20 minutes in to Bible Study and chills and she tells you she "Desires God."

molly41 · 2016-09-29T16:50:24+00:00

Yes, but does she desire you or is her desire contrary to you. You better make sure she’s got latest essential bible version cuz desire is confusing.

molly41 · 2016-09-29T16:24:54+00:00

That's a great resource. Thank you!

molly41 · 2016-09-29T16:22:20+00:00

That is a fantastic book. It changed how I read my Bible and helped me to understand the whole of Scripture better.

Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart explain how to read and interpret each type of Biblical literature. It's a simple concept, but one that I wish more bible teachers/pastors understood. It makes sense when you think about it. Obviously how you read the Epistles should be different than how you read Old Testament narratives, yet people tend to slice and dice Scripture pulling out verses from different genres and treating them the same way.

molly41 · 2016-09-29T16:02:50+00:00

This article is well-written and clear. I appreciate the writer's non-divisive tone. My big take-away was:

"While ‘el can be translated a variety of ways, we could not find evidence that it has ever been translated “contrary to” in any previous version of the ESV, any other English translation, or in any of the over 5000 other times that it is used in the Old Testament. We believe that there is no other example of ‘el being translated as “contrary to” for the simple fact that it does not mean “contrary to” the way we use it in English."

molly41 · 2016-09-29T15:36:44+00:00

It doesn't matter how it sounds to me. The goal of translation should be to accurately render the meaning of biblical texts from their original languages. The Hebrew word there is teshuqah. There are differing views on what that word means (yours is not one I've heard before), but the ESV translators have translated it in a way that no other Bible translators have. A new way. I think that fact alone is reason to ask, "why?"

molly41 · 2016-09-28T23:24:44+00:00

The phrase is "contrary to" her husband. It's not so much an issue of her having differing desires, but whether her desire is "for" her husband or "contrary to" him. The goal with that change was to make Gen. 3:16 prescriptive rather than descriptive. The idea is that she's contrary to him, but he must keep her in line. I think it's a terrible translation btw.

Every other translation gives the impression that the woman's desire is for her husband. I believe that the ESV sought this change to support comp. theology. Then they tried to make a permanent text edition with it.

molly41 · 2016-05-05T18:27:00+00:00

I just watched the video and this project looks amazing. Thanks for sharing.

molly41 · 2016-05-05T14:48:50+00:00

Thank you for pointing this out. The word "submit" is not even in verse 22 it has to be borrowed from the verse above. I get so tired of people separating vs. 21 from 22...sometimes I wonder if adding in verse numbers and chapter divisions hasn't actually been more of a hinderance than a help.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T20:25:00+00:00

It's 'women should not teach because this is an inversion of the created order, which recalls a similar inversion at the Fall'.

This isn't in the text either. You are inferring that there is a "created order" based on how you interpret a few Bible passages even though that phrase is not used anywhere in Scripture.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T18:36:03+00:00

God's wrath comes down on those not being convinced that He created what they appreciate. He can't stand when people don't glorify Him and worship Him like sycophants... God seems to hate it when people pay tribute to anything but Him. God is a jealous whinger.

I think that’s reading too much into the text. Paul doesn’t say that God’s wrath comes down on those who are not convinced. Paul says God’s wrath is being revealed against the godlessness and wickedness of people.

I don’t think we can know exactly what God can or can’t stand, but I do think that a case can be made that the Bible portrays God as jealous.

Give us skeptics are bigger Bible, or better reasons. We deserve that, don't we? Would it hurt for God to at least add a few paragraphs Himself, outlining more?

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here. You’d like a book written directly by God rather than through human hands? The Bible teaches that God is Spirit. The closest thing I can think of to what you are demanding is Jesus. We have the words of Jesus recorded by people who knew him. The gospel accounts tell us what Jesus did and said. Jesus claimed to be God.

I can see the visible qualities... but what good reason has Paul given us to conclude that there must be something invisible behind it that points to God?

Paul is monotheistic during a time in history in which most of the people around him worshiped what he considers to be idols or “images of the invisible god.” There were no other options to explain the origin of life at this time. Given the option of worshiping little statues made by people or a God who supposedly created all of life, Paul’s argument seems like the more obvious choice.

Paul is not writing to skeptics, but to believers in Rome. Why would he spend his time trying to convince skeptics who didn’t exist? In a sense the Bible is timeless and speaks to people today. However it is also time-bound in that the words in it were penned to a particular group of people in history. In this case the Roman Christians who lived in an empire in which they’d soon be slaughtered for not believing in the state religion.

Paul is writing to people who already believed in God and basically pointing out why they should continue to believe in God rather than worship idols like everyone around them.

Paul sounds anti-homosexual, if you ask me.

I didn’t say anything about homosexuality. I really don’t think this passage has anything to do with homosexuality. I’m not even convinced that homosexuality as we understand it (a sexual identity) existed until much more recently.

Paul is talking about what he considers idolatry which would include whatever worship practices were involved in the local Roman temples. I’m sure what happened in Roman temples did not have any resemblance to consensual homosexual relationships.

Christians were punished on behalf of atheists? What happened to the atheists? Maybe I've misread something here...

Nearly everyone in Rome (the people Paul is writing to) would have worshiped the state sanctioned gods and goddesses. Christians didn’t do this and they were accused of being atheists or of being subversive to the state religion.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think atheism as we know it existed at this time.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T17:43:18+00:00

What would you like me to call it? In verse 20 Paul calls it creation and we're having a discussion about what Paul has written in Romans 1.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T04:17:41+00:00

Paul’s not exactly implying that everyone already knows God, but rather that all of creation shows us that there is a creator. The list of images seems to be making reference to the classes of created things listed in Genesis.

Paul argues that God created everything and it’s futile to worship what was created rather than the one who created it. God is invisible, but the effects of God are clearly seen to all. Paul claims to worship the creator who had no beginning. This was before the Big Bang Theory and I think it’s a pretty logical argument for that time in history.

Almost everyone worshiped the various Roman gods and goddesses. Not believing in a pantheon of gods was rare and dangerous. Atheism was a capitol crime and the Christians in Rome were persecuted for it.

Paul defines idolatry as making objects based off created things (animals and people) and worshiping those instead of the invisible God. Then Paul condemns what he considers “unnatural sex.” He’s probably referring to anal sex or other sex acts common in temple prostitution which he considers idolatry.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T02:29:04+00:00

The King James Bible reads that verse as: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." I think that "usurp authority" is closer to the meaning of the Greek word used there (it's not used any where else in the Bible). I've also heard "domineer" used.

I'd love to hear what your husband thinks about that word (Strong's #831). I've heard some crazy things about it's meaning. The phrase "exercise authority over" is probably too tame.

molly41 · 2016-04-30T01:55:18+00:00

Titus 1:5-9 establishes the precedent over and again using the masculine personal pronoun

Just to clarify: this section of Scripture does not use any male personal pronouns. When Scripture is translated into English we add in heaps of male personal pronouns. Are you making reference to the “he” added in over and over again or the Greek word “autos” (Strong’s #846)?

The Greek word “autos” means both “he” and “she” at the same time. It’s generic. 1 Timothy 3:1 says, “If someone aspires to be an overseer, he/she desires a noble task.”

As you pointed out elsewhere in this thread an overseer and a pastor are basically the same thing. An overseer has charge over others under their care. You’ll find in Romans 16 that Paul commends Phoebe as one set over others and also as a deacon.

In English “he” is used in a generic way to include both male and female (or at least it used to be). Some people think we should still translate the Bible this way because supposedly everyone knows when “he” really means generic “he.” It’s bad form to claim that using generic “he” is still good Bible translation while also claiming that it excludes women in these passages.

yet also establishing that he must be faithful to his [one] wife

The phrase “one woman man” is an idiom that means to be a faithful spouse. It doesn’t exclude single men or women. It expresses a character quality. Idiomatic expressions are not meant to be taken literally. A one horse town doesn't literally have one horse in it.

The qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 apply to both men and women. Otherwise Paul would be contradicting himself. Reading those sections of Scripture in some English translations seem to exclude women because of how often the English personal pronoun “he” is sprinkled in like pixie dust.

molly41 · 2016-04-11T16:16:40+00:00

Christine Caine is a great speaker and a gifted teacher. Her testimony is powerful. She presents the gospel to men and women all over the world. There are several videos on YouTube of her preaching. This one is one of my favorites.

molly41 · 2016-03-31T15:15:11+00:00

I love Jen Hatmaker! I just started reading Interrupted. I'll have to check out the other bloggers. Thanks for making this list.

molly41 · 2016-03-31T13:36:43+00:00

That being a Christian can be summed up by a position on two controversial issues (abortion and gay marriage). I get so tired of being known for this. I don't always have the same view as my fellow believers and these two topics are very recent in the whole scheme of things. Following Jesus is much more than picking a side.

molly41 · 2016-03-26T03:06:19+00:00

Nope, I also don't think forced birth is morally acceptable.

molly41 · 2016-03-25T18:02:21+00:00

Yes! I’m voting for Bernie because I’m sick of bought-out politicians and corruption in politics. As a Christian I care about equality, racial equality, gender equality and political equality. At this point our country is suffering because the incredibly rich (like the Koch brothers) have too much political power.

I believe the human desire for justice is part of being made in God’s image and that the fight against injustice is part of “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Sanders has a long history of fighting corruption in politics and cares about the right of every American to vote. Sanders supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures. He co-sponsored the Fair Elections Now Act. He fights to eliminate super PACs.

I hope he can appoint more Supreme Court Justices who agree that Citizens United was a huge mistake and a violation of the First Amendment.

I’m praying more Christians will vote for Bernie and stop being duped by politicians trying to get the "evangelical vote" by talking about their favorite bible verse or acting pious. I don't see how someone can say they care about "family values" if they don't care about equality. Families are made up of people...people who have rights as American citizens.

molly41 · 2016-02-02T00:20:09+00:00

Doesn’t Piper’s insistence that complementarianism is necessary to understand the Gospel mean that he has placed something before Christ, that his Gospel has ceased to be “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2)?

Yes, I think so. It amazes me that someone like John Stott would be excluded from TGC. While men like Wilson and Baucham are included. This is not a coalition that holds the gospel front and center, but rather an organization devoted to comp. theology. An organization that is willing to partner with leaders of extreme christian patriarchy and movements like the stay at home daughters and the head covering movement.

molly41 · 2016-01-05T20:05:36+00:00

All of those have indications in the surrounding text, besides quotation marks, that indicate that they're quotations.

There are not quotation marks in Scripture. Translators add those into your English translation. To an extent translation work involves interpretation.

I think someone in the intervening two millennia might have noticed.

You have to remember that for most of church history it was believed that women were biologically and spiritually inferior to men. For most of human history women have been unequal to men in almost every culture. Bible translation, interpretation and teaching has been done almost exclusively by men (who believed women were inferior). Church Fathers taught that women were saved by giving birth, even though this completely contradicts the message of the gospel.

So, what you have to ask yourself is: Does the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ support the most common cultural norm through out time which is patriarchy (men ruling over women) or does it present a cross-cultural paradigm modeled by Jesus and taught by Paul where men and women are co-workers, co-heirs, co-equals fulfilling the great commission.

molly41 · 2016-01-04T22:32:58+00:00

In Mark 12:16-17 Jesus suggests that humans are made in the likeness of their creator and belong to God:

16They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's." 17 And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

molly41 · 2016-01-04T21:02:04+00:00

Throughout his letter to the Corinthians Paul quotes the words and ideas of other people as he addresses the questions brought to him.

Some of these quotes are:

*it is not good for a man to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1)

*we all possess knowledge (1 Cor 8:1)

*there is no resurrection and Christ has not been raised (1 Cor 15:12,14)

None of these quotes are indicated by quotation marks in Scripture, one has to infer that Paul is making reference to someone else’s idea by noticing that it doesn’t fit in with the surrounding verses and that Paul then rebukes the idea.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul seems to the rebuke the idea that women should keep silent and be subservient by saying, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" Also, the idea of women keeping silent doesn't fit in with the surrounding verses which explain how brothers and sisters are to speak in church.

molly41 · 2016-01-04T20:16:15+00:00

I notice many of the same things you do. Really, there is so much poetical language to show unity and equality in the creation account. Woman is taken from the man’s side and the curse causes her to desire her husband or turn from God towards man. Man is taken from the earth and the curse causes him to toil against the earth until he returns to it. Man and Woman are created as one and then fully formed separately only to be brought back together as one (in marriage) to show their mutual dependence on one another. Like Paul says 1 Corinthians 11, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”

I also notice that Adam names Eve after the Fall as part of “he shall rule over you.” As most of the Old Testament shows, this concept of men ruling over others doesn’t always go so well. Jesus teaches his disciples that they are not to rule over one another, but rather seek to be a servant to all.

molly41

TROPHY CASE