09-01-2017, 08:46 AM
That is a very thorough answer. Thanks.
Unfortunately, your explanation doesn't nullify the contradiction. Nowhere in 1 Timothy does Paul suggest his instructions are specifically for women to be subservient only to believers, but simply, in general, women should not teach or have authority over a man. In fact, given the context of the letter, it would appear that, quite the contrary, Paul is specifically opposed to the idea of women teaching/preaching to non-believers/sinners.
And yes, I have read the story of the Samaritan from John, but that only compounds the problem. Because it seems to me, in order to believe in the literal word of the bible, one needs to do an awful lot of interpreting, navigating the inconsistencies. Paul says women shouldn't be teachers... John recounts the story of the Samaritan woman converting other samaritans. One cannot believe both of those things to be literally true without some interpretation. It is, therefore, my conclusion that because you clearly have a deep belief in God and you want to tell people about it, you have chosen to interpret Paul's letter as not applicable to you, using the Samaritan story as a crutch for that interpretation. Now, could a scientist, who also has a deep belief in God, not read genesis where it is said that God created the universe in 7
days, and think to himself "that's obviously a metaphor" or apply some other reasonable interpretation in order to square it with what he knows about the universe (he may conclude that god measures days differently, etc.)? It seems to me, that this is just as valid as choosing not to read Paul's words ("women must be silent") literally.
But, that's just how I see it. I've never known anyone who says they believe in the bible literally, before. It seems very peculiar to me. Quite fascinating.
Thanks again.
Sam.
Unfortunately, your explanation doesn't nullify the contradiction. Nowhere in 1 Timothy does Paul suggest his instructions are specifically for women to be subservient only to believers, but simply, in general, women should not teach or have authority over a man. In fact, given the context of the letter, it would appear that, quite the contrary, Paul is specifically opposed to the idea of women teaching/preaching to non-believers/sinners.
And yes, I have read the story of the Samaritan from John, but that only compounds the problem. Because it seems to me, in order to believe in the literal word of the bible, one needs to do an awful lot of interpreting, navigating the inconsistencies. Paul says women shouldn't be teachers... John recounts the story of the Samaritan woman converting other samaritans. One cannot believe both of those things to be literally true without some interpretation. It is, therefore, my conclusion that because you clearly have a deep belief in God and you want to tell people about it, you have chosen to interpret Paul's letter as not applicable to you, using the Samaritan story as a crutch for that interpretation. Now, could a scientist, who also has a deep belief in God, not read genesis where it is said that God created the universe in 7
days, and think to himself "that's obviously a metaphor" or apply some other reasonable interpretation in order to square it with what he knows about the universe (he may conclude that god measures days differently, etc.)? It seems to me, that this is just as valid as choosing not to read Paul's words ("women must be silent") literally.
But, that's just how I see it. I've never known anyone who says they believe in the bible literally, before. It seems very peculiar to me. Quite fascinating.
Thanks again.
Sam.