Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

Same thing believers do according to Peter:

2 Pet 1:4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Does the above mean we shall be God also? what does divine nature mean?

My idea is that everything came from within God and God reconciles everything back to Himself through Christ, including stones. I don't get your view of Christ.

The redeemed in Christ have the seed of the divine within us, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. Our sin nature is overcome by the leading of the divine nature we now carry.
As to your last question, all of creation is of and from God the creator of all things in and of Himself. See the Book of Colossians chapter 1 verse 16

It doesn't apply to women being silent, except at that juncture a translational argument was being made, and in order to elevate one translation above another (which I'm not 100% against) I think certain guidelines need to be followed. Of course, I'm not the only one on earth so that's why agreement is critical...

the man on the chariot I had thought would be fairly clear. Where he is reading in Isaiah and he doesn't understand and Phillip preaches the gospel to him and his eyes are opened to the truth and he receives it.

That's a biblical example of someone reading in the NT and having no idea what they were reading in the flesh. Where it seemed to be genuine error, and something a bit different than the way the pharisees did things. There are plenty of sincere people that don't understand a passage and are trying to.

Certainly much discussion can be had (and has been here) about other elements of this passage

I can imagine a different scene with phillip if he had just walked according to the flesh, I won't post it, but if you care to ruminate on that (and I have heard sermons preached in what if land, not a big fan, but sometimes useful it seems).

Originally this was in response to a mini-KJV debate (Post 333)


Pure language was also in reference to a reply to someone. I'm trying not to twist words on what he was communicating because as I go on, more comes up, but anyway. The idea that people spoke "pure" Hebrew prior to the tower of Babel.

Defining what "pure" means is what is seriously debatable. My assertion was that a dead language even if it were more "full" when it was alive cannot be understood without the Lord and is useless to an extent. Take into consideration that spoken word with all the nuances of sarcasm, humor, etc. Can be entirely missed in text by someone that doesn't speak that language.

I was basing this off my understanding of ancient languages that others have said as not having been heard spoken and therefore cannot be known how it is pronounced. So this changes how it is read. That without the Lord opening up our eyes to something, we are blind to its meaning.

I did take Latin in high school and had an issue with oral exams for this reason. I was told by the professor that they did not know for sure.

Oh and I do think we can read scripture and understand it in our fleshly mind even regenerated because we are still maturing and overcoming. My views were very literalist when I was a child, I just held a lot of knowledge intellectually. Like reading an instruction manual...as I matured, I read deeper and deeper. Sometimes, you can go too deep I think, and see things that probably aren't there. Even if they were, you probably wouldn't know what they were yet. Something like knowing how to operate a motor vehicle but not knowing the rules of the road and thinking you were ready because you understood the mechanical aspects and could drive efficiently as you understood without additional variables present.

Is that too vague?

How many times do I have to post this verse?

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1 Timothy 3:12 KJV

That verse, when I was referring to verse 2, in verse 12 doesn't say they must be married. It says, let them be husband of one wife. Not that they must be husband to one wife.
What is your fixation that Deacon's must be married? Do you not realize that single people serve the offices of the church as well?

Yet you say: "Jesus was not the word of God." Now you say Jesus is the word of God. So you contradict yourself. Jesus is, He was and He shall forever be.

I said: The Word became flesh. (That was Jesus)

It's a grammar thing. The difference between "of" and "the" , word of God.

I am not against singles serving in the Church. Faithful servants are encouraged in Church. But Paul has a reason for saying that church leaders or people with authority (power) in church like bishop, overseers, elders, pastors, deacons, shepherds, should be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and own houses well. If you want to know Paul's reason, study the Scriptures deeper. I believe the answer is in the Scriptures, not in a christian forum.

Are you married?

This is not about me.

As Phoebe was a deacon, this verse cannot be taken as exclusive. How many times do you need to be told that?

Tinkerbell, you can keep disagreeing, but you have no evidence to refute the truth of Scripture. Better that you conform your understanding to Scripture.

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Romans 16:1 KJV

I conform with scripture. Phoebe was a servant not a deacon.

The Greek says deacon. Deal with it.

Greek is ancient and limited. Phoebe was commended for excellent service. But it does not mean she actually held an office as deacon which is only for males with wife and children. KJV translated it correctly so that it will not contradict with the qualification mentioned. That is what I believe, so you don't have to agree with me.

That is exactly what Jesus was; having the seed of the divine within Him/ indwelt by the Holy spirit/ Glorious over sin

Rev 3:21To the one who is victorious, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

I have been to Bible College and taught the whole context thing. We know what words mean in the Bible based on our understanding of the letters that make up the words. The context just verifies what we already know from our Study of the Original language of the Bible.

In the KJV, the word "deacon(s)" only appears five times, that is, at Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8, 10, 12 and 13. In each occurrence, the word "deacon" is used because it is obvious that the office of a deacon is in view, not any particular individual.

διακονον appeared 27 times in the Bible and was translated as servant, minister and deacon. In the NIV 1984, Phoebe was also described as servant. What happened to NIV translators? Why did they suddenly refer to Phoebe as deacon?

I would agree, only for males with wife and children. A established family affair.

Phoebe like Paul a servant that plants the gospel seed and waters it with the water of the word .The doctrines of God that fall like rain (inspired from above).

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

And she was a judge and prophet, not a pastor or king.

Since when have the affairs of man been higher than the affairs of God? Therefore, the office of pastor is higher than that of Supreme Court Justice.

And look how that ended.

None of these were elders/pastors.

To say "a woman can't be a pastor" is not saying a woman is not valuable, anymore than stating "a man cannot give birth" is stating a man is not valuable.

Doesn't this view introduce a contradiction, rather than resolve one?