Let each of them make their own decisions. If there are specific roles (and I believe there are), both will gravitate towards their respective roles, simply because they will find that they are better at it than others.

Feminists are trying to tell us that that constitutes sexism. Feminists are wrong. Sexism is treating people differently because of their gender. Sexism is not treating people differently because of the role they chose for themselves based on what they felt was right.

Yes. I know. You just tried to make them mean something they don't mean, by taking out the part about the husband being the head as Christ was.

KFC, let me return to Abraham for a moment.



I consider the Biblical account of Abraham as extremely important and, in fact, as the most important part of the Bible that is not specifically by law defined as such.

Abraham's life story is the first story in the Bible that I understand as a literal description of events, if shrouded in mystery a bit. There really was a man called "Abraham" who had a wife Sarah and both were Aramaeans. And that man really did have a servant concubine named Hagar who was Egyptian. And he had two sons Ishmael and Isaac and they are the ancestors of arabised Arabs (i.e. Ishmaelis who migrated from Canaan to Arabia) and Jews.

The names of these people are what we cannot confirm, but the description of the ancestry can be confirmed genetically and via legends of other Semitic peoples.

(Incidentally, there is a clan in Somaliland called "Isaaq" with links to the Banu Hashim who are a clan of the Meccan Quraish tribe and Muhammed's family. The Isaaq clan in Somaliland acknowledges its descent from Ishmael and is friendly towards Jews and Israel.)

And at this point I guess we need some etymology and location names:

We differentiate between Canaan, Aram, and Arabia.

"Aram" (Aleph Resh Mem) derives from "ram" ("high", Resh Mem) and means "high land".

"Canaan" (Kaf Nun Ayin Nun) derives from "can" ("low", Kaf Nun) and means "low land".

"Arab" (Ayin Resh Bet) derives from "Erev" ("evening", same spelling) and means "west" or "southwest" (where the sun goes down). (Today in Arabic "maghreb" means "the west". The /gh/ sound is the fricative of an Ayin as would typically follow a vowel.)

"Mitzraim" (Mem Tsadi Resh Yud Mem) derives from "two [whatever a mitzr is]" (it is a dual-only word with no regular plural), i.e. "the two Egyptian kingdoms", upper and lower Egypt. (Today's Arabic word for Egypt is "misr", spelt the same as "mitzr".) Egypt ruled Canaan at the time.

All words are (ancient) Aramaic.

Canaan was (is) the low lands, i.e. Israel and Lebanon. Aram was the high lands, i.e. Iraq (with mountains and away from the sea). Arabia is the land southwest of Aram (where the sun goes down as seen from Aram). The name Canaan has nothing to do with the Biblical Canaan except that he was named after the location. He is not the ancestor of everyone living in Canaan at any time.

The languages spoken in Canaan (Hebrew and Phoenician) and the languages spoken in Aram (Aramaic) were probably still the same language 4000 years ago, when Abraham lived; definitely very similar. The languages spoken in Arabia (Arabic dialects) were related but already different.

Abraham came from Aram and settled in Canaan. Of Abraham's descendants those that stayed in Canaan then came to speak Hebrew (one of the two Canaite languages) whereas those that moved to Arabia continued to speak the Aramaic of Abraham and later Aramaic as it changed and at some point Arabic, but probably never exclusively. Aramaic was at the time and until 1000 CE _the_ language spoken among traders in the big cities, including Mecca and Medina.

Ishmael's descendants spoke Aramaic and Arabic when they adopted the language of those whom they joined in Arabia. Isaac's descendants spoke Hebrew and later adopted Aramaic when Aramaic became the dominant language. At Jesus' time Jews spoke mainly Aramaic (and Greek).

The Phoenician language died out over 2000 years ago but was always very close to Hebrew (the only differences I ever saw were some /y/ sounds that became vowels (or zero) and many /t/ sounds at the end of female words that became /a/ sounds in Hebrew (and Arabic!) but still appear as /ath/ when another noun follows.

For example the term "new city" is "qiryat hadasha" in Hebrew and "qart hadasht" in Phoenician. Spelling is the same except for a Tav at the end of "hadasht" instead of a He at the end of "hadasha(h)". (But if another noun would follow the "hadashah", the "h" would become a "t", like in Phoenician. "Qart hadasht" is whence we derive the word "Carthage" for the city in North-Africa.)

Now let's revisit your statement.



Long story, short end: G-d made Sarah's and not Hagar's son stay in Canaan (and finally Egypt). But He did have plans for both and wanted one to stay in Canaan and one to go to Arabia. (What about Aram? I don't know. Perhaps Aram was too polytheistic and unconvincible at the time. Jesus would later get Aram for monotheism.)

The Jews were, according to this story, G-d's chosen people; but only starting with the liberation from Egyptian rule, a process Ishmael's people never had to go through since they were rulers in Arabia, not ruled.

Why the sons of an Egyptian woman were supposed to go Arabia and the sons of an Aramaic woman were supposed to go to Canaan/Egypt is anybody's guess.

However, Sarah was the first Israelite (in a sense) and the line goes through the mother ever since. (The same is not true for Egyptians and Ishmael and his descendants are not Egyptians.)

I also posted the Abraham comment on my blog:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/319137/Abraham

Maybe Abraham-related comments should go there.

Will the world never run out of prophets?

Would you feel better Leauki if I scanned the bible that I have and sent it to you so that you could see it for yourself?

What for? I already told you that I am aware of the translation you have and that newer translations are more correct. (You called them "newer Bibles".)

What would be the point of sending me a copy of a translation I already know?

The word "kill" goes back to the Luther Bible were the German word "toeten" is used (it goes back further to earlier Catholic translations into Latin, in German "toeten" means "to kill", "morden" means "to murder"). I have a copy of Luther's German translation. Protestant English translations are probably based on Luther's and carried on his original error. But newer translations generally corrected it.

Agreed. Yet roles are not individual, they are social constructs.  Religion has had a historic role in creating or certainly influencing (and perhaps legislating) these constructs. Its like women were free to decide who they would become, but only amongst a set of prescribed roles based on what the Church said was appropriate. I see this as sexist, pure and simple.

Do you not understand the difference of the use of the term "newer" as being indicative of the fact that one was printed after another? Or about the fact that I specifically stated that knowledge never ever comes from a book, not even the bible? You wish to split hairs because somehow you seem to think that it will change something. It doesn't. I didn't get my knowledge of whether or not killing is right from the bible, newer or older translations nor from any book or man, I got it from the all knowing source, which seems to be something else that you don't understand. I have not said that the source is available only to myself, but that the source that knows the truth and gave it to all mankind is available to all, and that "all" includes yourself. I also stated that one shouldn't take my word for it either, but to find out for oneself, because that is the only way that one can posess knowledge.

What would be the point of sending it to you? Because you keep on insisting that I've misquoted. I haven't. You may disagree with my saying that killing is wrong for whatever reason it is done for, and even tell me that the original texts say murder, but the original source THE I AM, says otherwise. Don't believe me however, ask THE I AM yourself.

 

Nightshades, it has nothing to do with whether or not your copy of the bible says what you say it says.  It has to do with what the original Hebrew says.  The original Hebrew text from which all bibles are translated, uses the Hebrew word for "murder" not "kill". 

 

See ya.

Sodaiho, back to those passages you gave me. I can't even remotely go into each and every verse. You gave me not a verse to expound on but a section with each verse there for a specific purpose and I could easily take all day talking about just one passage forget about the three you put here. So I'm going to be as brief as I can and give you an overview and if you wish to concentrate on just one aspect of a certain passage let me know and I'll zero in on that.

1 Tim 2:8-12

The role of women in the church is a hot topic. Unfortunately the debate has left the scriptures for answers. Traditional doctrines are being swept away by feminism. Churches, Temples, schools and even seminaries are abandoning truths they've held since their beginnings. What we're seeing today is biblical doctine is being done away with in favor of the culture. The bibical passages concerning women's roles are being reinterpreted because they are deemed anti-female bias by biblical authors such as Paul which is not true.

The source of these attacks is Satan who is the archenemy of God. His goal is to overthrow God's plan and corrupt his design. It's not any wonder he went right to Eve in the garden is it? He is behind the effort to entice women away from their creator's roles for them in society the family and the church. It's not new and we can see evidence of it right here in this letter to Timothy. This was an issue in the church at Ephesus. The church was being plagued with false doctrine and leaders so it's not surprising to find them struggling over gender roles.

In this passage some women were leading impure lives (5:6, 11-15, 2 Tim 3:6) and their indecency carried over into the worship service. Under the pretense of gathering to worship God they were flaunting themselves and becoming serious distractins from worship. This was not honoring to God nor was it a mark of a Godly woman so Paul turns to the subject of woman in worship as we see here in this passage. He addresses their appearance, attitude, testimony, and their role.

If you notice by looking at v11-12 you'd see that Paul defines their roles as learners rather than teachers during public worship. Notice he says "let a woman...receive instruction". He's commanding this. While it may seem obvious that women should be taught scripture snce they are spiritually equal in Christ it was not at all obvious to those who came from a Jewish background especially in the first century. They did not hold women in high esteem and they were not at all encouraged to learn. In fact, most rabbis refused to teach women. So in fact, Paul here elevates the status of women when it comes to their instruction.

At the end here Paul brings up the fact that it was Eve not Adam who was deceived. How did this happen? It happened when Adam and Eve switched roles. Paul is using this event as further corroboration of God's intention in the first place. Eve was not suited by nature to assume the headship or the ultimate one to carry the responsibiity and leadership. Adam violated his leadership role and followed Eve and the Fall resulted from violating God's appointed roles for the sexes. They both disobeyed God. As the designated head of their relationship he bore ultimate responsibility and is the reason why the NT blames this sin on Adam not Eve. This awful experience in the garden with Satan confirms the wisdom of God's design in the first place.

No 1,000 year reign with him on earth?