

Answer 6

Drummerboy:
When people say they take the Bible literally, they simply mean so in comparison with the view that takes virtually NONE of it literally, including clearly literal stuff, about Jesus, Moses, etc. (At least, it clearly intends itself to be thought of as literal.)
They do not mean they take every single scrap of the Bible literally, but only as much as historical orthodoxy has.

That's all it means.

The thing in 1 Timothy is generally taken to be a reference to the position of an elder, which is why most churches allow sunday school teachers, but not women elders/pastors, etc.

Revelation, of course, is anyone's guess.

Kieth!! Loved the quote! Muchos gracias! That always seemed like a really strange passage to me...I'll look into this a bit more. Thanks.
-Stephen

Answer 7

I would take you much more seriously if you typed in proper, grammatical English. Have you ever heard the quote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins"? Any entity, be it an individual or a corporation, who seeks to make marriage equality for homosexual couples illegal is swinging their fist into the other man's nose. You may have any belief you want. You may say anything you want. Those are your First Amendment rights. But I also have First Amendment rights, and if you use yours to try to take away mine, you better believe I'm going to react to that. Chik-Fil-A has not been boycotted because the owner is Christian and doesn't believe in gay rights. Chik-Fil-A has been boycotted for donating to anti-marriage-equality campaigns. I have every right to not spend money at a place that will use that money to try to take away my rights. Similarly, I have every right to encourage other people who are or may be affected by that action to also withhold funds from that company. If you have the right to support something, I also have the right to support something--that we are supporting opposite causes is irrelevant. That something is natural does not mean that everyone has to do it, or even that everyone should. It is natural to be a man, but that doesn't mean the entire human race should be made of men. We would have an even bigger problem then, because even if everyone -was- gay, they could still use in vitro fertilization to keep the human race going. If there were only men, we'd have to do a ton of research before we'd even have a chance at not being completely screwed. Should we get rid of men, simply because we can't convert the entire human race into men and still survive? If we put all men on Mars and all women on Venus, we'd have the same problem as if we put all homosexual people on a planet and let them alone. In fact, we'd have a worse problem. Your beliefs are homophobic. Your argument is like trying to say that you're not sexist or anything, but you don't think women should be able to vote. I mean, when did you ever say that you think women aren't equal to men? You treat women with respect just like everyone else. If you believe that gay people should be denied certain rights just because they're gay, your beliefs are--by the modern definition of the word--homophobic.

Answer 8

The thing about the Bible is that a lot of it is poetic, so the interpretation depends on the way it speaks to you personally- that's not to say that you should take seriously only the things that you want, but just that some of the language is metaphorical. Ask yourself how does what the Bible is saying fit into your life today? And if you are a Christian, it's important to make an honest critique of your beliefs: Would your interpretation be acceptable to God? It's a very personal thing- you have to listen to your heart, not to reason.

Answer 9

Dear Drummerboy,

The letter to Timothy is referring to a specific situation in a specific culture. Some churches apply this literally and some dont.

Revelation 12 is metaphorical. For instance, the dragon is Satan.

Cordially,
John

Answer 10

I am afraid you are changing the format for this forum...This site is here to ask a question not to propogate opinion. If you had asked, what do you think about people for take the bible literally? that is one thing. Try rephasing the statements you made into the interrogative. In order to learn you must use good grammar to state the question. Or are you just tying to grandstand.

Answer 11

The bible is really just a story book. Some people think it's real and some people think it's all fiction. The reader can get out of it whatever s/he wants or needs. The meaning isn't the same for everyone.