| Re: |
1 Timothy 4:7King James Version (KJV)
7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
| 2016/7/22 12:28|
| Re: Feminist translation |
This post is void of any edification. Not even funny.
| 2016/7/22 16:31||Profile|
| Re: feminist theology |
Feminists adopt a variety of hermeneutical techniques, applying them to the Biblical text.
For example, one feminist theologian insists that four structural elements are essential for a correct interpretation of the Bible:
1) A hermeneutic of suspicion:
readers can and must question the Biblical writers’ interpretation, as the texts are androcentric and reinforce patriarchy. Since the Bible was written by men and was most often interpreted by male theologians, it could not be trusted. This hermeneutic of suspicion allowed the reader to raise questions regarding the validity of the Biblical authors' interpretation. They raise suspicion of the church "fathers" as being sexist and biased to do away with traditional beliefs, opening the door to re-interpretation.
2) A hermeneutic of proclamation:
those parts of the Bible which affirm liberation should be proclaimed, the rest rejected. Namely, those portions of the Bible that proclaim liberation for oppressed women should be accepted, and those that don't should be rejected, attributing them to historical patriarchal structure.
3) A hermeneutic of remembrance:
reclaim and honour the suffering of all women who were victims of patriarchy. This hermeneutic of remembrance focuses on abused and disparaged women. It's work is to remember and emphasize the misogynistic attitudes and behavior of the past in order not to repeat it.
4) A hermeneutic of creative actualisation:
rewrite the biblical text to ‘put back’ the forgotten women into their rightful place. This allows you to embellish or augment the Biblical text by entering the Biblical story and retelling it from a feminist perspective.
I'll elaborate more on these in my next post.
| 2016/7/22 23:01||Profile|
| Re: Feminist theology 2|
Feminist theologians encourage all Christian women to become involved in theology. Theology being the basis of liberation is an act of freedom! One should search out the right questions about the Bible and Ecclesial tradition, and rather than accept a certain text as being inspired, question everything because it was written by men and no women.
If a doctrine or text does not agree with a woman's experience of oppression and quest for liberation, then you are free to revise it. Since the message of the Bible is liberation to all, specifically to women from the rule of men, then this evil spirit of misogynism that is ostracizing women is the sin that must be exposed.
These feminist theologians believe that the Bible is male-biased, and in its traditional translation can be used by men for the self perpetuation of patriarchy. According to these feminist theologians, the Bible itself needs liberation from the human fetters of misogyny which have shackled it. Therefore it must be re-translated.
So to excise the root of patriarchy from the church and society, two major theological mistakes must be corrected, feminist theologians say. A wrong view of God, and His Word the Bible. This theology of their's they say, will heal the built-in misogynism on many levels and liberate women. They say that the effects of the fall must be reversed. For it is in the beginning, the fall of Adam that this patriarchy began.
| 2016/7/22 23:54||Profile|
| Re: |
Is this what you believe Savannah? What do they do with Jesus Christ a man who saves them?
In Christ: Phillip
| 2016/7/23 2:12||Profile|
| Re: believe |
Is this what you believe Savannah?
I answer, No! I'm not a feminist nor do I believe their false feminist theology. It is satanic, as it attempts to dethrone the LORD God Almighty, and devilish as it slanders God's Holy Name and His Holy Word.
I believe what God hath said, not the fables, myths and lies made up by these deceivers.
Here, for example is what God hath said;
". . .yet your desire shall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you" Gen 3:16b
". . .its [sin's] desire is for you,
but you [Cain] must master it." Gen 4:7b
". . .and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:16b
". . .and unto thee shall be its desire;but do thou rule over it. Gen 4:7b
In regard to these verses in Genesis I believe;
In Genesis 4:7 sin's desire is to enslave Cain, to possess or control him, but the Lord commands, urges Cain to overpower sin, to master it. An active struggle between Cain and sin is implied.
The woman has the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain,
a desire to possess or control him. This desire disputes the head-ship of the husband. As the Lord tells Cain what he should do,i.e., master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband should do, rule over his wife.
The words of the Lord in Genesis 3:16b, as in the case of the battle between sin and Cain, do not
determine the victor of the conflict between husband and wife, but merely mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes.
As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman's desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love
founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination. Experience also corroborates this interpretation of God's judgment on the woman.
The desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife
(more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin.
Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife. This interpretation is true because:
(1) It is consistent with the context, i.e., it is judgment for sin that the relation between man and woman is made difficult. God's words in Genesis 3:16b destroy the harmony of marriage, for the rule of the husband, part of God's original intent for marriage, is not made more tolerable by the wife's desire for her husband, but less tolerable, because she rebels against his leader-ship and tries to usurp it.
(2) It permits a consistent understanding of the Hebrew word translated desire in the Old Testament also consistent with its etymology.
(3) It recognizes the parallel between Genesis 3:16b and 4:7b. The interpretation of 4:7b is clearer; we know from the context that sin's desire to Cain involves mastery or enslave-ment and that Cain did not win the battle to rule sin.
(4) It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives as a result of God's proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for elders to rule their families.) "Shall rule" is not an indicative statement in the Hebrew, if God states that something will come to pass, it will. A.F.
| 2016/7/25 7:42||Profile|
| Re: No|
How refreshing is your answer. So also the rest of your answer.
In Christ: Phillip
| 2016/7/26 6:45||Profile|
| Re: Love|
Ok savanah I removed it.
Thank you for in love and the fear of God being mindful of your brothers conscience.
(Probably could have done without the "teasing" afterward though. It may surprise you that some of us likely wouldn't attend an "art" museum that displays nudes.)
| 2016/7/26 10:20||Profile|
| Re: Taunting and unedifying scoffing|
Does anyone know were SI went? I'm still looking for it.
What purpose does such commenting serve? Couldn't this be seen as "trolling"? If you have nothing to add, why comment at all?
And more importantly, do you have a biblical basis for posting such comments? Is this in accordance with the Law of Christ?
I find matters such as the one this brother is seeking to discuss and bring attention to, be as politically incorrect as they may, deserve our consideration in this hour.
Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'"
~ Jeremiah 6:16
| 2016/7/26 10:36||Profile|
| Re: |
I hate feminism but my reasons are completely different. This how I see it now without deeply going into study this subject:
God did not intend that Adam rule Eve. They were partners, Eve did not want to rule either. They were both under God, He ruled both of them and they were obedient. The problems started after the fall, when they were separated from God. I believe it was not the will of God but part of the curse that they were under that they desired to rule over each other. Both the wife's "desire" and the man's rule were the expression of their fallen nature. God designed the man to lead but not to rule. What is the difference? Think of the difference between the judges and the kings of Israel, the judges lead the people according to Gods cousel while the kings ruled (meaning selfishly, expliotatively, without the counsel of God)
God did not want Israel to have a king He wanted to be their king, He allowed this situation because the people asked for it. I think God allowed the unredeemed man to rule over unredeemed wife, but that was not his perfect will. We christians are the redeemed chikldren of God. Our curse is taken away by the death of Jesus, and we are born again to live an abundant life for Him with his resurrection power. We are not separated from God Jesus came to put an end to that separation. Each and every believer men as well as women received the holy spirit and through him the rule of Jesus over our life. This is not a forceful rule we gave our life voluntarily. This divine rule is the essence of our christianity. We all (including women) are called to have a personal relationship with God and do not need a mediator other than Jesus. He is the one that saved us from our sins and from the rule of Satan, as well as from our self will. We are now in a similar state that Adam and Eve were in the Garden, except that we have a flesh that is unredeemed and needs to be crucified. When we walk in the spirit, we all obey God, men lead the women as God intended but do not rule them God is the one who rules. However God did not take us out of this world and in order to live in it peacefully we obey the authorities as commanded by God. So for example if a christian woman has a fleshly husband who wants to rule over her she obeys God by submitting to this husbands rule as long as it does not require to commit sin against God. If the husband is walking in the spirit but the wife is fleshly and wants to rule over the husband, the husband should refuse her rule and patienly lead her to bring her under the rule of God, but not rule over her. If both are walking in the spirit, they are equal partners where the husband leads and both equally obey God who rules over them. If a wife obeys God she knows and understands all about the leadership of the husband. The worst case that could happen is that they both walk in the flesh, this is when the old curse comes to effect and the wife "desires" and the husband rules. (Please observe that God is not even in the picture). This is what fuels the dynamic of many marriages in the world, but should not be with us.
| 2016/7/26 11:42|