Bible Study Bible translators have it wrong

[tessiewebb]

Bible translators have done women a disservice in their translation of many personal pronouns, those not referring to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, or God the Father, as HE or HIM.
When the Greek uses a personal pronoun, it invariably is translated into English as he. However the words used are not so specific. They could be translated as he, she, one in the singular form.

Why then is it so frequently translated as the male pronoun? For instance today I looked up John 14:21 in, I believe it was, the interlinear Greek-English at: qbible.com/greek-new-testament. (Went to several sites on my tablet so don't recall for certain) Anyway, the Greek word used is usually some form of "autos" in the verses I reviewed.

John 14:21 reads, in the KJV, as this: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Using the information from the interlinear and translation of the Greek "autos" this could have been translated as: She that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, she it is that loveth me: and she that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love her, and will manifest myself to her.

Or, if you prefer, as so: The one having my commandments, and keeping them, that one it is that loveth me: and one that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love that one, and will manifest myself to that one.

Yes, the last is a bit awkward in English, but that is because we are accustomed to thinking in terms of gender. (Of course the strict use of him or he is very proper when we know we are speaking of males in particular)
.
However, for women readers of the Bible, there is a subtle discrimination embedded in the reading as translated. If Jesus says "and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him" instead of "and I will love that one, and will manifest Myself to that one", is it to be astonished at if the female reader concludes that Jesus will only manifest Himself to males who love Him?

Regardless whether conscious or unconscious of the impact, the female reader will not be able to fully apply this verse and MANY others to herself unless she learns, as I knew and confirmed today, they were not directed at males only but only translated that way for whatever reason the translators had for doing so, whether convenience or mind set.

I say conscious or unconscious, because female readers would have a tendency to mentally translate the "he" and "him" as "anyone" or similar to enhance their reading of the Scripture.

I post this with the understanding there will be some controversy with it, so let me say here at the onset that I do not believe the pronouns used for God the Father, or Jesus the Son, or the Holy Ghost need be changed anywhere in the translations. God is the Father. Christ is His Son and the Holy Ghost is obviously a He because He is the Spirit of God and of Jesus.

I do hope that this posting will awaken a new interest and investment in Scripture by women who have up to now been perhaps a little ho-hum or thinking "not for me" about the Good News of God's love and grace.

 

[Elijah674]

Bible translators have done women a disservice in their translation of many personal pronouns, those not referring to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, or God the Father, as HE or HIM.
When the Greek uses a personal pronoun, it invariably is translated into English as he. However the words used are not so specific. They could be translated as he, she, one in the singular form.

Why then is it so frequently translated as the male pronoun? For instance today I looked up John 14:21 in, I believe it was, the interlinear Greek-English at: qbible.com/greek-new-testament. (Went to several sites on my tablet so don't recall for certain) Anyway, the Greek word used is usually some form of "autos" in the verses I reviewed.

John 14:21 reads, in the KJV, as this: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Using the information from the interlinear and translation of the Greek "autos" this could have been translated as: She that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, she it is that loveth me: and she that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love her, and will manifest myself to her.

Or, if you prefer, as so: The one having my commandments, and keeping them, that one it is that loveth me: and one that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love that one, and will manifest myself to that one.

Yes, the last is a bit awkward in English, but that is because we are accustomed to thinking in terms of gender. (Of course the strict use of him or he is very proper when we know we are speaking of males in particular)
.
However, for women readers of the Bible, there is a subtle discrimination embedded in the reading as translated. If Jesus says "and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him" instead of "and I will love that one, and will manifest Myself to that one", is it to be astonished at if the female reader concludes that Jesus will only manifest Himself to males who love Him?

Regardless whether conscious or unconscious of the impact, the female reader will not be able to fully apply this verse and MANY others to herself unless she learns, as I knew and confirmed today, they were not directed at males only but only translated that way for whatever reason the translators had for doing so, whether convenience or mind set.

I say conscious or unconscious, because female readers would have a tendency to mentally translate the "he" and "him" as "anyone" or similar to enhance their reading of the Scripture.

I post this with the understanding there will be some controversy with it, so let me say here at the onset that I do not believe the pronouns used for God the Father, or Jesus the Son, or the Holy Ghost need be changed anywhere in the translations. God is the Father. Christ is His Son and the Holy Ghost is obviously a He because He is the Spirit of God and of Jesus.

I do hope that this posting will awaken a new interest and investment in Scripture by women who have up to now been perhaps a little ho-hum or thinking "not for me" about the Good News of God's love and grace.

controversy??
'i' think that the bottom/line is.. does anyone AGAPE LOVE GOD that does not OBEY HIM?? Acts 5:32 His Law of Commandments! (regardless of who it is, male female or these who put the jew in for/front)

As for me, I had never taken the time to even be overly concerned with a few flaws in Inspiration. Godly men penned their [[testimony]] the best truthful way that they thought that they were doing it. So we know why we have slightly different discriptive wordings in even what is called the four Gospels. (kind of like our court testimony) And God took all of this into consideration by telling us to use ALL OF INSPIRATION!;) Matt. 4:4 + 2 Tim. 3:16 + Isa. 28:8-10 even. When one get all doctrine taken down this way, we will know the True meaning. 1 Cor. 14:32

--Elijah

 

[Pizzaguy]

I have recently taken up the study of the Japanese language.

This pursuit has been very difficult, and I see the culture of the Japanese reflected in their language. And it has made me think of something: Translating a text from a culture that existed several centuries ago is full of peril, as is translating from Japanese to English. In the Japanese to English process, it is amazing how many words and verbal concepts simply do not translate at all!

I think that, to some extent, the same applies to the Bible's references regarding gender.

Many parts of the Japanese language ignore gender and even number. They also have a habit of not mentioning themselves in sentences spoken first-person. They would not say "I am going to the store". It would come out as "Going to the store" - the context tells you that they mean themselves.
This all sounds so WRONG to us, but it is not wrong to THEM.
Same goes for the Bible - look, we all KNOW God loves, uses, guides and cares for both genders, right? So yes, there IS a translation issue.

We all know that many cultures have been very patriarchal. Did God really intend for His texts to be so "male oriented"? Now some say that God is in control and His will guided the translators. Ok. But so much goes on today that is NOT His will, things very important, like murder, child and elder abuse, abortion, racist hate... why would the translations of the Bible be immune to this?

I don't think the Bible's translations ARE immune to this effect that fallen humanity has on this world. And I think the ongoing argument about different interpretations of scripture support my position.

But I bet you that a retired pastor would disagree with me.
I *wonder* if there are any retired pastors that might comment on my post..... ;)

 

[Elijah674]

I have recently taken up the study of the Japanese language.

This pursuit has been very difficult, and I see the culture of the Japanese reflected in their language. And it has made me think of something: Translating a text from a culture that existed several centuries ago is full of peril, as is translating from Japanese to English. In the Japanese to English process, it is amazing how many words and verbal concepts simply do not translate at all!

I think that, to some extent, the same applies to the Bible's references regarding gender.

Many parts of the Japanese language ignore gender and even number. They also have a habit of not mentioning themselves in sentences spoken first-person. They would not say "I am going to the store". It would come out as "Going to the store" - the context tells you that they mean themselves.
This all sounds so WRONG to us, but it is not wrong to THEM.
Same goes for the Bible - look, we all KNOW God loves, uses, guides and cares for both genders, right? So yes, there IS a translation issue.

We all know that many cultures have been very patriarchal. Did God really intend for His texts to be so "male oriented"? Now some say that God is in control and His will guided the translators. Ok. But so much goes on today that is NOT His will, things very important, like murder, child and elder abuse, abortion, racist hate... why would the translations of the Bible be immune to this?

I don't think the Bible's translations ARE immune to this effect that fallen humanity has on this world. And I think the ongoing argument about different interpretations of scripture support my position.

But I bet you that a retired pastor would disagree with me.
I *wonder* if there are any retired pastors that might comment on my post..... ;)

To bad that you had to wait for your Japenese study to come up to this truth.
--Elijah

 

[Pizzaguy]

WHOA, I expected you to DISAGREE with me!!!!!

 

[felix]

tessiewebb, I don't think the translators have it wrong. In John 14:21, Jesus was speaking to His 12 disciples who were all males.

You probabily need to look into gender-neutral pronoun.

The only translation which seems to be gender neutral using interlinear is also not completely gender neutral (or cannot be gender neutral).

[Apostolic Bible Polyglot - Greek English Interlinear]
(John 14:21) The one having my commandments, and giving heed to them, that one is the one loving me; and the one loving me shall be loved by my father; and I will love him, and I will reveal myself to him.

 

[Elijah674]

WHOA, I expected you to DISAGREE with me!!!!!

I did, I spelled Japanese wrong;)!
But seriously, I believe that the whole Bible is Inspired also, and Holy Men penned it in their own words to best 'Testify' to it Visions. And that is the 66 Books of the TESTIMONY.

Then we find that God alone spoke & wrote the Eternal Covenant. (in stone)
Isa. 8
[20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

So in Rev.'s 'testimony' of Rev. 12 :17 one can see this again, as 'i' think by what you said, that you did not disagree with this?
[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Another thought is why Christ needed to come besides the obvious one of salvation for man. Isa. 42:21 has it that '..he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

I did not think that your posted point was disagreeing with any of this. But was just more on the testimony of the Inspired pennman using their own words & then some of their words being misunderstood by some translators.

Many might not understand that it was not Inspired men who added the chapter numbers, periods & comas & the like.

--Elijah

 

[tessiewebb]

I have recently taken up the study of the Japanese language.

This pursuit has been very difficult, and I see the culture of the Japanese reflected in their language. And it has made me think of something: Translating a text from a culture that existed several centuries ago is full of peril, as is translating from Japanese to English. In the Japanese to English process, it is amazing how many words and verbal concepts simply do not translate at all!

I think that, to some extent, the same applies to the Bible's references regarding gender.

Many parts of the Japanese language ignore gender and even number. They also have a habit of not mentioning themselves in sentences spoken first-person. They would not say "I am going to the store". It would come out as "Going to the store" - the context tells you that they mean themselves.
This all sounds so WRONG to us, but it is not wrong to THEM.
Same goes for the Bible - look, we all KNOW God loves, uses, guides and cares for both genders, right? So yes, there IS a translation issue.

We all know that many cultures have been very patriarchal. Did God really intend for His texts to be so "male oriented"? Now some say that God is in control and His will guided the translators. Ok. But so much goes on today that is NOT His will, things very important, like murder, child and elder abuse, abortion, racist hate... why would the translations of the Bible be immune to this?

I don't think the Bible's translations ARE immune to this effect that fallen humanity has on this world. And I think the ongoing argument about different interpretations of scripture support my position.

But I bet you that a retired pastor would disagree with me.
I *wonder* if there are any retired pastors that might comment on my post..... ;)

Great pov! Thanks for the pointers on translation!

 

[tessiewebb]

tessiewebb, I don't think the translators have it wrong. In John 14:21, Jesus was speaking to His 12 disciples who were all males.

You probabily need to look into gender-neutral pronoun.

The only translation which seems to be gender neutral using interlinear is also not completely gender neutral (or cannot be gender neutral).

[Apostolic Bible Polyglot - Greek English Interlinear]
(John 14:21) The one having my commandments, and giving heed to them, that one is the one loving me; and the one loving me shall be loved by my father; and I will love him, and I will reveal myself to him.

Thanks Felix, I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your posts. Of course when you are speaking to a specific gender group you use the proper pronoun.

However, many women were among the followers of Jesus but to read most of the Scriptures you'd not know it. Good example is the verse that goes something like they fed "5000 men and (oh yeah) women and children". Unfortunately the like has a subtle but very real effect on women's sense of worthiness before God. Then there are the blatant examples like Paul's "women are to be silent in the church". I think you get the point.

It is a very hard subject for many women. Men are probably less likely to see any problem with the issue and apt to be impatient with us for having one.

 

[farouk]

The matter of patience, or the lack of it, has been mentioned. Yes, well we all need to be patient with one another, don't we?

 

[Elijah674]

Thanks Felix, I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your posts. Of course when you are speaking to a specific gender group you use the proper pronoun.

However, many women were among the followers of Jesus but to read most of the Scriptures you'd not know it. Good example is the verse that goes something like they fed "5000 men and (oh yeah) women and children". Unfortunately the like has a subtle but very real effect on women's sense of worthiness before God. Then there are the blatant examples like Paul's "women are to be silent in the church". I think you get the point.

It is a very hard subject for many women. Men are probably less likely to see any problem with the issue and apt to be impatient with us for having one.

Hi, there are women used of God & satan all through the Bible. Prophetess and the ones of Isa. 3

[8] For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.
[9] The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

(there dress goes both down + up, with nothing hardly ever mentioned at all. Even in church! And the other stuff?? I will not get into that. But it is not hid, that is for sure. And when ones even knows that it is in the church, they are a Partaker Inspiration says. Rev. 18:4)

[10] Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

[11] Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
[12] As for my people, children are their oppressors, and [[women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths]].

Perhaps we have come to this Eccl. 3:15 time again?? (one thing for sure is that men are what 'i' call she-shim's. meaning hen/pecked pussy/cats!
--Elijah

 

[felix]

Thanks Felix, I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your posts. Of course when you are speaking to a specific gender group you use the proper pronoun.

However, many women were among the followers of Jesus but to read most of the Scriptures you'd not know it. Good example is the verse that goes something like they fed "5000 men and (oh yeah) women and children". Unfortunately the like has a subtle but very real effect on women's sense of worthiness before God. Then there are the blatant examples like Paul's "women are to be silent in the church". I think you get the point.

It is a very hard subject for many women. Men are probably less likely to see any problem with the issue and apt to be impatient with us for having one.

I don't think what Paul mentions are blatant examples. I have a position regarding scriptures that it never contradicts. If Paul mentions something and it is truly inspired by Holy Spirit, then we must fully understand what God really wants.

This is God Himself saying:
... And he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16)
Again, God Himself saying in grief:
... And women rule over them ... (Isa 3:12)

God never intended a female to rule over a male, even from the beginning, the day she was created. The equal role with a man was taken down when Eve sinned and the authority over her was given to Adam. Nowhere and history and even after Christ came, these curses of Genesis were never removed.

All curses will come to an end as in Rev 21:4 (or in resurrection), until then, you probably need to wait.

You need to consider this example with an open mind. Consider a cook and a hotel manager in a hotel. Are they equal? yes they are. But their roles differ. A cook was never recruited to manage the hotel, neither the manager to do cooking work. But both are important for the hotel to function.

Similarly, God created male and female to rule over the world and have dominion over all creations (Gen 1:28). However, after their fall, woman was place a little lower than man and the rule over woman was given to man. This is why you see Paul repeatedly saying all men to love their wives and all women to submit to their husbands which is what God intends from the beginning. This does not mean both are not equal before God. It simply means both are created for different purposes and different roles and as a family, they become complete to accomplish His purpose and for His glory, just as the cook and manager in a hotel who do different roles but make the hotel function as a one entity.

By the way, when you post a letter to a hotel, you address it to the Manager or the person who is in-charge of that hotel not to a cook. Similarly, When God addresses or when scripture speaks, it addresses to man as he is responsible for his family (or as scripture puts, head of the woman). As in Numbers 30, a woman cannot make a vow on her own even to God. That vow must be accepted by either Father if unmarried or Husband if married.

So, I don't think translators got it wrong anywhere. Most of the early translations are not translated with any attitude of introducing any male dominance. But instead, they sacrificed their life in translating to make sure they are accurate as much as possible.

 

[theLords]

Tessieweb, I urge you to use caution, because not everyone who claims to speak for God is actually doing so. Carefull, discern whether the arguments presented in this thread are from the Holy Spirit or not. Be cautious of any undermining of the redemptive work of Christ, any apealing to the authority of the Law to determine New Testament resurrected living.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Wesley's Notes 3:13 Christ - Christ alone. The abruptness of the sentence shows an holy indignation at those who reject so great a blessing. Hath redeemed us - Whether Jews or gentiles, at an high price. From the curse of the law - The curse of God, which the law denounces against all transgressors of it. Being made a curse for us - Taking the curse upon himself, that we might be delivered from it, willingly submitting to that death which the law pronounces peculiarly accursed. Deu 21:23.

http://bible.cc/galatians/3-13.htm

We, as believers, have been resurrected with Christ, the curse of sin and death has been broken.

The doctrine that promotes women being under the rule of men is a spiritually abusive doctrine. The Bible does not allow for men to blanketly rule over women. However, the Bible, does tell wives to submit to their husbands. Don't want to submit to a husband? Easy, don't get married! But, guess what, in this life, we are called to submit to governing authorities, church leaders, bosses, teachers, and even each other as believers. It's just about submitting with a godly heart.

If you would like some more clarification, Tessieweb, please let me know.

 

[felix]

The doctrine that promotes women being under the rule of men is a spiritually abusive doctrine. The Bible does not allow for men to blanketly rule over women.

Gen 3:16

However, the Bible, does tell wives to submit to their husbands. Don't want to submit to a husband? Easy, don't get married!

1Tim 4:3

As theLords quoted,
I urge you to use caution, because not everyone who claims to speak for God is actually doing so. Carefull, discern whether the arguments presented in this thread are from the Holy Spirit or not. Be cautious of any undermining of the redemptive work of Christ, any apealing to the authority of the Law to determine New Testament resurrected living.
The best way to discern is to use Scriptures. When someone doesn't show any scriptures, it means, it is not from God.

 

[tessiewebb]

Tessieweb, I urge you to use caution, because not everyone who claims to speak for God is actually doing so. Carefull, discern whether the arguments presented in this thread are from the Holy Spirit or not. Be cautious of any undermining of the redemptive work of Christ, any apealing to the authority of the Law to determine New Testament resurrected living.

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Wesley's Notes 3:13 Christ - Christ alone. The abruptness of the sentence shows an holy indignation at those who reject so great a blessing. Hath redeemed us - Whether Jews or gentiles, at an high price. From the curse of the law - The curse of God, which the law denounces against all transgressors of it. Being made a curse for us - Taking the curse upon himself, that we might be delivered from it, willingly submitting to that death which the law pronounces peculiarly accursed. Deu 21:23.

http://bible.cc/galatians/3-13.htm

We, as believers, have been resurrected with Christ, the curse of sin and death has been broken.

The doctrine that promotes women being under the rule of men is a spiritually abusive doctrine. The Bible does not allow for men to blanketly rule over women. However, the Bible, does tell wives to submit to their husbands. Don't want to submit to a husband? Easy, don't get married! But, guess what, in this life, we are called to submit to governing authorities, church leaders, bosses, teachers, and even each other as believers. It's just about submitting with a godly heart.

If you would like some more clarification, Tessieweb, please let me know.

Please note that I am answering you and Felix with this single post since I'm having trouble getting them posted. Takes me too long to type them up, I guess, and then when I try to submit I get the page that says I'm not logged in. Anyway, just wanted to say this is not all directed at your post, theLords. I'm also responding to the one from Felix that you didn't delete as of this time.

Thank you, theLords, felix, I will certainly keep your warnings in mind. However, it is not clarification I'm seeking thru this thread, though I appreciate the offer.


I absolutely agree that for submission to be godly, it must be done with a "meek and lowly heart". It cannot be forced by tradition, Scripture or any other thing unless there is willingness on the part of the one submitting. The very word brings rebellion to any other, whether male or female. And for the one requiring it of anyone, that heart must be equally "meek and lowly" (like Jesus said of Himself) or all it does is stir up rebellion in the other.

Human nature was created by God, in His Image, "male and female created He them".

Fallen human nature has left the "in His Image" out of the equation and so it is all about me, me, me, and me. "I" don't, won't, cannot submit to anyone, not even God Himself. "I" break laws, His and of the land. "I" refuses to accept anyone else's pov, experience, wisdom, intelligence. "I" is the master of "MY" universe.

Whether male or female, we are all fallen, Felix. Do you earn your bread by the "sweat of your brow"? Is the "land cursed" for you? And believe me I'm not asking if you have trials and testings. I'm asking you to look at what you responded to me. Women are still operating under the curse? Are you as a male? Honestly?

Scripture convinces me that Jesus did away with that curse, that we are restored to God, made perfect in the Blood that Jesus so wonderfully and gracefully shed for us. So why are we still trying to live under the curse? Yes, theLords, I agree with you on this point also.

I'd remind you that even in that (for many women) difficult passage where Paul speaks of "wives, submit to your husbands", he also wrote "husbands, love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH..." I'd also like to point out that even God does not FORCE, coerce or attempt to inflict authority over anyone to get them to submit to Him. He is honored by all His children because "He first loved us". Everyone that loveth is born of God. It STARTS with the man. And there is the rub.

Men point out the wives, wives can either submit, and do it according to the bare letter of the Scripture or not, depending on how much they are loved. Yes, felix, as you said, God gave a lot of responsibility to the man, Adam. But He gave even more to His Son, Jesus Christ.

Christ loves His Bride, the Church. We all, male or female, are part of that Bride.

I could go on and on but I feel that would not be beneficial. At the least, it will merely stir up feelings within me which are best not stirred. I do sense your attempt at peace, felix, and it is appreciated. It tells me you are a lover of God and not a covert hater of women. I do not wish to press you out of your peace in anyway with my venting. So, brother, peace be to you and to yours. And to you, theLords, and to your loved ones.

 

[theLords]

Gen 3:16

I agree that those still dead, and not born of God, will live under the curse of the first Adam.

1Tim 4:3

Please do not attribute such malevolent lies to my words. I urge you not to walk in the flesh with such conduct. No where in my words did I forbid anyone to marry.

As theLords quoted,
I urge you to use caution, because not everyone who claims to speak for God is actually doing so. Carefull, discern whether the arguments presented in this thread are from the Holy Spirit or not. Be cautious of any undermining of the redemptive work of Christ, any apealing to the authority of the Law to determine New Testament resurrected living.

Thank you for using my words to encourage others to beware of the levin in the doctrines of men.

The best way to discern is to use Scriptures. When someone doesn't show any scriptures, it means, it is not from God.

I agree and if I may warn that there should be great caution when practing exegesis. Scripture must confirm Scripture, and any theology that undermines the work of Christ on the cross is blasphemy.

I could go on and on but I feel that would not be beneficial. At the least, it will merely stir up feelings within me which are best not stirred.

Tessieweb, I understand that this is a difficult subject for you. The flesh opposes the Spirit. When you see fleshly beliefs that wound the Bride and cripple her from walking in the power God has ordained for her, the best thing is to pray for those who espouse such beliefs. These kind of spiritually abusive doctrines are rooted in brokenness, and the ones believing them need he Lord's healing touch. If you see this truth then it will help you feel compassion and not irritation. I hope that helps.

God bless you and yours as well.

 

[felix]

Fallen human nature has left the "in His Image" out of the equation and so it is all about me, me, me, and me. "I" don't, won't, cannot submit to anyone, not even God Himself. "I" break laws, His and of the land. "I" refuses to accept anyone else's pov, experience, wisdom, intelligence. "I" is the master of "MY" universe.

Scripture nowhere specified that fallen nature of man has left the "in His Image" out of the equation. In fact is re-confirms it in 1Cor 11:7.

Whether male or female, we are all fallen, Felix. Do you earn your bread by the "sweat of your brow"? Is the "land cursed" for you? And believe me I'm not asking if you have trials and testings. I'm asking you to look at what you responded to me. Women are still operating under the curse? Are you as a male? Honestly?

Scripture convinces me that Jesus did away with that curse, that we are restored to God, made perfect in the Blood that Jesus so wonderfully and gracefully shed for us. So why are we still trying to live under the curse?

If all curses are removed, why do we even require salvation? What is God saving us from? If it is automatic to all humans when Christ died, why do we even require Christ?

Scripture speaks about several curses. Yes. Jesus removed all curses but not the way you and theLords think. The curses are spoken by God Himself will not return to Him void as in Isa 55:11 and God is not double-tongued. There is no man in heaven or earth to challenge the Words of God except God Himself. This is why the Word of God Himself became a man, became a curse to challenge death itself which were spoken by God to break all curses (you can read 'Why did Jesus Christ had to die?' from my signature below for more clarity), and through His death we have life which is hidden in Him (as in Col 3:3). While Christ broke all curses it is not automatic. The only way for us to have salvation to redeem us from all curses is to believe in Christ and have His Spirit, so that when we die and go through the same curse of death, God will rise us just as He raised Christ for we have His Spirit.

Gal 3:13 and 14 tells us Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith but only to those who believe as in v22.

All curses ceases to exist only in new heavens and new earth as in Rev 22:3, not in this cursed world.

 

[felix]

I agree that those still dead, and not born of God, will live under the curse of the first Adam.

(1Cor 11:3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman [is] man, and the head of Christ [is] God.

(Eph 5:22-24) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything.

Are these verses only to those who are still dead and not born of God?

Please do not attribute such malevolent lies to my words. I urge you not to walk in the flesh with such conduct. No where in my words did I forbid anyone to marry.

I answered 1Tim 4:3 for your reply Don't want to submit to a husband? Easy, don't get married!
Your suggestion not only goes against Eph 5:22 and Col 3:18 but also against the reason for being an unmarried woman as in 1Cor 7:34.

Paul suggested that the unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, not a way to escape submission to husband.

I agree and if I may warn that there should be great caution when practing exegesis. Scripture must confirm Scripture, and any theology that undermines the work of Christ on the cross is blasphemy.

The work of Christ on cross is not undermined. He does saves us and removes all curses and we will have eternal life and live forever. However, that is not automatic when someone believes. As in Heb 9:28, salvation is provided only when he appears a second time which Peter also confirms in 1Pet 1:5.

If all curses are removed, then it means, salvation is already provided which is simply not true.

 

[theLords]

This is not the proper forum for debate. This is the Bible Study forum, for the purpose of peaceful and sincere communication. Felix, if you want to argue, than I suggest you start a thread in the Apologetics and Theology forum.

Tessieweb has stated that she does not need further clarification in understanding. So, I need not waste any more time, in such an ungodly and shameful discourse, on both our parts.

God bless you.