Evangel...dichotomy?

[Seth]

It doesn't change anything I'm arguing which is that it seems to read being deceived = sinning and only - it to the woman.

I'm glad you use the word "seems" because it is an inference. It doesn't SAY being deceived = sinning. Being deceived means being tricked into thinking that something is true when it is not true, where Eve was tricked into thinking that she would not surely die if she did partake of the fruit. Adam could very well know that this is a lie and still partake from a tree, either in order to please her, or because he was curious about the fruit and felt he would cross the punishment bridge when he got to it.

But Adam was told specifically that if he ate the fruit of that tree he would die. If Adam believed that and was in no way deceived, it would suggest would, it not that, he ate from the tree expecting his own death to be the consequence? Why would he do that? I can't see why he would if the concept of death was meaningful to him.

What you have shown is not deception, but immaturity. Adam could very well have understood the warning and simply threw caution to the wind, decided to initiate pleasure now without thinking of the consequences later.

It also says that the woman lusted after the 'wisdom' the tree could provide. That seems to be her sin as presented in the text, not actually being 'deceived'.

I believe her sin was in disobeying God and eating the fruit, the deception LEADING to that sin, not necessarily BEING the sin. God didn't tell them not to be deceived. He told them not to eat the fruit. Obviously, being deceived made it easier for Satan to get her to disobey, but strictly speaking, they only disobeyed by going against what he said not to do.

And you're making my point for me. I have other books of the Bible. I know they say that Adam sinned but whenever I read this passage, despite knowing that I still struggle to read it in any other sense than Paul saying he didn't. But of he was writing to Timothy who would already have had a spectacular understanding of the background Paul was speaking to. I just wish I could work out for sure what that background was. Everything would be a guess or sort.

When I say that Eve sinned through deception, I don't mean deception WAS the sin. I mean that it was the means in which Satan got her to sin.

That's because the Father chose the Son, not them.

That seems to suggest that the angels are as equal with God as the Son is. We know they are not.

There's no need to presuppose that a choice must be between equal options. In fact, the very reason we make choices is by determining which option is greater than another. God was certainly within his ability to choose an angel based on very fact that an angel is less than the Son, and reformulate his plan based around that. He chose the Son BECAUSE the Son is greater.

And you said it was 'humility' I don't think it was that clear. Obviously it was an analogy and can only be pushed so far it clear that in some ways we should not be like children, but I'm not sure you can tell from context all the ways Jesus is saying we should be. The greatest is God and will always be God. In actuality surely the 'greatest' beneath that will be those with qualities closest to God, so we are looking for the qualities in children we would most think that they might share with God, wouldn't we?

I think we would be looking for the ways Jesus was contrasting the ways the disciples thought about greatness, vs what God considers greatness. Matthew 18:4 says "whoever will HUMBLE themselves as this child..." That's the context we can determine which way Jesus wants us to be like a child. Humble. Not, whiney like a child, or reasoning like a child, or selfish like a child. Children can be all those things. HUMBLE like a child is what he means. Able to be taught and led.

So, when Paul says that he put away his childish thoughts when he became a man, we can know that he is not contradicting Jesus. He is referring to different ASPECTS of being a child.

I see authority as being a necessity because anyone delivering the Gospel message is basically trying to get people to 'repent, turn, change.' There's an intrinsic imperative there. Obviously you ultimately want them to give their attention and hand authority to Jesus. But when you're evangelizing (either Gospel ;)) you asking temporaliy for them to give attention and authority to you so they accept the weight of your message.

When I evangelize to anyone, I simply ask them to give authority to God, not to myself.

Again, this is INTERPRETATION. I interpreted that differently. I can only assume that there are no scriptures that show Jesus handing authority to women over men without required inferences.

My point isn't that Paul didn't write the letter it's that we can no longer be sure of how he's using what he's saying, how God intends for us to understand what He is saying, and is Paul is applying some sort of Pharisaical interpretation of Genesis that he might abandon if he gave it more thought.

If that last part is true, then Paul's Timothy letter is not authentic. Not authentic in the sense that he didn't write them, but in the sense that they are not authentically Christ-authorized. We would need to doubt whether the letter to Timothy is valid teaching based on Paul's reliance on incorrect interpretation rather than being backed by the authority Christ gave him as an Apostle.

Why does this pertain to the two evangels? Perceived discrepancies in how Paul argues things could be used to argue in favour of such a state if not nipped in the bud.

What you have done is brought in an issue that to this point has been a non-issue with regard to how the two-evangel theory is being supported. The two-evangel theory being discussed in this thread is not based on the idea that Paul's message is flawed with Pharisaical reasoning.Quite the opposite. It takes Paul's message to be completely Christ-authorized and free from such errors.  That's what's confusing the issue here. Proponents of the two-evangel theory would probably TOTALLY disagree with the idea that there are such discrepancies in his writing. Thus, there are no buds to nip in that respect.

The two-evangel theory is based on the notion that there are apparent conflicting philosophical differences between Paul's writing and James' writing which are both valid and therefore can be resolved by determining that there were two separate audiences to which those gospels applied.

My belief is that there is ONE Gospel applied to all and the seeming philosophical differences can be resolved by looking closer at the text.

[CST]

I'm glad you use the word "seems" because it is an inference. It doesn't SAY being deceived = sinning. Being deceived means being tricked into thinking that something is true when it is not true, where Eve was tricked into thinking that she would not surely die if she did partake of the fruit. Adam could very well know that this is a lie and still partake from a tree, either in order to please her, or because he was curious about the fruit and felt he would cross the punishment bridge when he got to it.

I used seemed but the critiques you mentioned from people who, I would imagine, know the language better than we do say he says exactly that and it can't honestly be read otherwise. My point is that I sympathize with the feeling while disregarding the conclusion.

What you have shown is not deception, but immaturity. Adam could very well have understood the warning and simply threw caution to the wind, decided to initiate pleasure now without thinking of the consequences later.

On, this site there are articles where it argues that God warned Adam of death not eternal torment in Hell as the consequence of eating from the tree. If he really had that much of an understanding it's perfectly possible he knew that's what God meant when He said 'die' even if we struggle to get it from the passage. My point is that on a normal understand Adam would be committing suicide,  if he understood what God meant he would have understood that there would be no pleasure and no later because that's what it means to die.

I believe her sin was in disobeying God and eating the fruit, the deception LEADING to that sin, not necessarily BEING the sin. God didn't tell them not to be deceived. He told them not to eat the fruit. Obviously, being deceived made it easier for Satan to get her to disobey, but strictly speaking, they only disobeyed by going against what he said not to do.

But I can't see how she was deceived not in the normal sense. I struggle to except that the serpent lied in the direct sense, the statement about the consequences that attracted Woman to the fruit was certainly true. It may also have been true for her that she was not in direct danger of death because death appears to be transmitted through Adam. The serpent may also have been willfully playing on the distinction between physical and spiritual death, I suspect that because I suspect the word 'crafty' may actually have the weight usually applied to it and I find it hard to believe one of God's animals, which the serpent is described as being, directly lying prior to the fall. I know I can't really leave it like that but I need to move on. I also hold it as potentially important that the knowledge of how the Woman came to here the warning when it was given before she was made is not told to us.

When I say that Eve sinned through deception, I don't mean deception WAS the sin. I mean that it was the means in which Satan got her to sin.

Not what I mean here. You seemed to concede you didn't know what you'd think if you didn't have the other texts. My point is that I and several Bible Critics have other texts and still are stunned by what Paul says here which seems to contradict what he says elsewhere. I just think it's less of a problem than the critics and try to work around it. But maybe they can see things I can't (I hope not).

There's no need to presuppose that a choice must be between equal options. In fact, the very reason we make choices is by determining which option is greater than another. God was certainly within his ability to choose an angel based on very fact that an angel is less than the Son, and reformulate his plan based around that. He chose the Son BECAUSE the Son is greater.

To me the Son is unique and uniquely able to save us. He is not only great than the angels not one angel is great enough to save.

I think we would be looking for the ways Jesus was contrasting the ways the disciples thought about greatness, vs what God considers greatness. Matthew 18:4 says "whoever will HUMBLE themselves as this child..." That's the context we can determine which way Jesus wants us to be like a child. Humble. Not, whiney like a child, or reasoning like a child, or selfish like a child. Children can be all those things. HUMBLE like a child is what he means. Able to be taught and led.

So, when Paul says that he put away his childish thoughts when he became a man, we can know that he is not contradicting Jesus. He is referring to different ASPECTS of being a child.

Paul did indeed make that claim about putting away childish things and as a trained Pharisee probably did it quite quickly (what am I saying I know nothing about the Pharisees but the child Jesus show carries the implication they were everything the Pharisees were not given how much he criticized the latter.

But I still hold that Paul was making a metaphor. It doesn't need to be taken literally. You don't to think about which part of the child Paul means. 

When I evangelize to anyone, I simply ask them to give authority to God, not to myself.

Again, this is INTERPRETATION. I interpreted that differently. I can only assume that there are no scriptures that show Jesus handing authority to women over men without required inferences.

But you want them to give you your attention while you're doing it, you don't intentionally evangelize to an empty room?

But in the main I think you're right. I can't think of any examples directly at present.

If that last part is true, then Paul's Timothy letter is not authentic. Not authentic in the sense that he didn't write them, but in the sense that they are not authentically Christ-authorized. We would need to doubt whether the letter to Timothy is valid teaching based on Paul's reliance on incorrect interpretation rather than being backed by the authority Christ gave him as an Apostle.

That makes presumptions about Christ's intention and capability I think. Paul certainly wasn't lying or trying to deceive. He was trying to make a case for something he believed to Timothy. He understood what he meant and he had every reason to think Timothy would understand what he meant and I have every reason to believe he did.

If I'm honest, I may be being a little unfair to the Pharisees. Because Jesus was so hostile to them I'm imagining that everything they taught was wrong and they probably did have some right teachings and so even if Paul did get this from them that would not be a reason for automatically taking it to be incorrect. And if it was Paul doesn't seem to have identified it as such specifically. But right or wrong or part right part wrong I have no doubt that Paul successfully used it to make his point to Timothy.

But there's an inherent difficulty in the concept of the innerancy of the Bible. Just sitting closed on the table the Bible is innerant purely on the basic that it's just black on white. No one is reading it, so it can convey no information and no mistakes. Only when people read it can it contain mistake because then it can transmit information that can potentially mislead them. If God is transmitting His truth through it then it's authorized because it's authorized in that action. If He doesn't it presumably isn't. As long as God can use that letter Paul wrote to communicate to people what He actually wants them to understand there's nothing wrong with it. That's what I feel anyway. Just because I struggle and such critics struggle doesn't mean everyone does. Because clearly they don't. It would just be help for me if it didn't you like it looks to me.

What you have done is brought in an issue that to this point has been a non-issue with regard to how the two-evangel theory is being supported. The two-evangel theory being discussed in this thread is not based on the idea that Paul's message is flawed with Pharisaical reasoning.Quite the opposite. It takes Paul's message to be completely Christ-authorized and free from such errors.  That's what's confusing the issue here. Proponents of the two-evangel theory would probably TOTALLY disagree with the idea that there are such discrepancies in his writing. Thus, there are no buds to nip in that respect.

The two-evangel theory is based on the notion that there are apparent conflicting philosophical differences between Paul's writing and James' writing which are both valid and therefore can be resolved by determining that there were two separate audiences to which those gospels applied.

My belief is that there is ONE Gospel applied to all and the seeming philosophical differences can be resolved by looking closer at the text.

Indeed, but I hadn't even heard that there were supposed to be two evangels until I found this thread and because distinctions, and certainly ill defined, spurious ones are at risk of inviting further distinctions to try and justify the first one (see Documentary Hypothesis) it's best to keep pushing away from the danger.

[Seth]

I used seemed but the critiques you mentioned from people who, I would imagine, know the language better than we do say he says exactly that and it can't honestly be read otherwise.

If he says "exactly that" then it would say "Adam did not sin." If it does not say that, inference is all we have left. In that case, there is room for multiple inferences, some which do not put Paul's writing in conflict with his other writings.

On, this site there are articles where it argues that God warned Adam of death not eternal torment in Hell as the consequence of eating from the tree. If he really had that much of an understanding it's perfectly possible he knew that's what God meant when He said 'die' even if we struggle to get it from the passage. My point is that on a normal understand Adam would be committing suicide,  if he understood what God meant he would have understood that there would be no pleasure and no later because that's what it means to die.

The pleasure would be in ignoring future consequences for present satisfaction. Not wise, sure. But not deception by necessity.

Another way to read the Timothy quote is that it's intended to say that Adam was not deceived specifically by the serpent, that he could have deceived himself willfully, but that he was not specifically deceived by Satan.

Either way, I don't read the Timothy quote as saying only Eve sinned, or that Eve's sin was in being deceived. Her sin was in doing what God said not to do. Sin is lawlessness. The law they were given was to not touch the fruit. So, their sin was in contradicting that law, whether deceived or not.

But I can't see how she was deceived not in the normal sense. I struggle to except that the serpent lied in the direct sense, the statement about the consequences that attracted Woman to the fruit was certainly true. It may also have been true for her that she was not in direct danger of death because death appears to be transmitted through Adam. The serpent may also have been willfully playing on the distinction between physical and spiritual death, I suspect that because I suspect the word 'crafty' may actually have the weight usually applied to it and I find it hard to believe one of God's animals, which the serpent is described as being, directly lying prior to the fall. I know I can't really leave it like that but I need to move on. I also hold it as potentially important that the knowledge of how the Woman came to here the warning when it was given before she was made is not told to us.

However, I think the basic fact is, she was told she would die. She was deceived into thinking she would not. Now - however that death would come to her whether physical or metaphysical - doesn't matter to me. God said she would die. The serpent said she would not. She believed the serpent.

The bottom line for me is that the scripture SAYS she was deceived. However, if we must cast doubt on the reliability of that statement because Paul might have been influenced himself by faulty Pharicitical reasoning throws all his writing into potential error.

If there are inferences that do not result in such conditions, I am way more inclined to consider those, since I believe Paul was appointed to impart truth untainted by such error.

Not what I mean here. You seemed to concede you didn't know what you'd think if you didn't have the other texts. My point is that I and several Bible Critics have other texts and still are stunned by what Paul says here which seems to contradict what he says elsewhere.

It may SEEM to contradict, but I don't think it does. The Timothy letter says three things:

1) Eve was deceived
2) Eve sinned
3) Adam was not deceived

The following fourth point is an INFERENCE based on the above facts: 4) That Adam did not sin. But, all it says is that Adam was not deceived NOT that he did not sin.

To me the Son is unique and uniquely able to save us. He is not only great than the angels not one angel is great enough to save.

If God wanted it to be possible for an angel to save us, it would be possible. The reason the Son is able to save us is because he was elected/appointed/chosen by God to do it.

But I still hold that Paul was making a metaphor. It doesn't need to be taken literally. You don't to think about which part of the child Paul means. 

I just don't think we need reason the way children reason in order to be humble as a child.

That makes presumptions about Christ's intention and capability I think. Paul certainly wasn't lying or trying to deceive. He was trying to make a case for something he believed to Timothy. He understood what he meant and he had every reason to think Timothy would understand what he meant and I have every reason to believe he did.

But you seem to suggest that he was influenced by Pharisaical notions of men and women and I don't see any basis for that other than it's a psychoanalysis of Paul reached from an inference, and not something he literally said.

But there's an inherent difficulty in the concept of the innerancy of the Bible. Just sitting closed on the table the Bible is innerant purely on the basic that it's just black on white. No one is reading it, so it can convey no information and no mistakes. Only when people read it can it contain mistake because then it can transmit information that can potentially mislead them.

This is baffling to me. A document can contain mistakes regardless of whether someone has read it or not. If I write 2+2=5 on a sheet of paper, it's not inerrant just because nobody has seen the mistake yet.

That something may not be recognized as flawed does not mean it is therefore unflawed by necessity. Mistakes can exist on paper without yet being conveyed to the reader.

As long as God can use that letter Paul wrote to communicate to people what He actually wants them to understand there's nothing wrong with it.

My thought on it is that there's nothing wrong with it because an Apostle chosen by God wrote it. So as a matter of doctrine, it's sound, and not based on a faulty foundation of Pharisaical reasoning. Now what it MEANS can be discussed, surely. Eaglesway has some good points on context etc. But, that doesn't mean Paul's intentions were colored by his former flawed understanding.

In other words, his meaning and foundational reasoning may be perfectly in sync with truth, not colored by faulty reasoning, and yet still be misunderstood.

Indeed, but I hadn't even heard that there were supposed to be two evangels until I found this thread and because distinctions, and certainly ill defined, spurious ones are at risk of inviting further distinctions to try and justify the first one (see Documentary Hypothesis) it's best to keep pushing away from the danger.

I'm not sure how a seeming conflict in Paul's own writings could be used to justify the two-evangel doctrine. It would just cast a doubt over Paul's doctrine and bring us into a single-evangel doctrine without Paul's writings involved.

[CST]

If he says "exactly that" then it would say "Adam did not sin." If it does not say that, inference is all we have left. In that case, there is room for multiple inferences, some which do not put Paul's writing in conflict with his other writings.

But, to me, that's not how language works. If you're with someone looking at a crowd of people and they try to point someone out to you and they say it's 'the man in the red shirt' you know they don't mean 'the girl in the green dress' even though they didn't say 'not the girl in the green dress' that's more than an inference there's a necessity of understanding her that excludes thing without it having to be stated that they're excluded. In this case the way it's expressed excludes Adam from sinning. Now I suspect either a poor translation or Paul either writing carelessly which happens a lot, surely or quite probably more likely not expressing something to Timothy he's sure Timothy already knows. Timothy knows better then to read that out of it even though in a technical understanding it might well say that.

The pleasure would be in ignoring future consequences for present satisfaction. Not wise, sure. But not deception by necessity.

Another way to read the Timothy quote is that it's intended to say that Adam was not deceived specifically by the serpent, that he could have deceived himself willfully, but that he was not specifically deceived by Satan.

Either way, I don't read the Timothy quote as saying only Eve sinned, or that Eve's sin was in being deceived. Her sin was in doing what God said not to do. Sin is lawlessness. The law they were given was to not touch the fruit. So, their sin was in contradicting that law, whether deceived or not.

To me if Adam had a proper understanding of what death was he wouldn't be able to hold the notice of 'present satisfaction' because they're mutually exclusive. We all do that hence why the second idea you express seems a lot more likely. So much so that I finally decided I would check the Greek behind the word 'deceived' here and found a word that appear only four times in the New Testament, compared with other words also translated 'deceive'. So knowing what the nuance was meant to be here would probably help but looking at the other appearances, I'd guess it means something like flatter. Except there's already a word for that although it's only translated thus once (I forgot to check if it's translated as something else elsewhere)

It's a strange usage here, usually the term used for Eve being 'deceived' is tricked or beguiled, a nuance I can just about get. Using a different, very uncommon word here is strange.

Also a lot of commentators are quick to jump on Eve about that last point you made. God gave no instruction not to touch the fruit that we know of. God told Adam only that he was not to eat of the fruit. It seems natural to think that 'well if you can't eat the fruit what's the point in touching it?' But commentators say that Eve embellished God's instruction and thus gave the serpent and in because she was really focused on it properly.

But I think this is unfair because according to Genesis Eve wasn't present when God gave Adam the instruction so we don't know how she received it. I can see three possibilities:

1. Eve is considered as being present because she's made from Adam's rib so in that sense was present at the time. The mythology at least allows this as a possible understand.
2. God told Eve but the Bible doesn't record it directly but for should infer it because she uses the words 'God said'. In this case He may have added the 'don't touch' instruction at this point. Surely it's unfair not to give Eve at least the benefit of the doubt on this. Especially as the Word of God as recorded is Eve saying that God said 'don't touch!'.
3. God deferred to Adam to tell his wife the instruction, after all he's meant to be her head, and he added the 'don't touch' instruction. After all he's meant to have authority and it makes perfect sense as mentioned above. If this were true I doubt any commentator would dare say Adam misled his wife by doing that because the Bible (like above) teaches no-one did anything wrong until Eve did something wrong.

This is a difficulty I have and have to consider because I don't know by what mechanism Eve received the instruction that from the book of Genesis I only know for sure God gave to Adam.

However, I think the basic fact is, she was told she would die. She was deceived into thinking she would not. Now - however that death would come to her whether physical or metaphysical - doesn't matter to me. God said she would die. The serpent said she would not. She believed the serpent.

The bottom line for me is that the scripture SAYS she was deceived. However, if we must cast doubt on the reliability of that statement because Paul might have been influenced himself by faulty Pharicitical reasoning throws all his writing into potential error.

If there are inferences that do not result in such conditions, I am way more inclined to consider those, since I believe Paul was appointed to impart truth untainted by such error.

Ah, but would she and did she. Again we don't know how Eve came to receive the instruction that Adam would die if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, which we know he did and death as imputed to all his children through him, not through her even though she ate first that's what Paul teaches, death comes through Adam.

Maybe God didn't tell her, and maybe He didn't tell her because she wasn't in danger of death but she came to believe she was somehow.

Here's my  :2c: on what I think (recently) might have happened:

God warns Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if he does he will die. God then makes Adam's wife. Adam's wife encounters the serpent who persuades her that she will not die if she eats from the tree and not only that but if she does she will receive knowledge to be like God. She is tempted by this and eats from the tree and then, it seems, nothing immediately happened but:

'she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.' (Gen. 3:6)

I think this is important, she gives the fruit to her husband directly and he eats it. He doesn't doubt or question it would seem, he just doesn't think to mistrust his wife, who's now fully convinced the fruit is safe because she's just eaten it without apparent consequence, remember creation appears not to fall until the head of creation falls. And thus the serpent has tricked her into getting her husband to break God's commandment. I'd be tempted to deny her authority on those grounds but it's not very forgiving is it? Particularly when God declared that the time was coming, which I think we believe is now here, where the parents sins are no longer imputed on their children.

It may SEEM to contradict, but I don't think it does. The Timothy letter says three things:

1) Eve was deceived
2) Eve sinned
3) Adam was not deceived

The following fourth point is an INFERENCE based on the above facts: 4) That Adam did not sin. But, all it says is that Adam was not deceived NOT that he did not sin.

It seems that people who no better think otherwise, this is why I stating to think things like what the word translated deceived actually mean and the circumstances of the letter are very important.

If God wanted it to be possible for an angel to save us, it would be possible. The reason the Son is able to save us is because he was elected/appointed/chosen by God to do it.

Hmm, technically angel just means messenger. Beyond that I'm not sure exactly what an angel is so I can't address your point any more. It must be true unless it's logically inconsistent. But my instinct remain that there's something wrong with the sentiment that our limited understand can't see.

I just don't think we need reason the way children reason in order to be humble as a child.

Yeah, but when Paul says 'childish things' the first thing I think of it toys anyway if I'm trying to take the sentiment literally, it's hard to extend it to character traits which you tend to just grow out of. And I'm pretty sure there's some sort of childish reasoning being all childish qualities even their humility, they're young humans they're not a separate species.

But you seem to suggest that he was influenced by Pharisaical notions of men and women and I don't see any basis for that other than it's a psychoanalysis of Paul reached from an inference, and not something he literally said.

I don't see it as necessarily psychoanalytic, it just makes sense to my logic which may be wrong. Like every other religious position in ancient Israel people have to train for years to go from being an apprentice to becoming a master as it were, Paul wasn't born with an intimate knowledge of the scripture. He'd have learned it from his family who read it with him and Pharisees as he studied with them to become one and he would have discussed interpretation with them and made suggestions which would have met with their approval or disapproval. And eventually he'd become a Pharisee having made mainly decisions on interpretation that met with their approval. That's, to my understanding, how it works and I can't see why Paul would, after stopping being a Pharisee, would go through everything he's learned from them and throw out everything he'd learned. It doesn't seem like something he'd automatically do. Of course, I could well be wrong and God would no doubt help him if he endeavoured to do so.

This is baffling to me. A document can contain mistakes regardless of whether someone has read it or not. If I write 2+2=5 on a sheet of paper, it's not inerrant just because nobody has seen the mistake yet.

That something may not be recognized as flawed does not mean it is therefore unflawed by necessity. Mistakes can exist on paper without yet being conveyed to the reader.

But unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say 2 + 2 = 5. Unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say anything. It's just lines of ink on a piece of paper. Language is something that happens in people's heads because they understand by common consensus what the lines and symbols mean it's not something that's out there in the objective world. Unless it's being read the Bible doesn't say anything.

My thought on it is that there's nothing wrong with it because an Apostle chosen by God wrote it. So as a matter of doctrine, it's sound, and not based on a faulty foundation of Pharisaical reasoning. Now what it MEANS can be discussed, surely. Eaglesway has some good points on context etc. But, that doesn't mean Paul's intentions were colored by his former flawed understanding.

In other words, his meaning and foundational reasoning may be perfectly in sync with truth, not colored by faulty reasoning, and yet still be misunderstood.

That thinking, to me, elevates human infallibility to a point that I consider to be unreasonable. God exists it's true and can speak to His apostles and guide there hand as the write if they are open to that which I'm sure Paul was but Paul was a human being and he was writing a letter to Timothy, a fellow brother in Christ, who he believed he had some sort of rapport with, quite probably a very good one. He wasn't writing a letter to a Church somewhere which might have to be read to the whole congregation, he was writing a private letter to help Timothy navigate a problem. He certainly wasn't trying to write the 53rd book of the Bible or he'd almost certainly have written it differently. God compiled the Bible later through other people and we need to trust that their authorisation is God's authorisation because if we go on the authorisation of man alone and how he would choose we could have no authorised books at all.

And then we have to believe that he believes these are the books he believes he is best able to communicate his message through. After all if the Revelation really does speak exclusively to things that were going to happen in the lifetime of the audience it was written to than it's useless to any of us. I have to imagine it's not and that somehow it can speak to us through it's strange symbols and languages and even though it's hard to imagine it's saying exactly the same thing. I have to believe for all the books of the Bible that God believes he can best speak to us through them despite the fact the the people who wrote them would have written them differently if they'd known they would be used to establish church doctrine.

After all, if you believe it's possible for God to save us through angels if he wishes you must also believe it's possibly for him to speak to us through any event or book or film or song if he so desires. These are the ones he has chosen to speak to His church through. And speak He can and speak He does.

I'm not sure how a seeming conflict in Paul's own writings could be used to justify the two-evangel doctrine. It would just cast a doubt over Paul's doctrine and bring us into a single-evangel doctrine without Paul's writings involved.

Since Paul says in the Bible there is only one Gospel we shouldn't have a two evangel theory in the first place but we do. And all sorts of nonsense seems to follow

[CST]

Here is a Bible Study I did one time in a Baptist Church. It's just my understanding of women teaching men.


              Should Women Teach In Church?


1Tim. 2:11-12 says " let the woman learn in silence with all  subjection.   which is  [A person under the authority or control of another] { (Verse 12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over { the} man,  but to be in silence.

Personally, I think this is speaking about a man and wife situation, where a wife shouldn't try to take authority or control away from her husband, not that all the men should be over all the woman when it comes to teaching because in some cases in the Old Testament we have women who are in authority over men. Deborah was a judge of Israel for example, she was also a prophetess.  (Judges 4. 4-14).  Deborah even went with Barak to war against Sisera.  So, it isn't saying a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritual speaking. That's really what it amounts to.
  We can see that the New Testament clearly shows that both men and women recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying {basically preaching} exortation, and the word of wisdom and knowledge.  Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul instructed older women to teach the younger women.                                           
1Cor11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophecy in the open meeting of the Church, though the woman must do it in a way that she recognizes the role of her husband. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28).
There are certain referrences in the New Testament where women were used in the ministry. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side by side companions of Paul in his ministry and of the two Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They together were the instructors of Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear indication of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection of paul. (1Cor. 16:19

1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.
Now Paul surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If in (1Cor. 11), he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, surely in Corinthians  14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths. We must look at the overall topic of the chapter. We have to ask ourselves "who is being spoken to" then, who, what where, to get the picture. Picture yourself in that time and place. In Corinth the problem was one of conducting the meeting. Tongues were to be controlled, so was prophesying,  They were to remember that "God is not the author of disorder but of peace" then he warns against women speaking in Church. It seems from this that Paul was more concerned about women who disrupted the meetings and caused confusion. Paul closes with "let all things be done decently and in order. Then in (1Tim. 3:14-15) These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. If no woman should ever teach a man then Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in teaching Apollos.

Here are some examples of women teachers in the Bible:
(Luke 2:36-38) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, (what is a prophetess?) it's the same as a prophet. The defination is. [One who foretells what is to come; a person inspired, and appointed by God to reveal his will, or make known the truths of the Bible and urge men to obedience.]  then you go down to the next verse and it says "she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. 
(Acts 2:17-18) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
(Verse 18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Acts 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
(Acts 21:9)  Speaking of Phillips daughters. "And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophecy."
Rom. 16:1-4  I commend unto you Phebe our sister,, which is a servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea: that you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.
(Phil. 4:3) And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel.   
In (2John 1), it seems that John is writing to a female who is leader of  the Church. "The elder unto the elect lady and her children, (Verse 4) I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth. (Verse 5) and now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee. (Verse 13) The children of thy elect sister greet thee."

Old Testament examples:
Miriam  (Ex. 15:20) And Miriam the prophetess. She was the sister of Aaron.

Huldah  (2Kings) 22:12-20) these 5 men "went unto Huldah the prophetess to inquire about the Lord.

CHB

Hi, sorry for taking a bit of time in respond to you on this fine post, and it is a fine post, I felt the main discussion was most pressing.

I myself like the idea of what Paul is saying to Timothy being a reference to a husband and his wife. That the husband should always be head of the household I can see that. But I can also see two problems in reading it that way.

First, since in it's original use (as I understand) the word 'church' didn't refer to a building but the community of Christ in a certain place there is certainly no place where a woman can lead worship, a big sticking point for the role of women today, when her husband won't be in that community and thus have to defer to her teaching and authority. And it's the 'teaching part that is the big sticking point here. If Paul is to be taken at his word here women can't teach men they can only teach other women according to Paul's instruction. Of course, men can teach both men and women. Since the language here doesn't specify leading worship, that's just a logical consequence, it could actually disqualify women from a lot of things including teaching more generally.

Second, Paul specifically says , 'I do not permit (suffer not)...' Now if he simply means for a women not to have authority over her husband Paul is over stepping his bounds here. If Paul is trying to protect the authority of the husband then surely it should be up to each individual husband to decide if their wife can teach men, them included, or not. Paul exercises his own authority here so husbands can't do that because Paul has effectively closed the door on female teaching roles if there is even one man in the room. Because he's exercising authority over husbands as well as wives in their relationship.

So yes, the New Testament does seem to suggest that women are given teaching gifts but again, if we follow Paul to his conclusion, unless there's a man present they can only teach other women, like the older women teaching younger women that you mentioned.

Priscilla teaching alongside her husband doesn't change this in anyway and she may be the better teacher because her name is mentioned first but there could also be some convention in the Greek or other reason for that.

Even when I imagined, I now see probably mistakenly, that two and two meant man and woman, I still couldn't get away from the fact there was still a man there.

(1Cor. 16:19

1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.

Looking at your quote (my highlight) which part of the law is this and why's Paul invoking it when he usually makes a point of telling us we're no longer under the law? I certainly can't this of anything in the law of love that would justify this level of inequality. And what happens if she gets home only for her husband to discover he doesn't know? This could cause a lot more confusion that peace to my mind.

Again, on the matter of Priscilla I think the presence of her husband made all the difference.

I often wonder about the apostles wives in general in this conversation. On the evidence of the Bible most don't seem to have any and let given the time the book was set that somehow doesn't seem plausible to me.

Let's see what else Paul says about the role of women:

'But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.' (1 Cor. 11:3)

Pretty much what we expect so far no surprises and no real problems.

'Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.' (1 Cor. 11:4-6)

Wow, that's not at all dramatic. Better a woman be bald then pray without her head covered. Very flattering for women that.

'For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.' (1 Cor. 11:7)

I'm presuming that the glory of God is good and the glory of man is bad otherwise why would you want to cover it up? Bad in the context anyway, it looks suspiciously like he's instructed to protect his 'property' but I may be misunderstanding.

'(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)' (1 Cor. 11: 8-9)

That's not how it's presented in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 presented them created equal, so does 2 at the beginning I think, it's just not as clear, perhaps.

That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:10)

You think there might be some uncertainty over what this means?

'(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)' (1 Cor. 11:11-12)

Better, there's hope in that.

'Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?' (1 Cor. 11:13)

This is a rhetoric question Paul proceeds to give the answer.

'Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.' (Cor. 11:14-15)

I'm not sure nature teaches anything, we just see things and then jump to conclusions about them? Is Paul saying there that if a woman keeps her hair long it counts as having her head covered despite not being veiled? Because if he's not it's a pretty poor covering.

Then Paul kind of abruptly leaves the topic. He doesn't return to it unless the part of the letter you quote above. I'm stating to vaguely wonder if some of these letters may have got jumbled up at some point. Before they were made into the Bible. Doubtful, but perhaps not impossible.

The concern I have over how women are presented in the Bible, not that those concerns make what the Bible actually says about the role of women any less true, is that if women appear to be demeaned then people may start to think it's OK to demean women because where they're meant to be. We've seen it all the time. Modern society is living the consequences of inflated sexism. It's not good for anybody I feel.  :2c:

Sorry, I was trying to show what Paul meant about women not ruling over the man. Also how women did teach the man on several ocassions.

CHB

One other thing. I believe it was planned by God for the woman to be decieved and sin first. In (1Tim. 2:15) it says, "she shall be saved in childbearing". Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. :sigh:
CHB

True, but why mention it here? The child in question has been born. No other women have this blessing to look forward to. This letter seems rather cryptic to the untrained reader. But of course there was only meant to be one reader when Paul wrote it.

[Seth]

But, to me, that's not how language works. If you're with someone looking at a crowd of people and they try to point someone out to you and they say it's 'the man in the red shirt' you know they don't mean 'the girl in the green dress' even though they didn't say 'not the girl in the green dress' that's more than an inference there's a necessity of understanding her that excludes thing without it having to be stated that they're excluded. In this case the way it's expressed excludes Adam from sinning.

The reason it works that way is because the red shirt cancels out the possibility of it being a green dress. The male gender of the person in question cancels out the possibility of it being a woman.

In the case of Timothy we don't have an either/or situation. We have a situation where one person is said to have been sinning but NOT to the exclusion of the other person.

Here's an example, if a family goes camping, and the little boy went to his class on Monday and told his friends, "I went camping" that is true. He did go camping....with other people. The fact that he says he went on a camping trip does not exclude the fact that other people went too.

In a similar way, Paul saying Eve sinned doesn't mean Adam didn't. It only excludes him from having been deceived by the serpent because Paul actually says he wasn't. If the Timothy passage was written similar to your example, one would point to the man and say, "the man in the red shirt (which excludes a green dress) who is the ONLY ONE who sinned (excluding the possibility that she is also a sinner)." The language provides the specific exclusion. When the exclusion is not present, it's inference to say that it's there.

It would be an inference to say that because the boy said "I went on a camping trip" means that nobody else went on the trip, or nobody else in the world went on a camping trip that weekend.

To me if Adam had a proper understanding of what death was he wouldn't be able to hold the notice of 'present satisfaction' because they're mutually exclusive.

I don't believe so. One may be unwise without necessarily being deceived.

Ah, but would she and did she. Again we don't know how Eve came to receive the instruction that Adam would die if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, which we know he did and death as imputed to all his children through him, not through her even though she ate first that's what Paul teaches, death comes through Adam.

Maybe God didn't tell her, and maybe He didn't tell her because she wasn't in danger of death but she came to believe she was somehow.

I am more focused on the text of Timothy, whether or not it excludes Adam from having sinned. I don't think it does. They both fell into transgression according to the Bible. However you think that went down is fine. But, I don't see any inconsistencies in Paul's report.

It seems that people who no better think otherwise, this is why I stating to think things like what the word translated deceived actually mean and the circumstances of the letter are very important.

They can think what they want. I'd rather see proof. I'm done believing things because I am told that other smart people believe them. Like, hell or eternal torment etc....

I don't see it as necessarily psychoanalytic, it just makes sense to my logic which may be wrong. Like every other religious position in ancient Israel people have to train for years to go from being an apprentice to becoming a master as it were, Paul wasn't born with an intimate knowledge of the scripture. He'd have learned it from his family who read it with him and Pharisees as he studied with them to become one and he would have discussed interpretation with them and made suggestions which would have met with their approval or disapproval. And eventually he'd become a Pharisee having made mainly decisions on interpretation that met with their approval. That's, to my understanding, how it works and I can't see why Paul would, after stopping being a Pharisee, would go through everything he's learned from them and throw out everything he'd learned. It doesn't seem like something he'd automatically do. Of course, I could well be wrong and God would no doubt help him if he endeavoured to do so.

I think he made his conclusions on the basis of truth and I have no reason to believe his view was tainted by a flawed foundation of reasoning.

But unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say 2 + 2 = 5. Unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say anything. It's just lines of ink on a piece of paper. Language is something that happens in people's heads because they understand by common consensus what the lines and symbols mean it's not something that's out there in the objective world. Unless it's being read the Bible doesn't say anything.

I don't buy this, sorry. I believe it is a False Dilemma to ascribe a positive characteristic to something just because it is inconclusive. For example, just because you don't know if the shirt I bought is white or black doesn't mean it's positively white until determined otherwise any more than an unread text is positively inerrant until determined otherwise.

Its status as errant is inconclusive not positively one or the other. A False Dilemma is when one believes that there are limited options when there are other options. For you, an unread text must either be errant or inerrant, and so you choose inerrant until proved otherwise. The other option is "the status of this text as errant or inerrant is undetermined."

That is why I said that without any other text in the Bible than Timothy, I would say "I don't know" with regard to whether Adam sinned. In that case I wouldn't want to claim he sinned just because I want a positive answer either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

That thinking, to me, elevates human infallibility to a point that I consider to be unreasonable. God exists it's true and can speak to His apostles and guide there hand as the write if they are open to that which I'm sure Paul was but Paul was a human being and he was writing a letter to Timothy, a fellow brother in Christ, who he believed he had some sort of rapport with, quite probably a very good one. He wasn't writing a letter to a Church somewhere which might have to be read to the whole congregation, he was writing a private letter to help Timothy navigate a problem. He certainly wasn't trying to write the 53rd book of the Bible or he'd almost certainly have written it differently. God compiled the Bible later through other people and we need to trust that their authorisation is God's authorisation because if we go on the authorisation of man alone and how he would choose we could have no authorised books at all.

I believe God inspired the writing of Timothy so I do believe it is innerrant. As far as I know, that is the official position of this forum and its owner.

After all, if you believe it's possible for God to save us through angels if he wishes you must also believe it's possibly for him to speak to us through any event or book or film or song if he so desires. These are the ones he has chosen to speak to His church through. And speak He can and speak He does.

I don't much have a problem with that, only I do not believe God will contradict himself regardless of who he speaks through.

Since Paul says in the Bible there is only one Gospel we shouldn't have a two evangel theory in the first place but we do. And all sorts of nonsense seems to follow

Yeah, but the nonsense to follow isn't really the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether the two-evangel theory is correct or not based on the reasoning put forth by those who believe it. Again, I don't know that believers in the two-evangel theory believe that Paul's reasoning is flawed based on Pharesiacal reasoning.

If you don't believe in the two-evangel theory, then we agree on that. If you want to discuss Paul's flawed foundation, why not open a new topic, because that was certainly never the intent of the OP, unless I missed it.

[eaglesway]

I dont see why anyone who has read Paul even a couple times, would think he excluded Adam from sin in first Timothy or anywhere else.

IMO, Paul's whole theology revolves around Romans 5

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Paul re-iterates this cycle in other places in bits and pieces, but no where clearer than here- absolute and without question, Paul attributed sin to Adam.

Through the whole context of the word it is also clear that sin is attributed to Adam, so Paul would have to be in opposition to himself and the word from which he was a "wise master builder" who possessed the gospel as the "whole counsel of God", to be inferring something in opposition to what he had already openly declared in other places, that sin entered the world through Adam(by his seed).

[CST]

The reason it works that way is because the red shirt cancels out the possibility of it being a green dress. The male gender of the person in question cancels out the possibility of it being a woman.

In the case of Timothy we don't have an either/or situation. We have a situation where one person is said to have been sinning but NOT to the exclusion of the other person.

Here's an example, if a family goes camping, and the little boy went to his class on Monday and told his friends, "I went camping" that is true. He did go camping....with other people. The fact that he says he went on a camping trip does not exclude the fact that other people went too.

In a similar way, Paul saying Eve sinned doesn't mean Adam didn't. It only excludes him from having been deceived by the serpent because Paul actually says he wasn't. If the Timothy passage was written similar to your example, one would point to the man and say, "the man in the red shirt (which excludes a green dress) who is the ONLY ONE who sinned (excluding the possibility that she is also a sinner)." The language provides the specific exclusion. When the exclusion is not present, it's inference to say that it's there.

It would be an inference to say that because the boy said "I went on a camping trip" means that nobody else went on the trip, or nobody else in the world went on a camping trip that weekend.

I think there'd be some concern over the boy if people thought he'd been on the camping trip on his own not to mention some amazement over how he managed it.

I'm going to use the YLT to make this point, I could use others and should have made it last time but forgot:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'

This is all in the grammar now, the pair of comma's up there around the penultimate clause they are bracketing comma's, I should be able to remove the content of them without changing the meaning of what's being said so it would then read:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman into transgression came,'

That's basically what it says. But now deceived = transgression because the sentence shows that that's where the weight of meaning falls. Transgressions weighs more with 'woman' while 'deceived is all that weight with man and the sentence simply reads man didn't, woman did. Of course, Paul obviously believed that the man transgressed but it's not what he seems to be saying in the grammar or in the spirit of his argument.

I don't believe so. One may be unwise without necessarily being deceived.

I can agree with that, although wouldn't that suggest that he didn't know what God's warning that he would die meant. That he had no comprehension of death. Because if he did have an understanding of what God's warning meant he'd have had to disbelieve him exactly the same as Eve did in order to break the commandment and therefore he is, at least in his own mind deceived. Although again the correct meaning of the word paul is using could play here.

I am more focused on the text of Timothy, whether or not it excludes Adam from having sinned. I don't think it does. They both fell into transgression according to the Bible. However you think that went down is fine. But, I don't see any inconsistencies in Paul's report.

Sure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.

In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.

So both parties committed the same transgression, disobeying God, but one of them, and all their descendants on their half of the species, are penalized by being put under the authority of the other party, and the descendants on their side, the party who's transgression is greater. So for transgressing Eve and all her daughters get punished in a way that means Adam and all his sons get a prize. That's not right is it?

But it's the argument Paul seems to be making. Adam transgressed, I know this, you know this, Paul knows this. But he may as well not have done for all the difference it makes here. Paul seems to be making an argument that does seem to stand up to scrutiny based on the terms involved. That's why I worry it might have a root in his Pharisaical past. More likely though, it's just lost in time and translation.

They can think what they want. I'd rather see proof. I'm done believing things because I am told that other smart people believe them. Like, hell or eternal torment etc....

Obviously I'm not talking purely about Christian critics. They'd except Timothy as a genuine letter of Paul without question and then work backwards. Obviously the critics under discussion here start at each book individually and then try and show it was by who it is attributed to. This isn't about the spurious use of translation we normally take issue with.

That said I also checked the word 'transgression' Paul uses in case the was some nuance in that so it wouldn't apply to Adam at the fall without taking away from the common understanding that he sinned. But know it's the same word he uses in Romans 5 taking about the same situation. Actually apart from one related word at the beginning of Acts the word is exclusive to Paul. Which should be good evidence in favour of Paul writing it really.

Oh, sure but not the truth that even though Adam and Eve committed the same transgression she and her daughters should be punished for that by being putting them into the servitude of Adam and his sons like some sort of reward for them even though he transgressed too. And all as long as the Earth endures. Not that truth, surely?

I don't buy this, sorry. I believe it is a False Dilemma to ascribe a positive characteristic to something just because it is inconclusive. For example, just because you don't know if the shirt I bought is white or black doesn't mean it's positively white until determined otherwise any more than an unread text is positively inerrant until determined otherwise.

Its status as errant is inconclusive not positively one or the other. A False Dilemma is when one believes that there are limited options when there are other options. For you, an unread text must either be errant or inerrant, and so you choose inerrant until proved otherwise. The other option is "the status of this text as errant or inerrant is undetermined."

That is why I said that without any other text in the Bible than Timothy, I would say "I don't know" with regard to whether Adam sinned. In that case I wouldn't want to claim he sinned just because I want a positive answer either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No, you're missing the point. What happens if your shirt is seen by a colourblind person? My point here is that because the Bible has to be understand the same copy, exactly the same copy can be read by two or more people who know nothing about its content and they can draw mutually exclusive conclusions about what it says. No at least one of them must be wrong but does that make the Bible wrong, all parties read exactly the same information expressed exactly the same way?

I believe God inspired the writing of Timothy so I do believe it is innerrant. As far as I know, that is the official position of this forum and its owner.

I believe the Bible is innerant I just seem to have a different understanding of that than you do. And even though the site holds that position there are still articles containing examples of Bible that were clearly in error. As I recall the position of the site also doesn't claim the Bible can be properly understood thoroughly outside revelation by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, there are some Bibles that you could read an find errors that would make them unrecognizable. But at that point you can just stop giving them the name 'Bible.'

I know the Bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God and I his other letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,' (2 Tim. 3:16)

But I know what Paul would have considered scripture when he wrote that isn't likely to include everything we count as scripture now. Should I discount everything we have have in the Bible because I have a line in the Bible where Paul identifies as scripture less than we would identify as scripture? I seriously doubt it.

I don't much have a problem with that, only I do not believe God will contradict himself regardless of who he speaks through.

Yeah, but that's because you're associating God contradicting Himself with lying. I agree that God is going to contradict Himself to the point of being dishonest and He will not overturn the main message but I think a lot of contradictions are in human interpretation anyway. And those that are may well serve the needs of the individual involved. God said that any human that sheds blood (kills) by a human their blood will be shed (Gen. 9:6). Following that to it's conclusion God would have had to have a human agent come and kill David for the murder of Uriah the Hittite but David died peacefully in his bed. I don't believe God is contradicting Himself here. Skeptics find loads of contradictions in the Bible. That just means they haven't understood what is really being stated. If all things are possible for God I'm sure He's more than capable of explaining all apparent contradictions including what Paul means by things like this. He just hasn't explained it to me yet. But to be honest there's no reason why He should it's not like I imagine I could do anything with it.

Yeah, but the nonsense to follow isn't really the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether the two-evangel theory is correct or not based on the reasoning put forth by those who believe it. Again, I don't know that believers in the two-evangel theory believe that Paul's reasoning is flawed based on Pharesiacal reasoning.

If you don't believe in the two-evangel theory, then we agree on that. If you want to discuss Paul's flawed foundation, why not open a new topic, because that was certainly never the intent of the OP, unless I missed it.

No, sorry I've confused you. I'm trying to make an argument that sometimes Paul writes things that can come across as careless in the case of readers who are less educated than him,don't have all the context and details and are reading in translation.

The idea that an interpretation Paul learned from the Pharisees at least in part is do to the fact my understanding of the concept of the inspired text of God, means that everything in the Bible most contain the possibility of it speaking tome personally as a reader in the present. That means to my psychology I have to do something with the fact that Jesus warns every reader against the teachings of the Pharisees (and Sadducees) (Matt 16:12). When am I going to meet a Pharisee? I'm not am I. Coupled with the fact that yeast/leaven seems to be an analogy for easy to receive and hard to get rid of leads be to think that the only place I could receive the teachings of the Pharisees in any form is in the works of the only sort of Pharisee I have any sort of communication with. That is St. Paul, a reformed Pharisee who may not have shaken everything he learned from them.

Just a reading of what Jesus warned about that got into my head once and I now can't quite shake even though I suspect it may be over literal.

That's not the point here though the point is simply what Paul says. So let's go back to the two evangel theory as you think it's best and at this point to do I as the rest of this discussion seems just about exhausted. Paul says this:

'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.' (Gal. 1:6-7)

Simple 'not another Gospel = only one Gospel surely?

Paul later states:

'I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.' (Gal. 2:2)

Paul comparing notes with the other Apostles to make sure they're on the same page. I'm not quite sure why God would need Paul to get such a confirmation but I'm sure it's not my business to know.

But ten he writes:

'but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised' (Gal 2:7)

What on Earth? What's he doing? I assume this is supposed to mean bringing the Gospel to the uncircumcised/circumcised but he doesn't say bringing. This translation is the RSV, where is says 'to' there are some other translations which are a lot less clear:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/gal/2/1/t_bibles_1093007

And the NRSV which the RSV supposedly evolved into seems to have gone backwards by replacing that 'to' with'for' in both cases. This seems to me to be why the Bible seems to say to some people there are two evangels. Because Paul names two here, but he can't mean that because he's just said there's only one but somehow this hasn't been transmitted very well because we've got and awful lot of translation, especially many modern ones that point to Paul distinguishing two different Gospels, despite the fact that he can't be saying that. That clearer? It's certainly on topic as I understand.

[Seth]

I think there'd be some concern over the boy if people thought he'd been on the camping trip on his own not to mention some amazement over how he managed it.

He never said "on my own" in my example. That's an exclusion you are adding. He just said "I went on a camping trip." If you think that means he went on his own, that's the inference you are adding. So in the case of Timothy, Paul saying Eve came into transgression provides no exclusion to whether Adam came into transgression. Paul saying Adam was not deceived is the exclusion to him having been deceived.

I'm going to use the YLT to make this point, I could use others and should have made it last time but forgot:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'

This is all in the grammar now, the pair of comma's up there around the penultimate clause they are bracketing comma's, I should be able to remove the content of them without changing the meaning of what's being said so it would then read:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman into transgression came,'

That's basically what it says. But now deceived = transgression because the sentence shows that that's where the weight of meaning falls. Transgressions weighs more with 'woman' while 'deceived is all that weight with man and the sentence simply reads man didn't, woman did. Of course, Paul obviously believed that the man transgressed but it's not what he seems to be saying in the grammar or in the spirit of his argument.

Removing the words does alter Paul's emphasis on deception and sense of progression. The sentence, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came" creates a sense of progression that being deceived LED to disobedience.

Here is an example to show what I mean:

A friend comes up to me and says, "Frank wasn't tricked, but my brother Jack, having been tricked, disobeyed our mom."
So I say. "Oh no, what did Jack do?"
The friend says, "He ate a cookie out the the jar."
So, I say, "I guess Frank didn't eat a cookie right? After all, you said Jack was the one tricked."
The friend says "I didn't say he didn't eat a cookie, just that Jack disobeyed having been tricked. Frank ate the cookie because he didn't want Jack to have all the fun."

So when you say, "It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible." there is no need to gawk. Paul may have been vague, but he didn't actually contradict Genesis.

Sure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.

In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.

Yes, but according to you Timothy already knew this stuff inside and out. He wouldn't have needed to point out that Adam transgressed. Timothy already knew that. Paul was just pointing out who was deceived by the Serpent and how that factored into his comments about women in the ministry.

No, you're missing the point. What happens if you're shirt is seen by a colourblind person?

Your point had to do with how you believe an unread text is inerrant before being examined because it doesn't essentially say anything until it is read. My point is that it doesn't make the text inerrant. It makes it inconclusive as to its errancy until it can be examined. This is similar to how Paul saying that Eve was deceived and transgressed isn't the same as saying she was the ONLY one who transgressed. The information is not given as to whether Adam transgressed, so based ONLY on Timothy, whether or not Adam transgressed would be inconclusive until we read Romans 5.

So a colorblind person who hasn't seen the color of the shirt cannot make a claim of whether it is black or white without seeing the shirt first, even if the conclusion is affected by their ability to see color. The point is that a text cannot be determined as inerrant until it is at least SEEN.

But I know what Paul would have considered scripture when he wrote that isn't likely to include everything we count as scripture now. Should I discount everything we have have in the Bible because I have a line in the Bible where Paul identifies as scripture less than we would identify as scripture? I seriously doubt it.

What I am saying is that we believe that the letter to Timothy is inerrant and counts as scripture and does not contradict another letter Paul wrote.

Skeptics find loads of contradictions in the Bible. That just means they haven't understood what is really being stated. If all things are possible for God I'm sure He's more than capable of explaining all apparent contradictions including what Paul means by things like this. He just hasn't explained it to me yet. But to be honest there's no reason why He should it's not like I imagine I could do anything with it.

I don't see any reason for me to believe that there is a contradiction in this case.

but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised' (Gal 2:7)

What on Earth? What's he doing? I assume this is supposed to mean bringing the Gospel to the uncircumcised/circumcised but he doesn't say bringing. This translation is the RSV, where is says 'to' there are some other translations which are a lot less clear:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/gal/2/1/t_bibles_1093007

And the NRSV which the RSV supposedly evolved into seems to have gone backwards by replacing that 'to' with'for' in both cases. This seems to me to be why the Bible seems to say to some people there are two evangels. Because Paul names two here, but he can't mean that because he's just said there's only one but somehow this hasn't been transmitted very well because we've got and awful lot of translation, especially many modern ones that point to Paul distinguishing two different Gospels, despite the fact that he can't be saying that. That clearer? It's certainly on topic as I understand.

Yes, I agree, that is one of the evidences they present to support the two-evangel theory.

[CST]

He never said "on my own" in my example. That's an exclusion you are adding. He just said "I went on a camping trip." If you think that means he went on his own, that's the inference you are adding. So in the case of Timothy, Paul saying Eve came into transgression provides no exclusion to whether Adam came into transgression. Paul saying Adam was not deceived is the exclusion to him having been deceived.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are various forms of 'silent' communication, and other forms of context that would lead people to correctly understand he didn't go on his own. The way he said it, the fact no one called the police to report a missing child, the fact he broadcast this with no concern he might get into trouble. All things we have missing from Paul's letter.

Removing the words does alter Paul's emphasis on deception and sense of progression. The sentence, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came" creates a sense of progression that being deceived LED to disobedience.

Here is an example to show what I mean:

A friend comes up to me and says, "Frank wasn't tricked, but my brother Jack, having been tricked, disobeyed our mom."
So I say. "Oh no, what did Jack do?"
The friend says, "He ate a cookie out the the jar."
So, I say, "I guess Frank didn't eat a cookie right? After all, you said Jack was the one tricked."


The friend says "I didn't say he didn't eat a cookie, just that Jack disobeyed having been tricked. Frank ate the cookie because he didn't want Jack to have all the fun."

So when you say, "It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible." there is no need to gawk. Paul may have been vague, but he didn't actually contradict Genesis.

'And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;' (Gen. 3:17)

"Listened to the voice of your wife..." what exactly did she say, it can't have been anything that was true?

You're example doesn't seem comparable to what happened although it does seem comparable based on the parts of the text we'd so far brought up. But I also can't see the emphasis on deceived as you do because 'transgression' clearly trumps it and as I said it's appearance in the second half of the sentence reads as an aside.

Sure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.

In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.

Yes, but according to you Timothy already knew this stuff inside and out. He wouldn't have needed to point out that Adam transgressed. Timothy already knew that. Paul was just pointing out who was deceived by the Serpent and how that factored into his comments about women in the ministry.

Why do you need to open that with "according to you" that suggests that you think that this might be new to Timothy and he might not know what Paul is trying to say anymore than I do. That he might also read it and understand it as saying that Adam didn't sin. I think we can both agree that he didn't think that. But not knowing the letter he sent Paul received from him means that this could basically be his argument and Paul is basically confirming it, perhaps repeating some of his own letter back to him we can't know. I don't have use for a letter that causes the sort of controversy this letter causes not when I don't know what it means. Although since I'm not in any position to act on its instruction I probably don't need to. But it would be helpful to know. Considering how much Paul opposed dividing the church this comment sure divides the church a lot. Although I don't think this one has caused any full on schisms yet although I'm not quite sure.

Your point had to do with how you believe an unread text is inerrant before being examined because it doesn't essentially say anything until it is read. My point is that it doesn't make the text inerrant. It makes it inconclusive as to its errancy until it can be examined. This is similar to how Paul saying that Eve was deceived and transgressed isn't the same as saying she was the ONLY one who transgressed. The information is not given as to whether Adam transgressed, so based ONLY on Timothy, whether or not Adam transgressed would be inconclusive until we read Romans 5.

So a colorblind person who hasn't seen the color of the shirt cannot make a claim of whether it is black or white without seeing the shirt first, even if the conclusion is affected by their ability to see color. The point is that a text cannot be determined as inerrant until it is at least SEEN.

Oh, bother I've written the wrong type of 'you're' (it should be 'your'). I'll have to fix that. Doesn't this discussion prove my point me and you have read the same Bible, (not the same copy necessarily in this case), we've both read Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 and we've come to contrary conclusions about what Paul actually says at 1 Timothy 2.

Of course, all Bibles are before God and He can decide the errancy of them, but how errant or otherwise is a Bible when it turns out the language it's being translated into just doesn't have the nuance to express a certain point or points? By what criteria would God actually judge a Bible to be innerant? How many 'mistakes' would He allow. Because God is perfect and only God, how brooks no competition so how are there perfect Bibles? So how imperfect does a Bible have to be before God will condemn it as a bad Bible that could horribly mislead people.

What I am saying is that we believe that the letter to Timothy is inerrant and counts as scripture and does not contradict another letter Paul wrote.

Paul wrote a lot of letters, we haven't got them all (unfortunately). Has the church really only managed to preserve the innerant ones or does God preserve letters a books for His own reasons not because they are innately innerant but because as I imagine He is best able to communicate His will through them with the minimal difficulty and conclusion.

I don't see any reason for me to believe that there is a contradiction in this case.

Perhaps not but if you hold to the concept of the innerancy of the Bible, that of it being the 'true and literal word of God' than in fact it is not Paul saying 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.' but God saying it. And that someone could claim that God is contradicting Himself because He has already given some women such authority in the past.

Yes, I agree, that is one of the evidences they present to support the two-evangel theory.

Indeed, and it seems stronger than it should be given how that theory is so poor, and untrue as shown by the first citation.

But it seems to be a strange way to divide, circumcised and uncircumcised obviously despite some traditions Israel isn't the only circumcised race in history so it's hard to be sure what Paul means even though the NLT (grrr) translates it exactly as I just wrote. What is concerning here is that the phrase is literally, according to translators who bother, 'gospel of the circumcision/uncircumcision' which really does sound like two gospel even though I don't believe there are two gospels, only translations I really don't trust to be fair use the preposition 'to' instead of 'for'. It's strange I don't doubt Paul was not trying to suggest there are two gospels given what he just said but at the same time he's again written something we struggle to translate with it suggesting something he can't mean. I can't help thinking he must have known better Greek than anyone one trying to translate his writing. Which is disappointing for us readers.

[Seth]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are various forms of 'silent' communication, and other forms of context that would lead people to correctly understand he didn't go on his own.

That would be the inference, what you believe is being silently communicated. The point is that you cannot make a definite case with the information provided. The phrase, " I went camping" is vague as to whether anyone else did too. If you wanted to find out more information, you can ask, "did you go alone? Was someone with you?" Since we can't ask Paul, we can read his other letters.

Oh, bother I've written the wrong type of 'you're' (it should be 'your'). I'll have to fix that. Doesn't this discussion prove my point me and you have read the same Bible, (not the same copy necessarily in this case), we've both read Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 and we've come to contrary conclusions about what Paul actually says at 1 Timothy 2.

Yeah, there has been a lot of disagreement on what the Bible says throughout history. But not having a written Law, and being led by the Spirit, means that our own personal takes on what love is, doesn't affect the outcome God has created. God follows the Romans 8 process of choosing, and forming his chosen people like clay.

The commandment to love is written by God, then demonstrated by God through his chosen people.

Of course, all Bibles are before God and He can decide the errancy of them, but how errant or otherwise is a Bible when it turns out the language it's being translated into just doesn't have the nuance to express a certain point or points? By what criteria would God actually judge a Bible to be innerant? How many 'mistakes' would He allow. Because God is perfect and only God, how brooks no competition so how are there perfect Bibles? So how imperfect does a Bible have to be before God will condemn it as a bad Bible that could horribly mislead people.

I don't believe all Bibles are inerrant. But I do believe the letter to Timothy is. A Bible is a translation. I do believe translations can be errant.

Perhaps not but if you hold to the concept of the innerancy of the Bible, that of it being the 'true and literal word of God' than in fact it is not Paul saying 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.' but God saying it. And that someone could claim that God is contradicting Himself because He has already given some women such authority in the past.

It depends on what Paul MEANS, not just what he says. Eaglesway has good points on that. The scripture is inerrant in what it says, but that doesn't mean we are all inerrant in what we say it means. But in terms of following the command to love, the elect cannot be deceived by Satan or they cannot be elect. That's why John said, if they left us, it shows they were not of us. So, God will ultimately perform the Romans 8 process with them.

[CST]

That would be the inference, what you believe is being silently communicated. The point is that you cannot make a definite case with the information provided. The phrase, " I went camping" is vague as to whether anyone else did too. If you wanted to find out more information, you can ask, "did you go alone? Was someone with you?" Since we can't ask Paul, we can read his other letters.

Or we can read this one, thanks for this discussion it's been informative and enlightening. What I find interesting is that using what is written in Genesis 3, Paul could easily say I do permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, a woman led man wrong before, best it not happen again. Easy, I think it's not very constructive, better for man to learn when they should or shouldn't be led by women so they can recognize the difference. That's better for all parties and the relationship. But at least it would be a clearly founder position, but it doesn't appear to be what he is saying, however maybe it is...

Yeah, there has been a lot of disagreement on what the Bible says throughout history. But not having a written Law, and being led by the Spirit, means that our own personal takes on what love is, doesn't affect the outcome God has created. God follows the Romans 8 process of choosing, and forming his chosen people like clay.

The commandment to love is written by God, then demonstrated by God through his chosen people.

Not sure if we were talking about the law vs. love in this instance. Although I suppose if it's the Bible we're probably always talking about love.

I don't believe all Bibles are inerrant. But I do believe the letter to Timothy is. A Bible is a translation. I do believe translations can be errant.

Do you believe all the translations I've so far used in this discussion could be errant? After all, no of them are the actual text of the letter to Timothy, although we have to presume they have all seen an inerrant copy of the letter that they're trying to translate and not just an errant copy of an inerrant original.

I ask because so far I shown 14 translations and all of them appear to gloss over the fact that Adam transgressed, when he's pushed the fact very hard elsewhere, he made a big speech about it in Romans 5. Here's the YLT version again:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'

Now that's a little awkward and, as I said, I considered those second pair of commas appear to be of the bracketing kind. However I seriously doubt any of those commas are in the Greek so what happens to the meaning of the sentence if I do this:

'and Adam was not deceived but, the woman having been deceived, into transgression came,'?

I'm probably want to change that 'but' into 'yet' if the Greek would allow it, but now, as you see it does actually say what we'd expect it to say which is that Adam transgressed due to the woman being deceived even though it's not as clear as I'd like to imagine it could be. Of course, I've just made that up, I don't know if the Greek will actually allow I can just see that manipulation of the English does.

It depends on what Paul MEANS, not just what he says. Eaglesway has good points on that. The scripture is inerrant in what it says, but that doesn't mean we are all inerrant in what we say it means. But in terms of following the command to love, the elect cannot be deceived by Satan or they cannot be elect. That's why John said, if they left us, it shows they were not of us. So, God will ultimately perform the Romans 8 process with them.

Oh, absolutely, and if the above example is actually good, which seems unlikely since I don't know Greek, we've been wrong in what at least part of that letter says for quite a long time. But the phrase 'I permit no woman...' doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room. But again I don't speak Greek. After all the phrase 'of the circumcision/uncircumcision  doesn't seem to leave wiggle room either but it obviously can't means there's two evangels because Paul has only just stated there's only one.

The downside of the 'if they left us' bit sounds like it can be turned into an excuse to give up on people, I'm sure it shouldn't be but I'm also sure ETers and EDers use it to justify all sorts of appalling things.

[Seth]

Or we can read this one, thanks for this discussion it's been informative and enlightening. What I find interesting is that using what is written in Genesis 3, Paul could easily say I do permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, a woman led man wrong before, best it not happen again. Easy, I think it's not very constructive, better for man to learn when they should or shouldn't be led by women so they can recognize the difference. That's better for all parties and the relationship. But at least it would be a clearly founder position, but it doesn't appear to be what he is saying, however maybe it is...

Thank you too! :-)

When I look at the Timothy passage, the first thing I see is "For (because) Adam was formed before Eve." Out of all the reasons he could come up with, that was the first one. That gives me a clue as to his underlying reasoning with the passage to follow, about who was deceived first. I suspect Paul's comments about the deception has to do with the order of things, how things unfolded in Genesis and how he wants the church to reflect the patterns. I don't think it's a slight against women.

I'm probably want to change that 'but' into 'yet' if the Greek would allow it, but now, as you see it does actually say what we'd expect it to say which is that Adam transgressed due to the woman being deceived even though it's not as clear as I'd like to imagine it could be.

Also what happens if we take this: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, came into transgression,'

and switch the order of the word groups:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman came into trangression having been deceived, '

To me I think it clarifies that, while Paul did not call out Adam's sin specifically, the language does not omit the possibility. It just omits the possibility that Adam came into transgression the same way Eve did.

In other words "Adam was not deceived (and therefore that's not how he transgressed) but the woman came into transgression having been deceived."

Oh, absolutely, and if the above example is actually good, which seems unlikely since I don't know Greek, we've been wrong in what at least part of that letter says for quite a long time. But the phrase 'I permit no woman...' doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room.

True, and Paul also advocated for people in the church to not marry so they could focus on the ministry. But, he also said this was his personal recommendation, not an order from Christ. Could it be that it's similar here? Notice he does not say, "Christ does not permit." After all, ultimately, Christ is the head of the church. Obviously, I am not saying Paul was in error, but that maybe he left it open with his intentional phrasing of "I do not permit."

The downside of the 'if they left us' bit sounds like it can be turned into an excuse to give up on people, I'm sure it shouldn't be but I'm also sure ETers and EDers use it to justify all sorts of appalling things.

I would hope not. I think it shows that the people who left didn't want to be there. You can't force people to be there.

[CST]

Thank you too! :-)

When I look at the Timothy passage, the first thing I see is "For (because) Adam was formed before Eve." Out of all the reasons he could come up with, that was the first one. That gives me a clue as to his underlying reasoning with the passage to follow, about who was deceived first. I suspect Paul's comments about the deception has to do with the order of things, how things unfolded in Genesis and how he wants the church to reflect the patterns. I don't think it's a slight against women.

I've always just seen it as, Adam was formed first so he's more important. In the same way the firstborn is supposed to be more important than all their younger siblings in any family. Although God overruled this an awful lot. I wouldn't expect there to be any 'clues' here, Paul was sending a direct letter to Timothy he wasn't trying to be cryptic, I don't think it should be sure an effort to work out what he means.

Also what happens if we take this: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, came into transgression,'

and switch the order of the word groups:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman came into trangression having been deceived, '

To me I think it clarifies that, while Paul did not call out Adam's sin specifically, the language does not omit the possibility. It just omits the possibility that Adam came into transgression the same way Eve did.

In other words "Adam was not deceived (and therefore that's not how he transgressed) but the woman came into transgression having been deceived."

I'm presuming the people translating the letter of Timothy have at least translated the word order as correctly as possible. Just that they've adding the punctuation in their head and put it in the wrong place.

My point is that this transgression word isn't one Paul uses that much (no one else uses it at all) and another significant usage is in the Roman's 5 passage when he describes this scene, talks about the fall of man and pins it on the first man, Adam. It's the omission here when he made such a big piece of theology out of it before that I find jarring.

True, and Paul also advocated for people in the church to not marry so they could focus on the ministry. But, he also said this was his personal recommendation, not an order from Christ. Could it be that it's similar here? Notice he does not say, "Christ does not permit." After all, ultimately, Christ is the head of the church. Obviously, I am not saying Paul was in error, but that maybe he left it open with his intentional phrasing of "I do not permit."

Indeed, but that just leaves us in the position of debating how much authority we give to the man who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else and seems to have done more to establish Christian doctrine than anyone else. As soon as you introduce the 'true and literal Word of God' bit. And this becomes a 'Christ does not permit...' statement because he's talking though the Holy Spirit and is understood as the mouthpiece for Christ.

I would hope not. I think it shows that the people who left didn't want to be there. You can't force people to be there.

I'm not talking about people who leave because they didn't want to be there, I'm talking about stubborn people on both sides being difficult. How many times has the church split now? And how many 'official' churches preach a plausible doctrine of Universal Salvation? I don't think there's too many that haven't fallen away.

[Seth]

I've always just seen it as, Adam was formed first so he's more important. In the same way the firstborn is supposed to be more important than all their younger siblings in any family. Although God overruled this an awful lot. I wouldn't expect there to be any 'clues' here, Paul was sending a direct letter to Timothy he wasn't trying to be cryptic, I don't think it should be sure an effort to work out what he means.

But, if we isolate the next sentence (about deception) from the context, then bringing back the context brings a clue as to what he means about the deception.

I'd argue that the words we speak are all clues as to what we mean or how we think.

I'm presuming the people translating the letter of Timothy have at least translated the word order as correctly as possible. Just that they've adding the punctuation in their head and put it in the wrong place.

I'd presume the same. But if we take Yoda's sentence: "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." If I reverse the word order and say "You will not look as good when you reach 900 years old." that hasn't changed the meaning of the sentence.

My point is that this transgression word isn't one Paul uses that much (no one else uses it at all) and another significant usage is in the Roman's 5 passage when he describes this scene, talks about the fall of man and pins it on the first man, Adam. It's the omission here when he made such a big piece of theology out of it before that I find jarring.

I'd only find it jarring if Paul was attempting to teach something about Adam's sin, and left out any mention of Adam's sin. I don't find this jarring because Paul wasn't making a point about Adam's sin.

Indeed, but that just leaves us in the position of debating how much authority we give to the man who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else and seems to have done more to establish Christian doctrine than anyone else. As soon as you introduce the 'true and literal Word of God' bit. And this becomes a 'Christ does not permit...' statement because he's talking though the Holy Spirit and is understood as the mouthpiece for Christ.

He was a mouthpiece for Christ, but he also careful to distinguish his own opinion versus Christ's opinion, such as in the case of marriage. So, his phrasing in Timothy opens the possibility for that consideration without doubting Paul's authority.

I'm not talking about people who leave because they didn't want to be there, I'm talking about stubborn people on both sides being difficult. How many times has the church split now? And how many 'official' churches preach a plausible doctrine of Universal Salvation? I don't think there's too many that haven't fallen away.

Yes, but him saying that "they were never of us" doesn't mean he is giving up on them. I think it's a statement of God's election (i.e. wolves will enter in).

[CST]

But, if we isolate the next sentence (about deception) from the context, then bringing back the context brings a clue as to what he means about the deception. 
I'd argue that the words we speak are all clues as to what we mean or how we think.

Well, obviously the words we use are more than that. They should be a dead giveaway to what we mean or think provided we're not lying. But I still struggle to see what he means and thinks in the same way you do. For to me when Paul says:

'For Adam was formed first, then Eve;' (1 Tim. 2:13)

then he is offering one reason why woman should be subservient to men. And then when he says:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Tim. 2:14)

he is offering a second additional and complimentary reason to the same issue. Hence the 'and' but he doesn't say Eve transgressed first and then Adam which would clearly support your position. Obviously I can't re-edit that translation as I did the more literal one.

I'd presume to same. But if we take Yoda's sentence: "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." If I reverse the word order and say "You will not look as good when you reach 900 years old." that hasn't changed the meaning of the sentence.

But that's because Yoda is fictional. When you here Yoda speak you are meant to be able to understand the grammar he is using and correct accordingly in your head. The grammar Paul uses to write in Greek could read like Yoda's but the translators correct for us according to what they think he was writing. So in practice it's perfect possible, in fact I think likely, that what I'm trying to do doesn't work. But it could work if the sentence does read that way when correctly translated but there really is no clue as to where to punctuate it.

I'd only find it jarring if Paul was attempting to teach something about Adam's sin, and left out any mention of Adam's sin. I don't find this jarring because Paul wasn't making a point about Adam's sin.

But Adam's sin/transgression is the foundation of Paul's theology. Paul never mentions Adam without mentioning his transgression. It's strange for him not to mention it here
when he considers it so important. Jesus never called Himself the 'last Adam' none of the other writers do this is Paul's theological argument so it's odd for him not to mention it when he's referencing the same event.

He was a mouthpiece for Christ, but he also careful to distinguish his own opinion versus Christ's opinion, such as in the case of marriage. So, his phrasing in Timothy opens the possibility for that consideration without doubting Paul's authority.

That doesn't mean anything, if the Bible is inerrant as we've been claiming it is then Paul's hesitation just means he isn't sure whether what he's saying is right or not. The inerrancy of the Bible means that it must be the inerrant Bible wouldn't transmit to us an error on the part of Paul. Which I'm pretty sure is what you were claiming earlier when I tried to question whether something he'd learned at the knee of the Pharisees had got in. The difference is the I only thought it mattered if the received text was correct, or could be taken as such if the reader had proper understanding given from God, not that Paul can't have been in error in his thinking because reading this letter doesn't mean I can actually read his mind. The Pharisee argument wasn't meant to be a claim the we could simply ignore what he said, it's made the Bible, it was just a suggestion there might be parts of his writing where we should think more carefully about what he's saying and why he's saying it. It was an appeal to caution.

There's no ambiguity here Paul said that he wasn't sure about a certain point but gave his suggestion. But if the Bible is inerrant he's not in error and he's correct in what he says. So the best we've got is either another appeal for caution or possible a need to wait for someone else who might be authorized to give a stronger answer but unfortunately most people who might come follow the Bible, including the authority of Paul, because that's all we've got.

Yes, but him saying that "they were never of us" doesn't mean he is giving up on them. I think it's a statement of God's election (i.e. wolves will enter in).

Well, obviously God isn't giving up on anyone. But we Universalists are a rather small group, most people in the organizations who take the name 'Church' imagine that God does give up on most people and so take that fact, and lines like that which they would take as confirmation of the thought, as justification to do the same, often rather sooner than they should.

[Seth]

Well, obviously the words we use are more than that. They should be a dead giveaway to what we mean or think provided we're not lying.

Language is much more complex than that. Many times we say things on this forum that others misunderstand and have to clarify.

But I still struggle to see what he means and thinks in the same way you do. For to me when Paul says:

'For Adam was formed first, then Eve;' (1 Tim. 2:13)

then he is offering one reason why woman should be subservient to men. And then when he says:

'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Tim. 2:14)

he is offering a second additional and complimentary reason to the same issue. Hence the 'and' but he doesn't say Eve transgressed first and then Adam which would clearly support your position. Obviously I can't re-edit that translation as I did the more literal one.

It doesn't say Eve sinned first, but Genesis 3 proves that she did, whatever you think that sin is. Remember, Timothy would have known that already, so Paul probably didn't feel he needed to go over that again.

But that's because Yoda is fictional. When you here Yoda speak you are meant to be able to understand the grammar he is using and correct accordingly in your head.

It doesn't matter that he is fictional. His grammar is awkward, but still legitimate.

If I say, "Having put on his gym clothes, John went to the gym." That is the same as saying, "John went to the gym, having put on his gym clothes."

But Adam's sin/transgression is the foundation of Paul's theology. Paul never mentions Adam without mentioning his transgression. It's strange for him not to mention it here
when he considers it so important.

It's foundational to the gospel, but not foundational to the specific point Paul is making in that verse.

That doesn't mean anything, if the Bible is inerrant as we've been claiming it is then Paul's hesitation just means he isn't sure whether what he's saying is right or not. The inerrancy of the Bible means that it must be the inerrant Bible wouldn't transmit to us an error on the part of Paul. Which I'm pretty sure is what you were claiming earlier when I tried to question whether something he'd learned at the knee of the Pharisees had got in.

He's not hesitating. He says "I do not permit." That's Paul attributing his actions to himself. All I am saying is that it's possible to interpret his words in accordance with his words about whether or not people should get married. There is no error being attributed, and there is no reason to believe that Paul's reasoning is unsound, anymore than to believe his thoughts on marriage are unsound, or influenced by his past as a Pharisee.

The Pharisee argument wasn't meant to be a claim the we could simply ignore what he said, it's made the Bible, it was just a suggestion there might be parts of his writing where we should think more carefully about what he's saying and why he's saying it. It was an appeal to caution.

The Pharisee argument suggests that he was influenced by an error in thinking, being that Christ was opposed to how the Pharisees thought. That's why I think we should be careful about attributing such psychoanalysis of Paul, seeing as how that conclusion is a guess, not a fact.

Well, obviously God isn't giving up on anyone. But we Universalists are a rather small group, most people in the organizations who take the name 'Church' imagine that God does give up on most people and so take that fact, and lines like that which they would take as confirmation of the thought, as justification to do the same, often rather sooner than they should.

I can only provide what I think it means. I think it means that God elects who will be made in the image of Christ through the Spirit, not the Law.

[CST]

Language is much more complex than that. Many times we say things on this forum that others misunderstand and have to clarify.

Oh, yes quite like this conversation. I did say should. But if we're talking about an 'inerrant' text here than it can't be any fault on paul's part if we can't agree on what he's saying, surely? See what follows for more examples.

It doesn't say Eve sinned first, but Genesis 3 proves that she did, whatever you think that sin is. Remember, Timothy would have known that already, so Paul probably didn't feel he needed to go over that again.

But now you'd be guessing. Paul doesn't say one thing Timothy would already know so why mention any of it at all? Paul is trying to make and argument and you're trying to claim he's intending for Timothy to read into his argument things he doesn't explain, instead of making the argument he once to make clearly. I'm sure people make arguments like that from time to time but I couldn't blame Timothy if he didn't read into Paul's reasoning something he didn't say so I can't blame anyone else who reads it for not immediately imagining he's making that sort of argument either.

It doesn't matter that he is fictional. His grammar is awkward, but still legitimate.

If I say, "Having put on his gym clothes, John went to the gym." That is the same as saying, "John went to the gym, having put on his gym clothes."

But he's speaking English. He's following English Grammar rules that George Lucas then plays with slightly to make his language sound a bit alien even though it's not really.

Paul is writing in Greek it has different rules and people are trying to translate it according to those rules. I don't know how it actually reads in Greek or how I would properly translate it into English I just imagine that the word or is probably more accurate as it is than changing it around for example the word Paul uses for 'transgression' is 'parabasis' it appears in the New Testament four times (John once uses a different word translated 'transgression') three in Paul's epistles and once in the letter to the Hebrews which there's actually some dispute about but this would also go in favour of Pauline authorship. Also in the book of Acts Luke has Peter use the word 'parabaino' which looks similar and may well be similar but which the KJV translates as 'by transgression fell' which is one word for a whole phrase. It doesn't quite seem to work the same, necessarily. Although I don't I have the most reliable sources.

It's foundational to the gospel, but not foundational to the specific point Paul is making in that verse.

Only because we have it from Paul that it is or, more accurately we only know that it is foundational to the Gospel because we have it from St. Paul.

'Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.' (Rom. 5;14)

'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. 5:19)

'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (1 Cor. 15:21-22)

'And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.' (1 Cor. 15:45)

Paul never mentions Adam outside the context of Adam's offense in the garden which he also presents as one for one to make the theology work he says the many were made sinners through one man's disobedience not one man and one woman even though that would be more technically true. But that would work for the parallel as effectively.

In every other occasion Paul mentions Adam he mentions Adam's sin. It would be strange for him not to refer to it here.

He's not hesitating. He says "I do not permit." That's Paul attributing his actions to himself. All I am saying is that it's possible to interpret his words in accordance with his words about whether or not people should get married. There is no error being attributed, and there is no reason to believe that Paul's reasoning is unsound, anymore than to believe his thoughts on marriage are unsound, or influenced by his past as a Pharisee.

Sorry, we're talking at crossed purposes. When I said hesitating I meant when he talked about marriage which you are, as I understand, attempting to use to dilute what Paul said here in similar fashion because he tried to downgrade that instruction to opinion and the use of the 'I' in one Timothy might also therefore be read as opinion and not necessarily what Jesus would say Himself. I'm trying to say I'm not sure it works like that if you're trying to uphold the inerrancy of the texts. If you're doing that than there's not really a difference between the two.

The Pharisee argument suggests that he was influenced by an error in thinking, being that Christ was opposed to how the Pharisees thought. That's why I think we should be careful about attributing such psychoanalysis of Paul, seeing as how that conclusion is a guess, not a fact.

Oh yeah, it was a guess and I recognize that it's a risky one but I've explained before why I wonder about it and imagine that since all Paul's early indoctrination in the scriptures would could from the Pharisees I at least think there's reason to hold it as an educated guess. And we do know that Jesus was opposed to how the Pharisees both thought and behaved but we also know that Paul was a Pharisee, and by the look of it one of the worst, when Jesus appointed him, we can't get around that.

I can only provide what I think it means. I think it means that God elects who will be made in the image of Christ through the Spirit, not the Law.

We're clearly speaking crossed purposes here since that statement doesn't appear to speak to anything I was saying which was to do with people in the Church letting other people just walk away because they have read stuff like that and shaped their God in the unmerciful mode and thus behave unmercifully themselves.

[Seth]

Paul is trying to make and argument and you're trying to claim he's intending for Timothy to read into his argument things he doesn't explain, instead of making the argument he once to make clearly.

The manner in which Paul is speaking to Timothy indicates to me that Timothy does know the story already.

But he's speaking English. He's following English Grammar rules that George Lucas then plays with slightly to make his language sound a bit alien even though it's not really.

George Lucas didn't make up the rules of grammar that Yoda was using. He just flipped the clauses a bit which made him sound more awkward, but he didn't make up the rules. Yoda's grammar was awkward but totally in line with established rules.

Paul is writing in Greek it has different rules and people are trying to translate it according to those rules. I don't know how it actually reads in Greek or how I would properly translate it into English I just imagine that the word or is probably more accurate as it is than changing it around for example the word Paul uses for 'transgression' is 'parabasis' it appears in the New Testament four times (John once uses a different word translated 'transgression') three in Paul's epistles and once in the letter to the Hebrews which there's actually some dispute about but this would also go in favour of Pauline authorship.

Assuming that the original sentence in the Young's Literal Translation is correctly translated as "the woman having been deceived into transgression came" if that is an accurate translation, then "the woman into transgression came having been deceived" doesn't change the meaning of that translated sentence.

Translators do this all the time. They start with a literal translation, which is usually awkward sounding in English, then they phrase the translated sentence in a way that is more understandable to English speakers without changing the meaning.

If I take this phrase, "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But Sally, having put on gym shorts, when to the gym." that's the same as saying "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But, Sally went to the gym, having put on gym shorts" neither one proves that Billy didn't go to the gym (he may have gone to the gym in regular clothes to meet someone, or because he works there, or because he just likes to work out in regular clothes.) And, the second phrasing doesn't change the meaning of the first.

This is called Linguistic typology. In Greek, they may use a word order called Subject-object-verb: "The man the child loves." Whereas in English it would be "The child loves the man." My point is that flipping the structure doesn't change the meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verb

Paul never mentions Adam outside the context of Adam's offense in the garden which he also presents as one for one to make the theology work he says the many were made sinners through one man's disobedience not one man and one woman even though that would be more technically true. But that would work for the parallel as effectively.

In every other occasion Paul mentions Adam he mentions Adam's sin. It would be strange for him not to refer to it here.

It's not strange because in all those other cases he was talking about the foundation of the Gospel. In the case of Timothy he is not. He's talking about the role of women in the church. Paul's purpose determines what he spoke about.

I'm trying to say I'm not sure it works like that if you're trying to uphold the inerrancy of the texts. If you're doing that than there's not really a difference between the two.

It wouldn't affect the errancy of the text, only how the text is interpreted by the reader. A text can be without error even if people have a different viewpoint of its intended meaning.

And we do know that Jesus was opposed to how the Pharisees both thought and behaved but we also know that Paul was a Pharisee, and by the look of it one of the worst, when Jesus appointed him, we can't get around that.

And that throws into question whether Paul was acting outside the will of Christ and worthy of Christ's rebuke in what he said. That also throws into question Paul's authority over what he said, whether or not error crept into the scripture.

My interpretation of the text doesn't throw Paul's foundational reasoning into question.

We're clearly speaking crossed purposes here since that statement doesn't appear to speak to anything I was saying which was to do with people in the Church letting other people just walk away because they have read stuff like that and shaped their God in the unmerciful mode and thus behave unmercifully themselves.

I can't really speak to how other people interpret it that way. I can only say how I see what the scripture means. People can interpret the scripture in all manner of ways. I am just explaining how I interpret it.

[CST]

The manner in which Paul is speaking to Timothy indicates to me that Timothy does know the story already.

I'm not arguing that Timothy doesn't know the story, that would be very strange. But Paul doesn't make the argument your making, the woman transgressed first and then Adam in any specific sense. Therefore Timothy would have to read it in. I don't think assuming the person you're writing to will read the argument you mean but haven't stated into the text is a very powerful way to make an argument.

George Lucas didn't make up the rules of grammar that Yoda was using. He just flipped the clauses a bit which made him sound more awkward, but he didn't make up the rules. Yoda's grammar was awkward but totally in line with established rules.

Of course he didn't but he has to work within the confines of the rules he's got, i.e. English. Someone watching Star Wars who only has English as a second language might really struggle to understand what Yoda is saying.

Assuming that the original sentence in the Young's Literal Translation is correctly translated as "the woman having been deceived into transgression came" if that is an accurate translation, then "the woman into transgression came having been deceived" doesn't change the meaning of that translated sentence.

Translators do this all the time. They start with a literal translation, which is usually awkward sounding in English, then they phrase the translated sentence in a way that is more understandable to English speakers without changing the meaning

If I take this phrase, "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But Sally, having put on gym shorts, when to the gym." that's the same as saying "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But, Sally went to the gym, having put on gym shorts" neither one proves that Billy didn't go to the gym (he may have gone to the gym in regular clothes to meet someone, or because he works there, or because he just likes to work out in regular clothes.) And, the second phrasing doesn't change the meaning of the first.

This is called Linguistic typology. In Greek, they may use a word order called Subject-object-verb: "The man the child loves." Whereas in English it would be "The child loves the man." My point is that flipping the structure doesn't change the meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verb

Of course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that. I'm just saying that I can put the punctuation marks elsewhere, were that the case, and create a different meaning which I feel better fits Paul's other arguments elsewhere and the information in Genesis 3.

Now you've just gone back to the original argument which was getting us nowhere. But did not mention that Adam sinned so it has to be inferred which makes for a poor argument.

It's not strange because in all those other cases he was talking about the foundation of the Gospel. In the case of Timothy he is not. He's talking about the role of women in the church. Paul's purpose determines what he spoke about.

But he doesn't explain it very well. it is argued badly.

It wouldn't affect the errancy of the text, only how the text is interpreted by the reader. A text can be without error even if people have a different viewpoint of its intended meaning.

Again we've been there. But knowing that isn't helpful.

And that throws into question whether Paul was acting outside the will of Christ and worthy of Christ's rebuke in what he said. That also throws into question Paul's authority over what he said, whether or not error crept into the scripture.

My interpretation of the text doesn't throw Paul's foundational reasoning into question.

Mine doesn't either because it simply means trusting God to deliver his Word properly.

I can't really speak to how other people interpret it that way. I can only say how I see what the scripture means. People can interpret the scripture in all manner of ways. I am just explaining how I interpret it.

:)

[Seth]

I'm not arguing that Timothy doesn't know the story, that would be very strange. But Paul doesn't make the argument your making, the woman transgressed first and then Adam in any specific sense. Therefore Timothy would have to read it in. I don't think assuming the person you're writing to will read the argument you mean but haven't stated into the text is a very powerful way to make an argument.

It's completely unclear as to how Timothy interpreted the passage. That's not the argument I am making. I'm raising a possibility for why Paul did not go into more detail about his reasoning. I'm not saying, "this is exactly what happened."

Of course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that.

My original point is that by reversing the sentence structure, we can see the sentence in a new light that does not change the meaning of the sentence. As long as the Subject, Verb and Object are retained, the sentence structure doesn't change the meaning.

If I say "Mary hit the ball," the Subject is Mary, the Verb is hit, and the Object is the ball. So, I can say "Hit the ball, Mary did." and because the Subject-Verb-Object hasn't changed, the meaning hasn't changed.  But if I swap "Mary" for "Todd" or "hit" to "rolled" then I have changed the meaning.

If I say "Adam was not deceived. But, the woman came into transgression having been deceived" it doesn't change the meaning because the Subject-Verb-Object is preserved.

Now you've just gone back to the original argument which was getting us nowhere. But did not mention that Adam sinned so it has to be inferred which makes for a poor argument.

The Timothy letter is not attempting to prove that Adam sinned in the first place so yeah it would have to be inferred. It can't be a weak argument for something it's not trying to argue. The point is that Timothy doesn't deny or contradict that Adam sinned, which is what you said bothered you.  That's been my point from the beginning and it hasn't changed.

Just because a piece of text doesn't make a positive claim doesn't mean it is denying that claim.

But he doesn't explain it very well. it is argued badly.

He does leave it vague as to what deception has to do with the order of the church, I agree. But, I am more focused on whether or not Timothy disproves that Adam sinned, and I don't believe it does.

Mine doesn't either because it simply means trusting God to deliver his Word properly.

If you are saying that Paul was influenced by his time as a Pharisee, it does imply to me that we ought to doubt Paul's alignment with Christ's desire for the church's structure. If that is not your intention, I accept that. But, I doubt I'd be alone in inferring that from your argument, just so you know.

It sounds like you are saying that Paul was off-base in his analysis because he was a former Pharisee and was returning to an error-prone reasoning that we should doubt.

[CST]

It's completely unclear as to how Timothy interpreted the passage. That's not the argument I am making. I'm raising a possibility for why Paul did not go into more detail about his reasoning. I'm not saying, "this is exactly what happened."

If I understood you correctly, you were trying to argue that Paul intended his statement arguing from the fact man was created first and woman second as to why man should be first and woman second; and then you're trying to argue that Paul is also arguing that woman sinned first and man second is another reason why man should be first. But that the reader has to read in because he doesn't specifically state it, so Timothy would have to read it in. And to me that seems a strange way to make an argument: not actually making it but hoping the person you're presenting it to will conclude it from the subtext. The way it's normally presented all I can get is that Paul's arguing that woman's susceptibility to deception makes her a liability as any sort of leader as it can lead her into transgression. The new way I'm reading it, her capacity that, having been deceived she could lead others, maybe the whole church into transgression makes her a liability for everyone at least makes some sort of sense to me even if I'm unclear as to the details and if I agree with the fairnes of the thinking.

Of course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that.

My original point is that by reversing the sentence structure, we can see the sentence in a new light that does not change the meaning of the sentence. As long as the Subject, Verb and Object are retained, the sentence structure doesn't change the meaning.

If I say "Mary hit the ball," the Subject is Mary, the Verb is hit, and the Object is the ball. So, I can say "Hit the ball, Mary did." and because the Subject-Verb-Object hasn't changed, the meaning hasn't changed.  But if I swap "Mary" for "Todd" or "hit" to "rolled" then I have changed the meaning.

If I say "Adam was not deceived. But, the woman came into transgression having been deceived" it doesn't change the meaning because the Subject-Verb-Object is preserved.

Then I can't see what your purpose is because the sentence we have as usually presented gives that meaning anyway which I'm disputing due to problems I'm having with how it's relayed, what happens in Genesis and, yes, what something so unclear means for the inerrancy of the Bible.

The changes I make, change the meaning and show there is a way, at least to me, that what Paul is saying is a lot clearer and more consistent with both what we have in Genesis and his former theology.

The Timothy letter is not attempting to prove that Adam sinned in the first place so yeah it would have to be inferred. It can't be a weak argument for something it's not trying to argue. The point is that Timothy doesn't deny or contradict that Adam sinned, which is what you said bothered you.  That's been my point from the beginning and it hasn't changed.

Just because a piece of text doesn't make a positive claim doesn't mean it is denying that claim.

No what bothers me is that it seems to put being deceived and transgressing above not being deceived but transgressing anyway to the point where the latter is so serious it neutralizes the effect of the former. So Paul not mentioning it looks less like a lapse and more like deliberate omission. Like his transgression, which looks more worse than Eve's because she was deceived while he knew exactly what he was doing, has been blotted out while her's has been retained so that it can punish her further my excluding women from any active roles in the church. The knock of effect being that women are continual held as second class and belittled and abused in most societies to the present day. Adam directly disobeyed God, what sort of example is that for the the type of people you want running a church?

He does leave it vague as to what deception has to do with the order of the church, I agree. But, I am more focused on whether or not Timothy disproves that Adam sinned, and I don't believe it does.

But vague seems to contradict the concept of inerrancy. It can't be inerrant if there are numerous incorrect ways it can so easiliy be read, can if?

If you are saying that Paul was influenced by his time as a Pharisee, it does imply to me that we ought to doubt Paul's alignment with Christ's desire for the church's structure. If that is not your intention, I accept that. But, I doubt I'd be alone in inferring that from your argument, just so you know.

It sounds like you are saying that Paul was off-base in his analysis because he was a former Pharisee and was returning to an error-prone reasoning that we should doubt.

Paul died a martyr for Christianity we have every reason to accept his loyalty to Christ and what he wrote clearly is trustworthy as far as his intent and sincerity is concerned and I don't doubt it.

But Jesus elected a man that the Bible makes very clear was a Pharisee quite probably as a lesson in forgiveness, a degree of which the Pharisees would normally never allow, along with all the numerous skills Paul had that he could bring to the job. But he's still also a trained Pharisee.

Remember there apparently (as I understand) aren't too many opposing schools of religious thinking in Israel 1st Century AD so contrary thought on any thing even would probably be quite narrow. Obviously there should only be one but somehow they seem to have ended up with three. The Pharisees who Paul used to be of and seem to be in charge, more or less, the Sadducees who Jesus didn't like much more than the Pharisees and obviously took the warning about the fruit quite literally and were wrong about that and the Essenes who aren't mentioned in the Bible but it's supposed Jesus was a Rabbi of their school because their weren't really any others. This actually sounds implausible given societies propensity to splinter but it's what I've heard.

My point is that while I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or else how do I trust it at all, I worry about how I should undersatnd that concept. After all there's a huge danger of declaring the inerrancy of the Bible to the exclusion of all else, which people do, and then end up elevating it above God which is idolatry and wrong. Exactly the same with the law, if you elevate it above God, which you're doing if you're trusting your salvation to it, you're committing idolatry.

So how inerrant is inerrant, because only God is inerrant and Paul certainly isn't and while he could have purged his thought of all bad Pharisaical thought (and this may not be bad even if the Pharisees taught it, they had to be right about some things, surely?) psychology is complex and I feel it would have taken a miracle. Which, of course, is possible but I'm not sure that effect of Paul's conversion is documented.

Let's look again at what happened in Eden, with different emphasis this time.

'And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;' (Gen. 3:17)

This is how the transgression is recorded in Genesis, God leaves no doubt before the reader that Adam has transgressed by disobeying his word. Paul knew this and should surely have learned this.

God doesn't address the woman of the serpent by repeating their offense, so that's why it's strange that Paul, supposedly writing under inspiration omits to mention it.

[Seth]

If I understood you correctly, you were trying to argue that Paul intended his statement arguing from the fact man was created first and woman second as to why man should be first and woman second; and then you're trying to argue that Paul is also arguing that woman sinned first and man second is another reason why man should be first. But that the reader has to read in because he doesn't specifically state it, so Timothy would have to read it in.

The issue of why Paul makes the argument he does is not my primary concern. I agree, the text is vague. I see clues as to his reasoning, but that is beside the point. Timothy does not make a case that Adam is a non-sinner. That is my point.

No what bothers me is that it seems to put being deceived and transgressing above not being deceived but transgressing anyway to the point where the latter is so serious it neutralizes the effect of the former. So Paul not mentioning it looks less like a lapse and more like deliberate omission.

As long as we agree that Timothy does not contradict Genesis, I have no problem wondering why Paul makes the argument he does. My only point is that Timothy does not make Adam a non-sinner.

But vague seems to contradict the concept of inerrancy. It can't be inerrant if there are numerous incorrect ways it can so easiliy be read, can if?

Vagueness does not contradict the concept of inerrancy at all. The entire Old Testament was founded on the concept of SHADOWS. Things that the people tried to understand but could not and which were later explained by Jesus and the Apostles. Previous to those explanations those mysterious texts could have been read by errant people who reached errant conclusions about what it said.

This is how the transgression is recorded in Genesis, God leaves no doubt before the reader that Adam has transgressed by disobeying his word. Paul knew this and should surely have learned this.

God doesn't address the woman of the serpent by repeating their offense, so that's why it's strange that Paul, supposedly writing under inspiration omits to mention it.

Again, you say "supposedly writing under inspiration" which casts into doubt whether or not Timothy letter, or parts of it, are inspired or trustworthy. That's a subtle way to denigrate the Timothy letter as unreliable (while in other places seeming to confirm that it is reliable.)

Either the Timothy letter is written under inspiration or it is not. Just because you don't understand Paul's reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean your psychoanalysis of him is correct or that his letter is not written by way of inspiration from God. I refer to the forum guidelines:

——

Tentmaker is a Biblical, Christian, Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Ultimate Reconciliation Site and Discussion Forum.  We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures.  There is MUCH room given for those things to be explored and discussed.  However, our focus is WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES.  Gary Amirault has noted that there needs to be a respect for scripture in the discussion forum.  Not any other members' point of view crammed down others' throats, but that the default setting is a respect for scripture.  Accurately translated (as much as is currently possible), (emphasis mine) and the Spirit within the letters having been revealed to us, they are reliable.

http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/

——

To me saying "supposedly writing under inspiration" is a way of subtly suggesting that Timothy wasn't written under inspiration. Was it or not?

[CST]

The issue of why Paul makes the argument he does is not my primary concern. I agree, the text is vague. I see clues as to his reasoning, but that is beside the point. Timothy does not make a case that Adam is a non-sinner. That is my point.

<sigh>If the text is really vague, how can anyone do anything with it? I doubt it was supposed to be 'vague' when Paul wrote it. Timothy wasn't meant to find it 'vague' most translators and commentators don't seem to find it vague. They just make determinations about what hey think it says then build various theologies or critques around it.

As long as we agree that Timothy does not contradict Genesis, I have no problem wondering why Paul makes the argument he does. My only point is that Timothy does not make Adam a non-sinner.

That's would be like admitting you're content not to know what the Bible means at that point. Which is fine if you're aware you're admitting that. But I do think it's important you are aware.

Vagueness does not contradict the concept of inerrancy at all. The entire Old Testament was founded on the concept of SHADOWS. Things that the people tried to understand but could not and which were later explained by Jesus and the Apostles. Previous to those explanations those mysterious texts could have been read by errant people who reached errant conclusions about what it said.

I'm not sure the Israelites thought it was vague when they received it Leviticus certainly doesn't read as being very vague, in fact a lot of 'Christians' use its presumed 'clarity' to back up their moral choices and attitudes.

Again, you say "supposedly writing under inspiration" which casts into doubt whether or not Timothy letter, or parts of it, are inspired or trustworthy. That's a subtle way to denigrate the Timothy letter as unreliable (while in other places seeming to confirm that it is reliable.)

Either the Timothy letter is written under inspiration or it is not. Just because you don't understand Paul's reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean your psychoanalysis of him is correct or that his letter is not written by way of inspiration from God. I refer to the forum guidelines:

——

Tentmaker is a Biblical, Christian, Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Ultimate Reconciliation Site and Discussion Forum.  We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures.  There is MUCH room given for those things to be explored and discussed.  However, our focus is WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES.  Gary Amirault has noted that there needs to be a respect for scripture in the discussion forum.  Not any other members' point of view crammed down others' throats, but that the default setting is a respect for scripture.  Accurately translated (as much as is currently possible), (emphasis mine) and the Spirit within the letters having been revealed to us, they are reliable.

http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/

——

To me saying "supposedly writing under inspiration" is a way of subtly suggesting that Timothy wasn't written under inspiration. Was it or not?

I thought I'd already made clear that I believed that the Bible was inerrant as far as I can understand what that means, but you ask an interesting question because the bit you're challenging was a rewrite because I wasn't sure about what I originally intended to write, which I can no longer remember sufficiently.

It was meant to subtly suggest anything except that it creates doubt in me about what God is trying to tell me.

Look I've tried to kill this conversation before to stop it getting to this point this time it's over because I'm clearly not making myself understood it pointless to go on.

[Seth]

<sigh>If the text is really vague, how can anyone do anything with it? I doubt it was supposed to be 'vague' when Paul wrote it. Timothy wasn't meant to find it 'vague' most translators and commentators don't seem to find it vague. They just make determinations about what hey think it says then build various theologies or critques around it.

"<sigh>" is sarcastic and suggests you are getting exasperated with me.

Again, vagueness does not show that it's either uninspired or contradicting Genesis 3. It just means it's vague. God may put something vague in there to encourage trust: you may not understand what God means, but you can still trust him that he is right and that he will illuminate the meaning to you in due time.

That's would be like admitting you're content not to know what the Bible means at that point. Which is fine if you're aware you're admitting that. But I do think it's important you are aware.

I absolutely have no problem admitting I don't know what something means. That doesn't mean I don't know what "the Bible" means, but there are parts of it I don't understand. I had to face that big time when I found out that most of my deeply held beliefs about hell and eternal torment were wrong. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge.

I think inferences are fine,  but I'm not going to make up explanations that I will hold as definite just because I am uncomfortable not knowing something. I do appreciate that you use the word "seems" because it shows you are not doing that. But, then sometimes you say things like "supposedly under inspiration" as though you are making a positive argument that they aren't inspired just because they are vague and you don't understand them. And so it looks like you are deciding that they are uninspired because you are uncomfortable just not knowing. I believe it will all come to the light eventually. There is no shame in saying you don't know something.

I'm not sure the Israelites thought it was vague when they received it Leviticus certainly doesn't read as being very vague, in fact a lot of 'Christians' use its presumed 'clarity' to back up their moral choices and attitudes.

There was definitely meaning in it they didn't understand and it caused them to errantly interpret it.

I thought I'd already made clear that I believed that the Bible was inerrant as far as I can understand what that means, but you ask an interesting question because the bit you're challenging was a rewrite because I wasn't sure about what I originally intended to write, which I can no longer remember sufficiently.

I thought you had made it clear too. Then you reverted to "supposedly writing under inspiration." That makes it less clear so I had to ask.

Look I've tried to kill this conversation before to stop it getting to this point this time it's over because I'm clearly not making myself understood it pointless to go on.

As I recall, the point to which I have been responding has to do with whether or not Timothy seems to say that Adam was not a sinner. I don't think it makes that claim, and I don't think vagueness puts into question errancy.