Paul's view of women

[Ingledsva]

And why would I need to prove - talking serpents, talking donkey, attendant birds, obedient bears, 3 days in a big fish - and live, a too small Ark, Adam and Chav'vah, world flood and the races and populations we now have from only 3 sons and their wives in under 6000 years, sticks into serpents, magic wand making, fertility magic, magic bowls, sea-splitting, dead rising out of graves and walking around, and on & on & on, are myth?


This is obviously myth.

Didn't you posit in my epic "made in the image of God" thread that the 'talking seerpent' could have meant a person?
Not sure I'm buying the literal presentation of scripture you are stating here...

I did indeed. The word can mean Sorcerer. However, the Bible doesn't make this clear in this ONE instance, and obviously the story places him with Adam and Chav'vah in Eden, which is myth, and obviously all the rest are myth.

Probably teaching myth.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Probably teaching myth.

Who isn't...

 

[Shuttlecraft]

And why would I need to prove - talking serpents, talking donkey, attendant birds, obedient bears, 3 days in a big fish - and live, a too small Ark, Adam and Chav'vah, world flood and the races and populations we now have from only 3 sons and their wives in under 6000 years, sticks into serpents, magic wand making, fertility magic, magic bowls, sea-splitting, dead rising out of graves and walking around, and on & on & on, are myth?

This is obviously myth.

Remember, Jesus said-
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
And God said- "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55:8 )

That's why the Bible has to use metaphor, analogy, symbolism and parables to get its message across to our dull human brains.
For example, think of Noah's Ark as a "DNA repository craft", DNA samples are so tiny that it could carry a sample from every creature on earth and still have room to spare..

The film "Silent Running" had a kind of "ark" in it, it was a spaceship with great big domes full of plants and animals-

We could even speculate that the planet Earth itself is the "ark", sailing through space with its precious cargo..

 

[Ingledsva]

Remember, Jesus said-
"You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things,so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
And God said- "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55:8 )

That's why the Bible has to use metaphor, analogy, symbolism and parables to get its message across to our dull human brains.
For example, think of Noah's Ark as a "DNA repository craft", DNA samples are so tiny that it could carry a sample from every creature on earth and still have room to spare..

The film "Silent Running" had a kind of "ark" in it, it was a spaceship with great big domes full of plants and animals-


We could even speculate that the planet Earth itself is the "ark", sailing through space with its precious cargo..

We are given the specs for the ark, and it definitely wasn't a spaceship. It uses ****tim wood.


*

 

[james2ko]

ING - You can hold all the faith you want. It is NOT a debate technique!

1. Neither is ignoring a simple question.

You sway no one by such circular logic.

2. After your exhibition of shoddy logic, neither do you sway anyone by your faith.

And again - you need to take off those - Pat-Yourself-On-The-Back-Blinders, - you have proved nothing. You just keep putting up pages like this one - claiming such! I have asked you multiple times to go back to the actual debate and prove me wrong. You don't - so I will assume you can't.

3. I proved you wrong several times. The text indicates Paul as the author. There, your wrong about him not authoring the epistles. Now you have to prove to me from the same text he was not....And I have asked you multiple times to answer my question and prove me wrong. You won't--so I will assume you can't.

ING - What exactly does that have to do with the fact that you lied , saying you had read all the material?

4. A false accusation from the "fallacy" queen? Why am I not surprised...LOL! Can you prove to me I lied about reading all the material? I'll give you a heads up--it's a trick question, which I'm sure you'll ignore.

ING - Dude - You are being about as illogical as it gets. You are telling me to disprove Paul wrote them - by using the Bible text in question - that says he did! You are the one using Circular logic - not me. I pointed you to Biblical scholarship debating the authors, and dates.

5. Faith to a Christian is far from illogical. If the bible contains contradictions, as you believe, you should have no problem finding a statement stating Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. C'mon ING that shouldn't be too hard for ya, right?

ING - I've already pointed you to sites showing the authorship and date debates.

6. Liberal, speculative opinions about the text and its authorship is unconvincing to say the least. I want proof from the text you claim contradictory stating Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. Still waiting...

ING - Again - you have refuted nothing - you try to use circular logic as fact, - and continue to put up these long pages that have no debate what so ever in them.

7. And you have proved nothing and continue to to put up these long responses that do not have the answer to my question.

ING - It is truth and you need to take a look at your own posts.

7a. Then you should have no problem linking me to more than one post proving to me the reason people (plural) give up on me and put me on their ignore list is due to my circular logic. I eagerly await the answer to this one. I feel another "flatulent" stinky fallacy coming from you...LOL!

ING - LOL! Well, at least you know your argument is illogical because it is circular logic, - rather then evidence. No I don't have a circular argument. I have shown sources, translations, etc. Real Biblical scholarship, etc.

8. Yes, maam. It's about the one thing we both have in common---"faith" in our sources.

Circle-Circle-Circle - see 8 and 9 above. Another few minutes of my time - wasted - because you refuse to actually debate.

9. Here let me help you solve your illogical, self-perpetuating, circular dilemma....Stop responding..LOL! Or answer my simple question: Where in the text does it specifically state Paul did not ultimately author his epistles?

ING - Faith is not circular logic. Trying to use the text in question - as proof of its own authenticity - IS!

10. Faith is using the text in question as proof of its own authenticity. You just contradicted and refuted yourself in an attempt to explain how faith is not circular. You simply can't stop embarrassing yourself...LOL! You obviously have no books on logic in that messy (your word not mine) library of yours. Wait...Perhaps that is where and how your "messy" logic originated...LOL! Keep it com-ING...I have all the time in the world to expose your "soiled" thinking.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

We are given the specs for the ark, and it definitely wasn't a spaceship. It uses ****tim wood.

So what? wood was all they had in them days, and it needn't have been a spaceship, just a boat. Boats are all you need to survive a worldwide flood, no need to fly into space..

 

[james2ko]

That is, most of the “best MSS and early editions” already said Adonai in those instances, not YHWH. As I have been saying we do not know what sources the Masoretes used. But based on the above comment the odds (‘most’ versus ‘some’) are that the sources they used already said Adonai, not YHWH.

I thought I had understood you to say that the Masorah – the notes provided by the Masoretes as distinct from the Masoretic Text itself – stated that they intentionally changed YHWH to Adonai. Perhaps I misunderstood. Rather it is an inference made by Ginsburg. And it ignores the 315 times that YHWH does appear in the MT. Why were those not changed?

In any case, it is definitely not the case that the Masoretes were the first to write Adonai instead of YHWH. And it is not even clear that they did it at all based on what Ginsburg actually wrote.

Let me put it to you this way, the Hebrew speaking Jews on this thread, who I'm sure are much more learned about this topic than you and I, had no objection to less evidence than I presented to you. Like I said earlier, we are all learning from each other.

 

[Ingledsva]

So what? wood was all they had in them days, and it needn't have been a spaceship, just a boat. Boats are all you need to survive a worldwide flood, no need to fly into space..

We are given its size! It would have been way-way-way too small!


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

We are given its size! It would have been way-way-way too small!

Nah not if it was just carrying tiny samples of DNA from every creature on earth!
There'd still have been enough space left for a karaoke ballroom, bingo hall and bowling alley..

 

[Desert Snake]

We are given its size! It would have been way-way-way too small!


*

Animals have instincts to survive floods, now you're the one being way too literal.

 

[Alt Thinker]

I have a library-office in my home. I put a picture of one side of my messy library in my pictures, it goes floor to ceiling all the way around.

Only one book room? And not even dedicated?

 

[Alt Thinker]

Let me put it to you this way, the Hebrew speaking Jews on this thread, who I'm sure are much more learned about this topic than you and I, had no objection to less evidence than I presented to you. Like I said earlier, we are all learning from each other.

We do indeed learn from each other.

I followed your link. Where are the posts from Hebrew speaking Jews who believe that the Masoretes were the first ones to change YHWH to Adonai? I do see you arguing that the changes were recorded in the margins by the Masoretes, which I asked to see and you did not provide. And you have not addressed what I noted above, that Ginsburg himself said that most early/best manuscripts already say Adonai. What DSS manuscripts say is not really relevant since the Masoretes did not have access to them.

 

[james2ko]

We do indeed learn from each other. I followed your link. Where are the posts from Hebrew speaking Jews who believe that the Masoretes were the first ones to change YHWH to Adonai?

1. Read the whole thread. It's only five pages. Their silence to the evidence I presented on the motive for the substitutions; the testimony from Ginsburg; the DSS; and the fact the Masoretes were mentioned throughout our discourse without any objection to them being the agents of the changes, speaks volumes.

I do see you arguing that the changes were recorded in the margins by the Masoretes, which I asked to see and you did not provide.

2. Once again an inaccurate statement. You said: "The change made by the Masoretes was to add the vowel-signs for Adonai to YHWH as a reminder to say Adonai. If the book you referenced says otherwise, please provide quotes and links/page numbers If you cannot do that, please provide a quote from a reputable source that states that the Masorah explicity says that the Masoretes changed YHWH to Adonai."

So it was one or the other. After the evidence for the former request was provided essentially proving your proposition inaccurate, now you are requiring evidence for the second request which was optional prior to me proving you wrong. Not playing fair AT. You know that's fallacious reasoning called moving the goal post.

And you have not addressed what I noted above, that Ginsburg himself said that most early/best manuscripts already say Adonai.

3. You are mistaken once again. Ginsburg actually said: "some of the best MSS and early editions read the Tetragrammaton"

What DSS manuscripts say is not really relevant since the Masoretes did not have access to them.

4. In spite of what you believe, Jews give more credence to the text contained in the much older DSS, which is why they had nothing to say when I presented the evidence.

 

[Alt Thinker]

This is the post by make2ko being responded to below

I followed your link. Where are the posts from Hebrew speaking Jews who believe that the Masoretes were the first ones to change YHWH to Adonai?

jame2ko:
1. Read the whole thread. It's only five pages. Their silence to the evidence I presented on the motive for the substitutions; the testimony from Ginsburg; the DSS; and the fact the Masoretes were mentioned throughout our discourse without any objection to them being the agents of the changes, speaks volumes.

I read the whole thread, which is in fact 11 pages long. What I saw was Jewish posters strongly disagreeing that the scriptures could ever change, something I never claimed. The DSS does demonstrate that there are variant versions of ancient manuscripts, something already known before the DSS was discovered, as Ginsburg himself said. But I see no trace whatsoever of Jews agreeing with your contention that the Masoretes were the ones to change YHWH to Adonai. In any case the evidence you presented in that thread (and in this one) is exactly what we are debating.

Here is the link you referenced. The debate with the Jewish posters ends on the next page.

Alt Thinker:
I do see you arguing that the changes were recorded in the margins by the Masoretes, which I asked to see and you did not provide.

James2ko
2. Once again an inaccurate statement. You said: "The change made by the Masoretes was to add the vowel-signs for Adonai to YHWH as a reminder to say Adonai. If the book you referenced says otherwise, please provide quotes and links/page numbers If you cannot do that, please provide a quote from a reputable source that states that the Masorah explicity says that the Masoretes changed YHWH to Adonai."

So it was one or the other. After the evidence for the former request was provided essentially proving your proposition inaccurate, now you are requiring evidence for the second request which was optional prior to me proving you wrong. Not playing fair AT. You know that's fallacious reasoning called moving the goal post.

I still have seen no evidence that the Masoretes stated anywhere that they changed YHWH to Adonai. If you are referring to the quote from Ginsburg that you provided, it says no such thing. Rather Ginsburg infers that the Masoretes changed YHWH to Adonai by comparing the MT to older manuscripts. If there were any comments from the Masoretes to that effect Ginsburg would not have to infer anything. He would have had proof positive in hand. We may therefore conclude that the Masoretes never said any such thing.

Here is the quote from Ginsburg:

"We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS and early editions read [have written in them] the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain! The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written אדני [adni] instead of יהוה.[YHVH] Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massorah itself in giving the catchword of a passage substitutes אדני [adni] for יהוה.[YHVH] and that the Easterns אדני [adni] read where the Westerns have יהוה.[YHVH] and vice versa.‘ Hence we may safely assume that though the Scribe wrote Adonai for יהוה.[YHVH] he would not insert the incommunicable name instead of אדני [adni]. The reading, therefore, in the conflicting passages is in favour of the Tetragrammaton." CD Ginsburg, The Massorah translated into English, Vol 6, pg 31-32 PDF version

Another question of mine not yet answered is that if “Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce” (from above Ginsburg quote) they only did so (up to) 134 times and failed to do so 315 times. (Adonai appears 134 times in the MT, but ‘lord’ referring to ordinary mortals does appear in the OT.)

No goal posts have been moved. I am not guilty of anything. You are guilty of avoiding the questions.

Alt Thinker:
And you have not addressed what I noted above, that Ginsburg himself said that most early/best manuscripts already say Adonai.

james2ko
3. You are mistaken once again. Ginsburg actually said: "some of the best MSS and early editions read the Tetragrammaton"

I repeat again: If only some have YHWH, then most do not. Despite his claim, his very words show that in fact he cannot safely conclude anything regarding this matter. And again, we do not know what sources the Masoretes used, but if most of the “best MSS and early editions” say Adonai then the odds are that these are the sources used by the Masoretes.

In any case Ginsburg has made it clear that the Masoretes were not the first to use Adonai in place of YHWH, which was your original contention.

Alt Thinker:
What DSS manuscripts say is not really relevant since the Masoretes did not have access to them.

4. In spite of what you believe, Jews give more credence to the text contained in the much older DSS, which is why they had nothing to say when I presented the evidence.

Jews give more credence to the Dead Sea Scrolls than to the Masoretic Text? Really? The Jewish Encyclopedia does not even have an entry for Dead Sea Scrolls or Qumran.

Also, about 5% of the Dead Sea Scrolls wordings connect to the Septuagint rather than to the MT. (Ref) The Septuagint has been out of favor with Jews since sometime around the 1st century CE (the hypothetical Council of Jamnia).

Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were claimed. Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was chosen as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek—even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period (Aramaic was eventually given the same holy language status as Hebrew.

Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And again: What was in the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant to anything the Masoretes did because they did not have access to the DSS.

 

[Ingledsva]

Nah not if it was just carrying tiny samples of DNA from every creature on earth!
There'd still have been enough space left for a karaoke ballroom, bingo hall and bowling alley..

And how exactly did these ancient wandering tribesmen extract that DNA, and then bring back these animals?


And of course this is beside the point that the Ark story gives information to debunk that idea.

The birds obviously weren't in DNA form - as they were sent out.


Such ideas are as ridiculous as the Ark story itself.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Such ideas are as ridiculous as the Ark story itself.

Yeah, large boats, pretty ridiculous idea.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In 1 Cor. 13:34, 35 we read "the women should keep silent in the congregations. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak "
In Galatians 3:28 it says " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
If I'm not mistaken, both were written by Paul. Maybe there is some specific context I'm not aware of, but I find it very confusing that the same person would write verses that downgrade women so much and also write a verse saying God doesn't make a difference between male and female.
Which one is valid?

In the social order women are to be subservient to men. However god favors neither men nor women when it comes to judging us spiritually.

Yes he is a sexist bigot. He just doesn't believe god is a sexist bigot.

 

[Ingledsva]

We are given its size! It would have been way-way-way too small!

Animals have instincts to survive floods, now you're the one being way too literal.

Baloney, it says a world wide flood that lasted one hundred and fifty days.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Baloney, it says a world wide flood that lasted one hundred and fifty days.


*

Yeah, and that doesn't refute what I said at all. If you know what 'flood' means, there was most likely many animals that survived. Really, you aren't going to win this argument, you are taking the story waaaay too literally for Scripture. On the other hand, you seem to be staunchly against the narrative regardless of plausibility..how is this not 'belief'? You are as much or more of a 'believer' as I am, just taking an opposite stance. As usual.

 

[Ingledsva]

uch ideas are as ridiculous as the Ark story itself.

Yeah, large boats, pretty ridiculous idea.

Stop making such ridiculous statements.


You know perfectly well we are discussing the elements of the Ark story.


The Ark is too small to hold all the animals. There was no world flood covering mountains at that time. The Ark would have sunk under the weight of the animals, let alone their poop and pee. It is a teaching story, - nothing more.



*