-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
Look folks, regardless of what some of you may think, I didn't come here to argue with any of you. I didn't come here to act like any king either. What I came here for was to speak what the Bible truly says and provide scripture. If anyone has a problem with any of the scripture I've posted then really their problem is not with me. If anyone has a problem with scripture then their problem is with God and I suggest they speak to Him about that. If anyone doesn't agree with scripture then what good does it really do to argue with me ? I am not the author of the Bible, I only deliver it's word. And one can sit and type all the insults, sarcasm and derogatory statements they wish and it isn't going to change any of this one bit.
I have no problem with woman teaching children the Word of God..
I have no problem with woman sharing the Word of God with lost adults,, male or female
I have a problem with woman preaching to saved men of God and seeking a position of authority over them.. It simply goes against the Gospel... I don't care if the standards of God is in conflict with the accepted way of things in the greater society i live in.. People who believe God will believe God and will not seek to justify actions that go against his Word...
I have no problem with woman sharing the Word of God with lost adults,, male or female
I have a problem with woman preaching to saved men of God and seeking a position of authority over them.. It simply goes against the Gospel... I don't care if the standards of God is in conflict with the accepted way of things in the greater society i live in.. People who believe God will believe God and will not seek to justify actions that go against his Word...
L
I have watched this thread for some time and seen 3 wise men preaching the gospel as it is written. Nehemiah6, John146 and wolfwint have spoken the word of God honorably, but many have chosen not to listen. Instead, these men have either been often ignored or condemned for their words of truth. Do you people not know of the book of Daniel where 3 men stood by trusting the word of God so greatly that they feared not the king tossing them into the fiery furnace ? The king thought nothing of those 3 men nor their God either until he tossed them into the fiery furnace only to see them walk out alive, untouched, unharmed and not of smell of fire. How could this be thought the king. It was due to strength of faith in the true word of God and the Blessing of God Himself that protected those men from the fire. God made sure that it did not matter who tried to harm them, they were sure to be protected by their faith alone. The same is true of anyone on this website that comes to speak the true word of God with no fear of their oppressors. Some will insult, ridicule, scorn and scoff a man for telling the truth, but when he is under God's wing of truth you cannot hurt him any more than the king could hurt those men he tossed into the furnace. Where faith is, truth is, and where truth is God is also. When a man speaks the true word of God people should understand it is not the man speaking, but it is God speaking through him. And to criticize, ignore or chastise any such man is to do the very same unto God Himself. I speak nothing of myself but only of these 3 men when I say it is not good how they have been treated here. People should have more respect for one who speaks the word exactly as written giving nothing to it and taking nothing from it. For that can be nothing but the Spirit speaking itself. When words match scripture they are true and when they do not match scripture then they are false.
So you have chosen two of the most ardent promoters of a dangerous cult movement within the church to call wise men?
(I don't know where wolfwint stands on KJVO) But the other two attempt to spread poison among believers, attack the faith of others and deny the reliability of the Bible itself. I will not follow people like them, Blind Guides into a pit.
You think you have "authority" simply because you are a man? Sorry, look elsewhere for gullible females.
(I don't know where wolfwint stands on KJVO) But the other two attempt to spread poison among believers, attack the faith of others and deny the reliability of the Bible itself. I will not follow people like them, Blind Guides into a pit.
You think you have "authority" simply because you are a man? Sorry, look elsewhere for gullible females.
From Dr. Jim Hamilton
We have no manuscript that lacks this passage—not one. Payne so badly needs a text that lacks 1 Cor 14:34*–35 that he invents several and then uses these imaginary witnesses to testify on his behalf. Payne has a long discussion (pp. 232–46) of the “distigmai” in Codex Vaticanus. These distigmai are “two horizontally aligned dots in the margin at mid-character height, by the last line of 1 Cor 14:33” (pp. 232–33). Payne’s view is that “the distigme by the last line of 14:33 is positioned appropriately to mark the absence of verses 34*–35” (p. 233). Payne’s interpretation of this evidence has been analyzed and rejected by both Curt Niccum and Peter Head [see summaries of Head’s work by Tommy Wasserman, Part 1 and Part 2]. I simply observe here that this interpretation of unexplained features of a manuscript is very tenuous evidence, and if it is to help Payne’s case he needs everything to go his way. If the scribe did not put the distigmai there to mark an interpolation, as Payne believes, these distigmai do not support his edifice. What if the scribe put the distigmai there not because the text was lacking from a manuscript in his possession but because he was aware of several variants of the existing text? In addition, if it was not “the original scribe of the Vaticanus NT” who put them there, as Payne holds (p. 245) but someone after ad 1400 who added them, as Niccum and Head think, Payne’s claims collapse. So in order for the distigmai of Vaticanus to support Payne’s view, we must add the hypothesis of the date of the distigmai to the hypothetical reason the scribe put them there, and thus we arrive at the sum total of a hypothetical conclusion that these verses originated as an interpolation. This gives us one manuscript that hypothetically attests to the omission of these verses. Meanwhile, 1 Cor 14:34–*35 remain clearly inked on the leaf of the manuscript in question. The verses are comfortably in the text of Codex Vaticanus, not as a hypothetical explanation of mysterious little dots but as a clearly written, universally attested reality.
http://jimhamilton.info/2011/04/19/review-of-philip-b-paynes-man-and-woman-one-in-christ/
We have no manuscript that lacks this passage—not one. Payne so badly needs a text that lacks 1 Cor 14:34*–35 that he invents several and then uses these imaginary witnesses to testify on his behalf. Payne has a long discussion (pp. 232–46) of the “distigmai” in Codex Vaticanus. These distigmai are “two horizontally aligned dots in the margin at mid-character height, by the last line of 1 Cor 14:33” (pp. 232–33). Payne’s view is that “the distigme by the last line of 14:33 is positioned appropriately to mark the absence of verses 34*–35” (p. 233). Payne’s interpretation of this evidence has been analyzed and rejected by both Curt Niccum and Peter Head [see summaries of Head’s work by Tommy Wasserman, Part 1 and Part 2]. I simply observe here that this interpretation of unexplained features of a manuscript is very tenuous evidence, and if it is to help Payne’s case he needs everything to go his way. If the scribe did not put the distigmai there to mark an interpolation, as Payne believes, these distigmai do not support his edifice. What if the scribe put the distigmai there not because the text was lacking from a manuscript in his possession but because he was aware of several variants of the existing text? In addition, if it was not “the original scribe of the Vaticanus NT” who put them there, as Payne holds (p. 245) but someone after ad 1400 who added them, as Niccum and Head think, Payne’s claims collapse. So in order for the distigmai of Vaticanus to support Payne’s view, we must add the hypothesis of the date of the distigmai to the hypothetical reason the scribe put them there, and thus we arrive at the sum total of a hypothetical conclusion that these verses originated as an interpolation. This gives us one manuscript that hypothetically attests to the omission of these verses. Meanwhile, 1 Cor 14:34–*35 remain clearly inked on the leaf of the manuscript in question. The verses are comfortably in the text of Codex Vaticanus, not as a hypothetical explanation of mysterious little dots but as a clearly written, universally attested reality.
http://jimhamilton.info/2011/04/19/review-of-philip-b-paynes-man-and-woman-one-in-christ/
There's no question that there is a controversy regarding this issue. Here's a detailed analysis by Dr. Payne that concludes that distigme were used in the Vaticanus to mark added text > Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Last edited:
Keeping in mind the feminism movement's regard for the conservative woman's 'legitimacy' within the movement, and the conservative view that these so-called 'legitimate' feminists have perverted the true spirit of an intention toward equal status among man (which includes the female as a qualifying member), I ran across an interesting observation that I think has merit which brings the question, "Are there any good 'ism's' at all, or are they all merely perversions of an otherwise commendable concept. For example, racism is a self-exaltation that is presented in the guise of self-respect, which only exacerbates any hope of true progress toward achieving the more righteous of goals.
[video=youtube;WB6p5QPVhPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI[/video]
This is even more interesting as I consider the equation, when converted into the context of gematria (where hebrew is read from left to right) I-S-M converts to I=6, S=60, and M=600 (as final mem). Not that I have given it any considerable thought just yet, but, I really can't think of any ism(s) that have truly done any good? And, this would include a term that I can now place as masculinism.
[video=youtube;WB6p5QPVhPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI[/video]
This is even more interesting as I consider the equation, when converted into the context of gematria (where hebrew is read from left to right) I-S-M converts to I=6, S=60, and M=600 (as final mem). Not that I have given it any considerable thought just yet, but, I really can't think of any ism(s) that have truly done any good? And, this would include a term that I can now place as masculinism.
