This one is a DOOZY (CC)

[teamturner]

Carmen, this was just my light-hearted attempt to acknowledge that I'm no kind of authority on the Bible, and most certainly on its spiritual aspects.

 

I join the discussion because I've read this work, the world's all time best-seller, largely in isolation (although I have studied some of the works of the great Jewish rabbis) and I have all kinds of questions that people in my almost completely "secular" world never discuss.

 

And this forum is often like finding there is a "book-club" discussing some of the questions I've had for years. So I find it interesting. That's all.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I really appreciate your contributions to Biblical discussions and always look for them in the midst of the conversations. I am impressed at your knowledge on the subject and your efforts to learn more.

 

Thanks!

[Spy Car]

Bill, I really appreciate your contributions to Biblical discussions and always look for them in the midst of the conversations. I am impressed at your knowledge on the subject and your efforts to learn more.

 

Thanks!

 

Thank you Michelle. You over-praise my "knowledge" as I'll freely take ownership of my ignorance when it comes to biblical scholarship, and I do appreciate the education these thread and this forum generally have help provide me.

 

I am curious person, and would have to admit to a slight (profound?) eccentricity when it come to reading texts, or hearing "argumentation".

 

I'm always: "Well what about this? What about that?" Always trying to "test" the logic, looking for holes and contradictions, or lack thereof. Often stacking "pros" and "cons" arguments and counter-arguments to take their measure. It can drive people batty, especially when the decision of the moment is as mundane as "do we get the 7-grain, or the whole-wheat?"

 

I can easily have a "debate" in my own head, in fact do so all the time.

 

When I was in 5th grade I had a very serious teacher. He looked like Abraham Lincoln (if Abraham Lincoln had sharp features like Dick Tracey and no beard, and normal eyebrows...OK he didn't look like Abraham Lincoln exactly), anyway he was the first person I'd met with a seriously conservative worldview (and I actually liked him very much).

 

He'd written (and published at his own expense) a civics text-book called "The American Way of Life". Very interesting information on the founders, concepts of natural law, "inalienable rights, we'd "parse" the meaning of each word in documents and write essays on them, and what-not. I ate this stuff up.

 

But one day, while he was rhapsodizing about the virtues of our founding documents (which I largely share), I raised my hand and asked:

 

What about the slaves?

 

Well I got dragged out of the class-room and was plunked in a kindergarten chair in a kindergarten class for the duration of the day.

 

This is a long story, and to what purpose?

 

It has come to my attention that a small number of people feel my "questions" (which I have thousands more of than I ever dare ask) represent some sort of either anti-religious, or more specifically an anti-Christian agenda on my part.

 

I'm sorry they feel this way, as nothing could be further from the truth. It's just "Bill being Bill". I have a curious and busy mind, and it's one I'm comfortable in.

 

I do hope I don't make others uncomfortable as a result of questions I might ask, or opinions I might offer. I hope my explanation of "where I'm coming from" will help anyone who might have been wondering "who the heck is this person?" and hopefully make them realize they don't have an enemy here.

 

Please forgive my "blogging" on.

 

Bill

[Janna]

Thank you Michelle. You over-praise my "knowledge" as I'll freely take ownership of my ignorance when it comes to biblical scholarship, and I do appreciate the education these thread and this forum generally have help provide me.

 

I am curious person, and would have to admit to a slight (profound?) eccentricity when it come to reading texts, or hearing "argumentation".

 

I'm always: "Well what about this? What about that?" Always trying to "test" the logic, looking for holes and contradictions, or lack thereof. Often stacking "pros" and "cons" arguments and counter-arguments to take their measure. It can drive people batty, especially when the decision of the moment is as mundane as "do we get the 7-grain, or the whole-wheat?"

 

I can easily have a "debate" in my own head, in fact do so all the time.

 

When I was in 5th grade I had a very serious teacher. He looked like Abraham Lincoln (if Abraham Lincoln had sharp features like Dick Tracey and no beard, and normal eyebrows...OK he didn't look like Abraham Lincoln exactly), anyway he was the first person I'd met with a seriously conservative worldview (and I actually liked him very much).

 

He'd written (and published at his own expense) a civics text-book called "The American Way of Life". Very interesting information on the founders, concepts of natural law, "inalienable rights, we'd "parse" the meaning of each word in documents and write essays on them, and what-not. I ate this stuff up.

 

But one day, while he was rhapsodizing about the virtues of our founding documents (which I largely share), I raised my hand and asked:

 

What about the slaves?

 

Well I got dragged out of the class-room and was plunked in a kindergarten chair in a kindergarten class for the duration of the day.

 

This is a long story, and to what purpose?

 

It has come to my attention that a small number of people feel my "questions" (which I have thousands more of than I ever dare ask) represent some sort of either anti-religious, or more specifically an anti-Christian agenda on my part.

 

I'm sorry they feel this way, as nothing could be further from the truth. It's just "Bill being Bill". I have a curious and busy mind, and it's one I'm comfortable in.

 

I do hope I don't make others uncomfortable as a result of questions I might ask, or opinions I might offer. I hope my explanation of "where I'm coming from" will help anyone who might have been wondering "who the heck is this person?" and hopefully make them realize they don't have an enemy here.

 

Please forgive my "blogging" on.

 

Bill

 

OMGoodness Bill! You have described me to a T. People think I am so argumentative and they take offense to it. I truly am a very curious person also and am not looking to fight at all! And it's equally frustrating when someone doesn't give me the time of day to answer my question because they think I don't want the full, honest answer. So I will get the quick-fix answer which is so frustrating to me. I really do want the honest in depth answer! And I really am smart enough to understand what you're saying, thankyouverymuch. :)

 

I can remember being in my jr. high and high school Sunday school classes and youth group and having the kids roll their eyes and sigh dramatically when my hand would go up because they knew what was coming, LOL.

 

When it comes to this message board though, I am not the same way. I am not gifted at writing as so many others here are (including yourself), so my tone is not "heard". Thus my frequent use of words like "genuinely, seriously, honestly, truly, not being snarky"....:lol:

 

There have been many questions of mine that I really wanted the answer to that were never answered (I'm also a thread killer, LOL) so my posts have been geared in other directions for the most part.

 

All that to say that I hear ya! Even about the arguing in my head. And I've been told I am waaaay over analytical. Oh, and a huge pet peeve of mine is when someone says, "I think you're over thinking this" or "I think you're making this bigger then it is". No. I'm not. I really need to know the difference between the 720p and the 1080p on TV's, as well as the difference between plasma and LCD so I can make the *best* informed decision. :D

 

:cheers2:

[Tea Time]

Bill,

I usually just lurk on this board (have for many years, but not the last few, so I am getting used to it again). You remind me of a friend I have that is a physicist. He and I have great discussions (I'm just a homeschooling mom of 12 years). He recommended a book to me once that I think you might like if you have not read it already. It is called Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! I think you would like that book a lot, just for fun.

[Spy Car]

Bill,

I usually just lurk on this board (have for many years, but not the last few, so I am getting used to it again). You remind me of a friend I have that is a physicist. He and I have great discussions (I'm just a homeschooling mom of 12 years). He recommended a book to me once that I think you might like if you have not read it already. It is called Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! I think you would like that book a lot, just for fun.

 

Looks like fun, and I just place a hold at the library. Thanks!

[Spy Car]

Janna, I'm having some issues both with "progressive scan" vs "interlaced scans" and with both LCDs and Plasmas in terms of refresh rates and digital artifacts. While I like the "blacker balcks" in the Plasmas I am concerned about the angle of view, and then there is the profligate use of energy these Plasmas require. Not to mention......:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Bill :lol:

Edited February 19, 2009 by Spy Car

[lionfamily1999]

It has come to my attention that a small number of people feel my "questions" (which I have thousands more of than I ever dare ask) represent some sort of either anti-religious, or more specifically an anti-Christian agenda on my part.

 

Please forgive my "blogging" on.

 

Bill

Perhaps this would be because many Christians have faced athiests, anti-religious, anti-Christian people that have 'studied' the Bible with the intent of ridiculing those that believe it. Sometimes, curiousity can come across as snide or incredulous. Then, there's also the approach that you have to the Bible that, perhaps, upsets people that see it more as a religious document, the word of God, an explanation, a description, a manual for life. I hope I'm not offending you Bill, but because you approach the Bible as a best-seller, your views, coming from a different angle, while different and thought provoking, can also be, simply, provoking. If you don't believe it is a holy book, then it may seem that your knowledge of it is suspect, iykwIm.

 

I hope I have managed to be clear, and nice... I would hate to have to arrest myself ;)

[Colleen in NS]

Janna, I'm having some issues both with "progressive scan" vs "interlaced scans" and with both LCDs and Plasmas in terms of refresh rates and digital artifacts. While I like the "blacker balcks" in the Plasmas I am concerned about the angle of view, and then there is the profligate use of energy these Plasmas require. Not to mention......:tongue_smilie:

 

 

Bill :lol:

 

Eek! :lol::lol:

 

I'm pretty analytical now, too, but am just starting with all my questions.:D

[Lovedtodeath]

OMGoodness Bill! You have described me to a T. People think I am so argumentative and they take offense to it. I truly am a very curious person also and am not looking to fight at all! And it's equally frustrating when someone doesn't give me the time of day to answer my question because they think I don't want the full, honest answer. So I will get the quick-fix answer which is so frustrating to me. I really do want the honest in depth answer! And I really am smart enough to understand what you're saying, thankyouverymuch. :)

 

I can remember being in my jr. high and high school Sunday school classes and youth group and having the kids roll their eyes and sigh dramatically when my hand would go up because they knew what was coming, LOL.

 

When it comes to this message board though, I am not the same way. I am not gifted at writing as so many others here are (including yourself), so my tone is not "heard". Thus my frequent use of words like "genuinely, seriously, honestly, truly, not being snarky"....:lol:

 

There have been many questions of mine that I really wanted the answer to that were never answered (I'm also a thread killer, LOL) so my posts have been geared in other directions for the most part.

 

All that to say that I hear ya! Even about the arguing in my head. And I've been told I am waaaay over analytical. Oh, and a huge pet peeve of mine is when someone says, "I think you're over thinking this" or "I think you're making this bigger then it is". No. I'm not. I really need to know the difference between the 720p and the 1080p on TV's, as well as the difference between plasma and LCD so I can make the *best* informed decision. :D

 

:cheers2:

 

I am like this as well. It took me years to study many different facets of the Bible to accept what I believe today. And one or two scriptures to back up a view is not enough either. I need more than that! My mom took a little bit of offense to my approach. But LCD screens are not as important to me.:D

[Lovedtodeath]

I have been amazed at the amount of biblical knowlege that Bill has as well. One area was on the wine thread, I believe. And he caught me on something that I hadn't noticed when discussing the ransom sacrifice.

 

But I have never once seen him accept anyone's answer or explanation.

 

Bill, thanks for the PM. I appreciate the way you are handling this matter.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

I need genuine help understanding how anything here is contradicted.

 

If the simple sentence is "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:27

 

How does that contradict anything in Ch. 2? I mean, so Ch. 2 says that God created woman from Adam's rib after a suitable help-mate for him wasn't found in the animals. How does that contradict Gen 1:27? It's simply stating that God created man in His image, male and female he created them. In ch. 2, did he not create female? No where in vs. 1:27 does it give a time line or even *infer* a time line for the creation of them. It's a simply stated fact. He created them in his image. Done. Got that. Ch. 2 further explains *how* he created them. It doesn't say that the female was created in a way other than by God. *He* formed her out of Adam's rib. Therefore, he created female.

 

Please, truly, explain to me how this is contradictory.

 

I gotta agree. I've been able to see the "fleshing out" and "just more specific" relation between chapters 1 and 2 way before I was aware that people were looking for contradictions ;)

 

 

 

From my understanding it quite common in modern "biblical criticism"* to view the 5 books of Moses as an a amalgamation of stories from different sources, the major ones have been labeled in short-hand "J, E, P and D".

 

And that what what appear to be contradictions are the result of an editor (or editors) trying to weave together accounts that were somewhat at odds into a unified narrative.

 

the thing is... I'm not really interested in "modern Biblical criticism" lol. The Bible was God-breathed long before scholars got a hold of it. ;)

 

Unlike most other literature, The Bible is written for a specific purpose, to a specific audience, to be read through the lens of faith. Any supposed contradictions are merely our own lack of understanding or resistance to what is being plainly said. {{i'm coming at it from a sola scriptura view.}} There's too much contextual evidence that mesh the two chapters together very well to see continued insistence on a contradiction. .....I guess that's how evolutionists feel when creationists approach them w/ Yet Another Contradiction, lol :lol:

 

 

As for the OP, i think everyone has pretty much covered my own ideas too. There are certainly families where a wife-only submission works, and some where strong leadership from the woman works well. i do think the *breadth* of submission by each partner is open to personal conviction for them, just as I leave baptism and communion to doctrinal/ personal convictions so also I leave submission.

 

Biblical math: 1+1=1.

 

It was interesting to note one pastor's view of the wifely submission clauses: the mutual submission to each other was being taken too far. Great verse for orgies :). It was therefore necessary to clarify that wives were submit only to their HUSBANDS.

but, that's Just Another Opinion ;)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The admonition that servants should submit to their masters seems applicable to all work systems that involve a heirarchy from the military to business to factory. The whole point of that passage is that having found oneself in a position of slavery/servanthood, one brings glory to God through one's behavior. The next verses refer to suffering for doing good and pleasing God through this.

 

I think that deriving a feminist reading of the passage is sloppy. It seems to go something like this. Slavery is bad, therefore admonishions to servants are irrelavant. Admonitions to servants are irrelavant, therefore submission of wives to husbands is bad. Reading the whole passage mentioned seems to refer more to wives of bad or unbelieving husbands, who like the earlier mentioned slaves/servants, bring glory to God and possibly influence others toward Christ through their pure and reverent lives. (Wouldn't a more careful parallel be something like, slavery is bad, marriage is like slavery (through its proximity in this chapter), marriage is bad. Actually there probably are feminist writing that equate slavery and marriage.)

 

Furthermore, I see a command to be submissive to one's own husband, NOT every other Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to tell me what to do. My relationship to my husband is not grounds for someone else to treat me poorly or to assume an authority over me which he does not have. The passage speaks to how one behaves in the various situations that one is in (servant, wife, husband, believer, elder). It does not say that a particular race is only fit to be slaves (slavery at the time was typically the result of economic conditions or warfare). It does not say that all women are inferior to all men.

 

BTW, I agree that slavery is reprehensible. However that viewpoint is a relatively recent one and one that originated in the West. It was/is not a universal viewpoint. I think that the passage is describing how one should behave to those set above one. I don't think that the passage is saying that slavery is good (Joseph certainly didn't relish slavery, on the other hand Daniel was a submissive as possible without disobeying God). Nor do I think that there is any validity to the idea that the Bible dictates slavery as the proper position of a particular race (as sons of Ham).

 

I was the only woman in most of my undergrad and many of my graduate classes. I'd love to have sip a mocha and have at this one.