"Plain" Reading of Scripture

Started by Dan Fienen, May 15, 2024, 05:42:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

John Mundinger

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 02:24:45 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 10:59:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 10:50:14 AMAlmost anything that is said has a plain meaning and then possible, tortured misunderstandings. If the coach tells the quarterback, "We're only going to call running plays in the first quarter," the plain meaning is that he wants the quarterback not to call any pass plays in the first quarter but to keep running. But a Stoffregenesque quarterback would answer the coach, "So we're never going to kick off, punt, or try a field goal? Those aren't running plays." Or, "I guess we'll only pass for the rest of the game, since we're only calling run plays in the first quarter," or "Okay, I'll tell the defense not to take the field when the other team has the ball in the first quarter because our defense doesn't have any run plays." The coach would get fed up and say, "Hit the showers, I'm putting in a new quarterback," at which point quarterback Stoffregen would go punch the confetti falling from the stands, thinking, "I don't know what he wants to me to hit the showers, but this is the only shower I see so I guess I'll try to hit it." 

Is this an example of tortured analogies that you might have learned in your homiletics class?
No. But it is yet another example of a perfectly good analogy that you don't like and thus dismiss as irrelevant without actually engaging the point. We're on volume three of those.

An analogy that doesn't really engage the point doesn't qualify as a perfectly good analogy.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Jeremy_Loesch

Peter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

John Mundinger

Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

peter_speckhard

Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.

Jeremy_Loesch

Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.

If I'm allowed to not agree, then I disagree. Peter explains it very well in the following post. It has nothing to do with any particular hermeneutic, exegesis, or eisegesis. And I don't believe it has anything to do with 8th anymore than it has to do with the 10th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or 1st. I'm surprised you didn't bring in Matthew 18.

Peter has been interacting with Brian for a long time, and I have been mainly an observer since 2007 or 2008. IMO, Peter knows how Brian treats the Word, and that treatment is something different than what has been handed down. At times Brian is overly literalistic with the Word and at other times his treatment of a particular passage has no connection to that particular passage.

Brian is very knowledgeable about the Word, has studied it for a long time, has the commentaries and followers to prove whatever he wants to prove. I just consider him to be a sophist.

Your not understanding the analogy that Peter laid out is because you don't want to understand it.

Jeremy

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.

If I'm allowed to not agree, then I disagree. Peter explains it very well in the following post. It has nothing to do with any particular hermeneutic, exegesis, or eisegesis. And I don't believe it has anything to do with 8th anymore than it has to do with the 10th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or 1st. I'm surprised you didn't bring in Matthew 18.

Peter has been interacting with Brian for a long time, and I have been mainly an observer since 2007 or 2008. IMO, Peter knows how Brian treats the Word, and that treatment is something different than what has been handed down. At times Brian is overly literalistic with the Word and at other times his treatment of a particular passage has no connection to that particular passage.

Brian is very knowledgeable about the Word, has studied it for a long time, has the commentaries and followers to prove whatever he wants to prove. I just consider him to be a sophist.

Your not understanding the analogy that Peter laid out is because you don't want to understand it.

Jeremy
Ah, but when folks misunderstand the genre of what I've written, they will completely misunderstand my meaning. How often has a question be taken as a statement? Often my irony or facetious or exaggerated statements are taken seriously. Sometimes I write sophistically. Sometimes I write seriously. Interpreting each post the same will lead to mistakes in understanding.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
The problem with your interpretations is that wherever the words bother to distinguish between men and women, your interpretation means the same thing as though were were no distinguishing them. Tall people and short people should not chat among themselves during church. Rich and poor. Black and white. Men should not chat among themselves during worship, either. Thus, by your view, what St. Paul says concerning women is always either inapplicable or else applies equally to men and women.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
The problem with your interpretations is that wherever the words bother to distinguish between men and women, your interpretation means the same thing as though were were no distinguishing them. Tall people and short people should not chat among themselves during church. Rich and poor. Black and white. Men should not chat among themselves during worship, either. Thus, by your view, what St. Paul says concerning women is always either inapplicable or else applies equally to men and women.
Ah, but it seems to have been a particular problem in the church at Corinth that women (all seated together,) were chattering among themselves. Whenever that is a problem, Paul tells the churches that women need to be silent is the message from 1 Timothy. 
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

John Mundinger

Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 09:52:30 PMPeter has been interacting with Brian for a long time, and I have been mainly an observer since 2007 or 2008. IMO, Peter knows how Brian treats the Word, and that treatment is something different than what has been handed down. At times Brian is overly literalistic with the Word and at other times his treatment of a particular passage has no connection to that particular passage.

Brian is very knowledgeable about the Word, has studied it for a long time, has the commentaries and followers to prove whatever he wants to prove. I just consider him to be a sophist.

I have followed many of their interactions, too, and have learned from some of them.  You have done a reasonable job of explaining why you disagree with Pr. Stoffregen.  It communicates much more than does Pr. Speckhard's juvenile analogy.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:42:43 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
The problem with your interpretations is that wherever the words bother to distinguish between men and women, your interpretation means the same thing as though were were no distinguishing them. Tall people and short people should not chat among themselves during church. Rich and poor. Black and white. Men should not chat among themselves during worship, either. Thus, by your view, what St. Paul says concerning women is always either inapplicable or else applies equally to men and women.
Ah, but it seems to have been a particular problem in the church at Corinth that women (all seated together,) were chattering among themselves. Whenever that is a problem, Paul tells the churches that women need to be silent is the message from 1 Timothy.
Case in point. St. Paul says something specifically about women, and you interpret it in a way that renders it irrelevant. Presumably, wherever tall people, or children, or men chat during church, they should be silent, too. You render the verse inapplicable or else apply it equally to men when St. Paul specifies women. 

Weedon

If its clear and intended meaning can be obfuscated so that we can culturally conform to the latest trend, the clear and intended meaning will be sacrificed as a whole burnt offering to the god of relevancy. It is a law.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:42:43 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
The problem with your interpretations is that wherever the words bother to distinguish between men and women, your interpretation means the same thing as though were were no distinguishing them. Tall people and short people should not chat among themselves during church. Rich and poor. Black and white. Men should not chat among themselves during worship, either. Thus, by your view, what St. Paul says concerning women is always either inapplicable or else applies equally to men and women.
Ah, but it seems to have been a particular problem in the church at Corinth that women (all seated together,) were chattering among themselves. Whenever that is a problem, Paul tells the churches that women need to be silent is the message from 1 Timothy.
Case in point. St. Paul says something specifically about women, and you interpret it in a way that renders it irrelevant. Presumably, wherever tall people, or children, or men chat during church, they should be silent, too. You render the verse inapplicable or else apply it equally to men when St. Paul specifies women. 
Well, lets take a verse where Jesus seems to specify men. Who else would be lusting after a woman in Matthew 5? Do we not expand our interpretation of "lusting after a woman" to also include "lusting after a man," or do you think it's OK for women to have such lusts?
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 11:05:19 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:42:43 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 01:23:07 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2024, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 16, 2024, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on May 16, 2024, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Jeremy_Loesch on May 16, 2024, 02:47:24 PMPeter's analogy works perfectly fine because it perfectly describes how Brian interacts here when he tries to explain God's Word. As Peter said, you just don't like it.

Jeremy

I don't like it for at least three reasons:
1.  It is trivial, relative to the topic.
2.  It presupposes that the coach knows the game better than the quarterback.  That might be correct in football.  But, in this case, it only serves to reveal Pr. Speckard's and, apparently, your bias.  In conversations, we might be able to learn from one another.  But "Scripture says..." is not really an objective standard for resolving differences because, as these conversations demonstrate, "Scripture says..." is really "my hermeneutic says..."
3.  There is a problem with the Eighth.
Nothing in the analogy depends on the coach knowing more about football than the quarterback. The whole thing is about the coach's ability to communicate with the quarterback at all if the quarterback refuses to go by the plain meaning of the phrases, especially confusing the purely literal meaning with the plain meaning. Interpreting St. Paul's words about women being silent to mean they may make no noise of any kind, including during the songs and prayers is like punching at the confetti when told to hit the showers. And saying that if women can sing and pray out loud in church, then St. Paul's words about them remaining silent must be inapplicable, meaningless, or false because we obviously ignore them at literal level is similarly ridiculous.
I believe that your plain reading of those texts that women be silent means that they cannot be ordained, seems to have little to do with that text. My plain reading that women be silent means do not disrupt the worship service by chatting among yourselves seems more connected to the actual text.
The problem with your interpretations is that wherever the words bother to distinguish between men and women, your interpretation means the same thing as though were were no distinguishing them. Tall people and short people should not chat among themselves during church. Rich and poor. Black and white. Men should not chat among themselves during worship, either. Thus, by your view, what St. Paul says concerning women is always either inapplicable or else applies equally to men and women.
Ah, but it seems to have been a particular problem in the church at Corinth that women (all seated together,) were chattering among themselves. Whenever that is a problem, Paul tells the churches that women need to be silent is the message from 1 Timothy.
Case in point. St. Paul says something specifically about women, and you interpret it in a way that renders it irrelevant. Presumably, wherever tall people, or children, or men chat during church, they should be silent, too. You render the verse inapplicable or else apply it equally to men when St. Paul specifies women. 
Well, lets take a verse where Jesus seems to specify men. Who else would be lusting after a woman in Matthew 5? Do we not expand our interpretation of "lusting after a woman" to also include "lusting after a man," or do you think it's OK for women to have such lusts?

I don't think Jesus is specifying men as opposed to women in that case. This is an example of plain readings. There are lots of places in Scripture that speak of a man in ways that apply to everyone. That isn't the case when women specifically are referred to. Your assumption that if men are specified in ways that include women, then when women are specified it must include men is simply false logic. It builds on the false given that things always go the same in both directions when it comes to male/female. It is deliberately not understanding what is said in order to make men and women interchangeable.

Even in English, read anything prior to the inclusive language craze of the late 20th Century and you'll see perfectly intelligent, educated, talented female writers having no confusion whatsoever using masculine language/pronouns to refer to unspecified men and women generally but only using feminine pronouns to refer specifically to women. It isn't complicated for anyone actually trying to understand the text. If the problem for St. Paul were that in a particular congregation a group of chatty women were disrupting worship, it would make way more sense for him to say something like "Let those in the assembly attend to the Word quietly and with their full attention" rather than to say "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." To apply the actual text the way you do requires a genuine effort to decide in advance how you want it to apply (or not apply) and then concoct a context in which St. Paul is simply using unbelievably clunky, imprecise, and roundabout language to say something that is not complicated at all.   

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 17, 2024, 11:28:39 AMI don't think Jesus is specifying men as opposed to women in that case. This is an example of plain readings. There are lots of places in Scripture that speak of a man in ways that apply to everyone. That isn't the case when women specifically are referred to. Your assumption that if men are specified in ways that include women, then when women are specified it must include men is simply false logic. It builds on the false given that things always go the same in both directions when it comes to male/female. It is deliberately not understanding what is said in order to make men and women interchangeable.

Actually, Matthew 5:28 only mentions women. 
πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.
"Everyone (a masculine adjective) looking at a woman to desire her already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Should "women" in that verse also apply to men as the object of lust. 

QuoteEven in English, read anything prior to the inclusive language craze of the late 20th Century and you'll see perfectly intelligent, educated, talented female writers having no confusion whatsoever using masculine language/pronouns to refer to unspecified men and women generally but only using feminine pronouns to refer specifically to women. It isn't complicated for anyone actually trying to understand the text. If the problem for St. Paul were that in a particular congregation a group of chatty women were disrupting worship, it would make way more sense for him to say something like "Let those in the assembly attend to the Word quietly and with their full attention" rather than to say "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." To apply the actual text the way you do requires a genuine effort to decide in advance how you want it to apply (or not apply) and then concoct a context in which St. Paul is simply using unbelievably clunky, imprecise, and roundabout language to say something that is not complicated at all.   
Yes, the English language has changed during the 20th century to become more precise. While "men" in some contexts could refer to everyone - males & females; in others it did not, e.g., "Men" on a restroom door. Another change in the 20th century was a reduction in the patriarchal culture in America. Women gained the right to vote. They were permitted to run a marathon. In a few denominations, including two Lutheran ones, women could be ordained.

There was also a shift from using feminine pronouns for inanimate things: ships, cities, churches.

An argument that the American Bible Society used for their "Good News Bible" translation, when accused of "changing the Bible, is that new translations are necessary because English changes. In many publications, "men" is not an acceptable term for all people. Biblical translators recognize that "brother" is probably not an accurate way of conveying the idea of male and female followers of Christ.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk