Historical-Critical vs Historical-Grammatical

[soccerguy2594]

I have been reading about these two methods of interpreting Scripture and I'm at a loss of their differences. Could anyone tell me how they differ from each other?

It seems to me that they both try to get at the original meaning for the original reader, but Historical-Critical takes into consideration that this original meaning might be a social or cultural bias (worldview) at the time that has no basis in today's worldview. Am I correct in this thinking?

Thanks for the help!
Soccerguy2594

[AngelusSax]

I think this is pretty much correct. Critical is about the writer writing to circumstances at the time, and grammar is more about, well... grammar. Like the difference in meaning of a word back then than what it may have evolved to being today, or something.

[Protoevangel]

The question of Historical-Critical vs Historical-Grammatical is ultimately a question about authorship. Was the author of the Bible simply a bunch of pious dudes telling stories and giving advice, or did God Himself give us His Word through people of His own Perfect choosing? If the ultimate author was man, then certianly, historical-critical is only logical and reasonable. However, if God meant the Bible to be His revelation to mankind, then it should be understood that the Bible is both Human (as in it has a history and peculiarities, which can be explained, at least in part, by history, and Science), and also that at the same time, the Bible is Divine (God’s eternal, immutable Word given to us by inspiration of God to make us wise unto salvation), and cannot be understood entirely within it's historic or human elements.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The question of Historical-Critical vs Historical-Grammatical is ultimately a question about authorship. Was the author of the Bible simply a bunch of pious dudes telling stories and giving advice, or did God Himself give us His Word through people of His own Perfect choosing? If the ultimate author was man, then certianly, historical-critical is only logical and reasonable. However, if God meant the Bible to be His revelation to mankind, then it should be understood that the Bible is both Human (as in it has a history and peculiarities, which can be explained, at least in part, by history, and Science), and also that at the same time, the Bible is Divine (God’s eternal, immutable Word given to us by inspiration of God to make us wise unto salvation), and cannot be understood entirely within it's historic or human elements.

Good answer---sometimes we forget the spiritual aspect and assign it to human wisdow and knowledge

[soccerguy2594]

I disagree with you Danhead. I don't think it is an ultimate question of authorship. I think one can take either view on authorship and also take either method. They seem pretty much the same method with only slightly different focus. I believe God can work through humans of a time and place and still have the message come out being culturally shaped. Because that is how we humans view things, through our cultural lens. So, God could be conveying ultimate truth and meaning, but the humans at the time could only see it in their culturally relevant way....which is what modern humans due with the Bible today. We take the ultimate truth that is in the Bible and see it (or apply it) to our cultural lens (or situation). Both of these methods are how we do it. So, I don't think choosing between either method has anything to do with where one places ultimate authorship.

[Protoevangel]

But your own post shows the human-centricity of your presuppositions. That is the very starting point for the Historical-Critical method. "God's will is based on our human culture." While the starting point for the Historical-grammatical method, on the other hand, is God-centric. "God's will is based in God alone, irregardless of our culture, and neither God nor His will changes based on our culture."

Historical-grammatical seeks the question: What do the words mean? (Presupposition: God's message)
Historical-Critical seeks the questions: What was the culture like at the time? What foreign influences may have affected the author? What was the author's psychological framework? Did he hate women? Was he bi-curious? Did he like the color purple? Did he drive a Ford? ;) You get the idea. (Presupposition: Man's message)
With a God-centric view of Holy Scripture, one can still be right or wrong about the meaning of any specific text, but with a human-centric understanding, one is always wrong.

We take the ultimate truth that is in the Bible and see it (or apply it) to our cultural lens (or situation).
With the Historical-Critical method, there is no ultimate truth. Every time a new piece of pottery is found in a dig, that "ultimate truth" is subject to change. We are to walk by faith, and not by sight, but we keep tearing apart the objective word to replace it with the decay of man-made things and understandings.

I am not saying that our understanding of history and the culture of the time should be ignored, simply that our changing understanding of the past should not be used to supplant the historic understanding of the meaning of Holy Scripture willy-nilly. We research dead history, while we have the living history of the Church to guide us. We look wildly for dead meaning, while we have meaning come alive in the plain words that come from God at our very fingertips.


Yes, an individual may be able to do as you suggest; believe God as the ultimate author while still subscribing to the Historical-Critical method of interpretation. But then again, an individual may consider themselves Wiccan-Christian, also. I know people who do. That doesn’t mean they are bad people, what it means is that they are not thinking through their presuppositions clearly. Wicca and Christianity are not any more ultimately compatible, than the Historical-Critical method of interpretation is compatible with a God-Centric understanding of Holy Scripture.


That is my soapbox speech on this subject. You may disagree and post as you will, I do not plan to continue debate on this (I may yet, but I do not plan on it). I feel it is not worth my time and energy. The ELCA is committed to following their own path, and those who agree with that path, this is your forum. I will try to keep to the main forum and the orthodox Lutheran forum (most of the time ;)).

[AngelusSax]

With the Historical-Critical method, there is no ultimate truth.

Actually, there is ultimate truth. We just aren't going to say that we've uncovered and understand all that there is to the ultimate truth, aside from salvation through Christ alone, God exists, has a plan... you know, the big stuff.

The historical-critical method of interpretation simply leaves it open for us to say "oops, we goofed" when we learn something we didn't know before, rather than boxing ourselves in to have to continue with any mistake we may be in at the current time.

[SPALATIN]

Actually, there is ultimate truth. We just aren't going to say that we've uncovered and understand all that there is to the ultimate truth, aside from salvation through Christ alone, God exists, has a plan... you know, the big stuff.

The historical-critical method of interpretation simply leaves it open for us to say "oops, we goofed" when we learn something we didn't know before, rather than boxing ourselves in to have to continue with any mistake we may be in at the current time.

Angelus,

I know that you agree with Historical-Critical interpretation, but what about those who accept the scriptures as unequivocal truth regardless of whatever "human" mistakes are in print" What does that say about us? We say the Bible "is" the full truth. Your interpretation says that the Bible "contains" the truth but that is where they stopped.

You carefully packaged your answer taking the burden of truth upon yourself by saying that it would be "we" who goofed and not God, but God says that "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." [2 Tim 3:16]

If that is the case, and we go with Historical-Critical interpretation are we not still saying that God made the mistakes and is only letting us know now after 2000 years of his word remaining the same. It is like saying God is the same yesterday and today, but not tomorrow.

Do you see my point of view here? That is why I have a problem with Historical-Critical analysis. It tore my synod up at one point, but is the basis for your synod being in existence in it's present state.

Respectfully

Scott Strohkirch

[AngelusSax]

I know that you agree with Historical-Critical interpretation, but what about those who accept the scriptures as unequivocal truth regardless of whatever "human" mistakes are in print" What does that say about us? We say the Bible "is" the full truth. Your interpretation says that the Bible "contains" the truth but that is where they stopped.

It does contain the truth. If I am going to say the Bible is, unequivocally, THE Word of God, I need to be praying to my Bible as that would make my Bible God Himself.

And you need to pray to your Bible too.

You carefully packaged your answer taking the burden of truth upon yourself by saying that it would be "we" who goofed and not God, but God says that "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." [2 Tim 3:16]

All Scripture is useful for teaching and rebuking and correcting and training in righteousness. No argument there.

If that is the case, and we go with Historical-Critical interpretation are we not still saying that God made the mistakes and is only letting us know now after 2000 years of his word remaining the same. It is like saying God is the same yesterday and today, but not tomorrow.

No, it's not. It's saying that God spoke in a way we have not understood in the past, that God was speaking to a point (the forest), but we could not see that point for the details (the trees).

Remember though, these answers are for me personally, when I personally say I ascribe to Historical-Critical method. If someone else wants to say God made a mistake, that is their business though I will disagree with them on that point, as I believe God authors no mistake.

[Willy]

The Bible is the means for the good news, not the good news. The Bible bears witness to God. It is not God. The historical critical method, while like any method has its limitations, simply tries to allow the Bible to speak for itself. It enables us to get some kind of picture of what the original writers meant by what they said. Inspiration is not a doctrine that suggests that God breathed the words of the Bible into the ears of the authors, but rather that the Spirit continues to breathe life into the church through these words that obviously were shaped by the cultures in which they were written.

[FreezBee]

It seems to me that they both try to get at the original meaning for the original reader, but Historical-Critical takes into consideration that this original meaning might be a social or cultural bias (worldview) at the time that has no basis in today's worldview. Am I correct in this thinking?

Hi;

I'm no expert in these matters, but as for what "historical-grammatical" means, I happened to find this:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3424

The page states that

Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of” the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called "authorial intent hermeneutic" or "historical-grammatical interpretation"). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).

That is, the historical-grammatical approach attempts to interprete the text on its own terms, but that also includes understanding it in context, such as historical context, literature context, and so on. That is, the historical-grammatical approach does not refute divine authorship, but it does acknowledge the conditions of the human author as well. And I might want to add, the conditions of the original human audience, this is in particular relevant when searching for prophecies in the Bible!

The same site also has a page for the historical-critical approach:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=583

Here we read

A relatively short time later, "in the middle and late nineteenth century in Europe, as one of the final effects of the Enlightenment, historical-critical scholarship began to be applied in earnest to the Gospel narratives." The use of historical-critical methodologies on the Gospels led to questions surrounding the historical accuracy of the Gospels and cast doubt on the veracity of the information they offered about the earthly life of Jesus. There have been continuing attempts on the part of certain scholars, since the efforts of Hermann Samuel Reimarus and especially since the work of David Friedrich Strauss (Das Leben Jesu), to reconstruct a historically satisfying picture of the Jesus of history from the canonical Gospels, as well as other available documents. The "Quest" for the historical Jesus has gone through at least 2 phases in the past and is currently experiencing a third phase (since the early 1980s). For all their efforts though, scholars have not arrived at much of a consensus—indeed very different pictures of the historical Jesus have emerged. On the other hand, there has been at least one similarity throughout the various quests which appears to owe its origin to the Enlightenment. The "thing" that binds most scholars together is not the picture of Jesus they get, but rather the presupposition of a thoroughgoing rationalism which they share in their pursuit. Such a rationalism precludes the supernatural and the miraculous. As Pierre Benoit has so clearly said,

Behind all these relatively new methods, new at least in their technical application, we discover one fundamental thesis which it not itself new at all. This is the denial of the supernatural which we are so accustomed to meeting in the works of modern rationalist criticism. It is a thesis which, once stripped of its various masks, literary, historical or sociological analysis, reveals its true identity—it is a philosophical one.

So the historical-critical approach has its origin in th age of enlightenment and denies the divine authorship of the Bible. As such it's not an hermeneutic approach - it's interest is not to find the meaning of a Biblical text, but tries to rationalize it into a modern world-view.

Ok, that's just what I find - and may not be of any help, but here it is :)


- FreezBee

[SPALATIN]

Hi;

I'm no expert in these matters, but as for what "historical-grammatical" means, I happened to find this:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3424

The page states that

Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of” the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called "authorial intent hermeneutic" or "historical-grammatical interpretation"). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).

That is, the historical-grammatical approach attempts to interprete the text on its own terms, but that also includes understanding it in context, such as historical context, literature context, and so on. That is, the historical-grammatical approach does not refute divine authorship, but it does acknowledge the conditions of the human author as well. And I might want to add, the conditions of the original human audience, this is in particular relevant when searching for prophecies in the Bible!

The same site also has a page for the historical-critical approach:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=583

Here we read

A relatively short time later, "in the middle and late nineteenth century in Europe, as one of the final effects of the Enlightenment, historical-critical scholarship began to be applied in earnest to the Gospel narratives." The use of historical-critical methodologies on the Gospels led to questions surrounding the historical accuracy of the Gospels and cast doubt on the veracity of the information they offered about the earthly life of Jesus. There have been continuing attempts on the part of certain scholars, since the efforts of Hermann Samuel Reimarus and especially since the work of David Friedrich Strauss (Das Leben Jesu), to reconstruct a historically satisfying picture of the Jesus of history from the canonical Gospels, as well as other available documents. The "Quest" for the historical Jesus has gone through at least 2 phases in the past and is currently experiencing a third phase (since the early 1980s). For all their efforts though, scholars have not arrived at much of a consensus—indeed very different pictures of the historical Jesus have emerged. On the other hand, there has been at least one similarity throughout the various quests which appears to owe its origin to the Enlightenment. The "thing" that binds most scholars together is not the picture of Jesus they get, but rather the presupposition of a thoroughgoing rationalism which they share in their pursuit. Such a rationalism precludes the supernatural and the miraculous. As Pierre Benoit has so clearly said,

Behind all these relatively new methods, new at least in their technical application, we discover one fundamental thesis which it not itself new at all. This is the denial of the supernatural which we are so accustomed to meeting in the works of modern rationalist criticism. It is a thesis which, once stripped of its various masks, literary, historical or sociological analysis, reveals its true identity—it is a philosophical one.

So the historical-critical approach has its origin in th age of enlightenment and denies the divine authorship of the Bible. As such it's not an hermeneutic approach - it's interest is not to find the meaning of a Biblical text, but tries to rationalize it into a modern world-view.

Ok, that's just what I find - and may not be of any help, but here it is :)


- FreezBee

Thank you for your effort. I appreciate that you posted this here.

[Willy]

The reality is that we live in the Age of Enlightenment. There's no going back. Are there limits to the insights that came from the era? Of course. But there's no reason to go around believing that many of the insights from modernity, many of which are just assumed by us, should be spurned. The important task for us is to discover how the eternal truth of the Gospel, which the Bible mediates, can speak to modern people. Instead of denying modernity, something that many who avoid the historical-critical method do, we should be busy plumbing the depths of our tradition so that it can speak in fresh ways to new audiences. This, by the way, is what Biblical writers did all the time. Check out the book of Deuteronomy. This book was an attempt to capture the message that came from the past in a way that made sense to a new audience. And you will note that the writer changed some of the tradition in light of the new situation. (Take note of the different versions of the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy.)

[FreezBee]

The reality is that we live in the Age of Enlightenment. There's no going back. Are there limits to the insights that came from the era? Of course. But there's no reason to go around believing that many of the insights from modernity, many of which are just assumed by us, should be spurned. The important task for us is to discover how the eternal truth of the Gospel, which the Bible mediates, can speak to modern people. Instead of denying modernity, something that many who avoid the historical-critical method do, we should be busy plumbing the depths of our tradition so that it can speak in fresh ways to new audiences.

Yes, you are right here, but the problem with the historical-critical method is that it is limited in that it tries to apply a modern world-view to ancient texts - the method basically makes the same interpretational error as "naive" literalists, taking the Bible too literal!

Let me try to explain the difference between the two methods with an example :)


The story of the Noahic Flood

The historical-critical method would deny the possibility of a historical, global flood, but assume the story to be based on a local flood, since such are certainly witnessed historically. And from there the method would lead to a search for a local flood with some similarity to the story in Genesis, and perhaps some parts of the story would be reinterpreted somehow. Of course the flood could not have raised the sea level to above the highest mountains, but maybe the flood occured in an area with mountains - at least the human author must have known about maountains!

The historical-grammatical method might consider this story to be an example of the "Global flood story" genre of literature, together with the Babylonian Atraharsis story, and proceed from there. The Atraharsis story is polytheistic, but it tells about how the god who created humans saved them, when the other gods tried to destroy them. So it's a creator-savior story, and maybe the story of the Noahic Flood is as well! The approach here is to respect the genre of the story, not to regard is a more-or-less faulty eye-witness report, where we need to cut out, what modern science tells us is not possible.


This, by the way, is what Biblical writers did all the time. Check out the book of Deuteronomy. This book was an attempt to capture the message that came from the past in a way that made sense to a new audience. And you will note that the writer changed some of the tradition in light of the new situation. (Take note of the different versions of the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy.)

Yes, really good argument you have here :thumbsup: The Bible is repeatedly trying to keep itself uptodate, so to speak. But that would be more in line with a historical-grammatical method than actually with a historical-critical method, wouldn't it?


- FreezBee

[SPALATIN]

Yes, you are right here, but the problem with the historical-critical method is that it is limited in that it tries to apply a modern world-view to ancient texts - the method basically makes the same interpretational error as "naive" literalists, taking the Bible too literal!

Let me try to explain the difference between the two methods with an example :)


The story of the Noahic Flood

The historical-critical method would deny the possibility of a historical, global flood, but assume the story to be based on a local flood, since such are certainly witnessed historically. And from there the method would lead to a search for a local flood with some similarity to the story in Genesis, and perhaps some parts of the story would be reinterpreted somehow. Of course the flood could not have raised the sea level to above the highest mountains, but maybe the flood occured in an area with mountains - at least the human author must have known about maountains!

The historical-grammatical method might consider this story to be an example of the "Global flood story" genre of literature, together with the Babylonian Atraharsis story, and proceed from there. The Atraharsis story is polytheistic, but it tells about how the god who created humans saved them, when the other gods tried to destroy them. So it's a creator-savior story, and maybe the story of the Noahic Flood is as well! The approach here is to respect the genre of the story, not to regard is a more-or-less faulty eye-witness report, where we need to cut out, what modern science tells us is not possible.




Yes, really good argument you have here :thumbsup: The Bible is repeatedly trying to keep itself uptodate, so to speak. But that would be more in line with a historical-grammatical method than actually with a historical-critical method, wouldn't it?


- FreezBee

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FreezBee again.

You have some very good analogies here.

[LutherNut]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FreezBee again.

You have some very good analogies here.

What we must keep in mind is that the validity and historicity of the events in Scripture are accepted to be factual by faith. Those who deny the historicity or validity of these things have faith issues that need to be resolved. They are in fact putting themselves ahead of God in a sense since they are trying to utilize their flawed human reason to explain something that God in His Word chose not to elaborate on.
Do we believe God's word by faith alone, or do we need "proof" to know whether or not to believe it as factual? Jesus Himself believed that the Torah was authored by Moses. Who are we to call Jesus ignorant or a liar?

[FreezBee]

What we must keep in mind is that the validity and historicity of the events in Scripture are accepted to be factual by faith. Those who deny the historicity or validity of these things have faith issues that need to be resolved.

No, Scripture can be used to support faith, not the other way around. Compare with

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is here recommended for its practical value in the present time of Paul, not because of it historicity.

They are in fact putting themselves ahead of God in a sense since they are trying to utilize their flawed human reason to explain something that God in His Word chose not to elaborate on.

Nope, human reason is flawed, but it's given us by God, so we must assume that it is sufficient for us to understand God.

Do we believe God's word by faith alone, or do we need "proof" to know whether or not to believe it as factual?

The Word of God is Jesus Crist, and we do not need proof to believe in Jesus Christ - we are Christians, so that belief is our starting point, not what we are searching for. We don't have to believe that the Bible is literal true, if that requires us to blind ourselves from other sources of knowledge.

Jesus Himself believed that the Torah was authored by Moses. Who are we to call Jesus ignorant or a liar?

And Mosaic authorship proves what?


- FreezBee

[KEPLER]

Nope, human reason is flawed, but it's given us by God, so we must assume that it is sufficient for us to understand God.

I liked most of that post, except for this...

What does "sufficient" mean here? Confessional Lutheranism states that our human reason is NOT capable of understanding the things of God with God first intervening and giving us faith.

Kepler

[AngelusSax]

Nope, human reason is flawed, but it's given us by God, so we must assume that it is sufficient for us to understand God.

Kepler beat me to it, but I must say I have some problems with this statement (the rest of the post seems fine to me).

I hold that none of us ever has, nor ever will, until at least the Second Coming, understand God. We may understand partially God, but we can never understand God fully. If we could, there would be no mystery of the faith (communion is a mystery to me--I have no idea how the bread and wine are the body and blood, no idea how that happens, but I believe it does anyway).

[SPALATIN]

Kepler beat me to it, but I must say I have some problems with this statement (the rest of the post seems fine to me).

I hold that none of us ever has, nor ever will, until at least the Second Coming, understand God. We may understand partially God, but we can never understand God fully. If we could, there would be no mystery of the faith (communion is a mystery to me--I have no idea how the bread and wine are the body and blood, no idea how that happens, but I believe it does anyway).

I may fall over in a dead faint. I actually have some agreement with Angelus.

Hell's temperature fell about 90 degrees just now. Must be freezing there. ;)

[LutherNut]

Nope, human reason is flawed, but it's given us by God, so we must assume that it is sufficient for us to understand God.



Our reason is indeed given to us by God, but not in its fallen state. Human reason has become corrupt by sin and, therefore, is not sufficient for us to fully understand God.


To add a couple of cents here...

The basic difference between the HistCrit amd HistGram methods is that the HistCrit seeks to undermine and discredit the word of God for the purpose of explaining and legitimizing a certain prejudice. For example, if we can explain away Paul's writings concerning the role of women in the church as being a mere opinion of Paul and neither inspired writ nor a universal teaching for the Church, then we can justify ordaining women. Or if we can somehow discredit the writings of the Torah, taking them away from Mosaic authorship and handing it over to various sources and carving it up by redactors, we can do away with such teachings as Creation, the sin of homosexuality, the God given roles of men and women, etc.

HistGram, on the other hand, begins with the understanding (which we have by faith) that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the sole source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith in the Church. It is an attempt to understand what the Bible has to say to us by studying the literary aspects of the writings, taking into consideration the author, his intended audience, the place and time of the writing, certain linguistic characteristics and idioms in use during that time, etc. Nowhere and at no time does HistGram question the authenticity, the validity, or the inspiration of any portion of the Bible. It begins and ends with the faith-borne acceptance of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God and the source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith.


Jay:)

[AngelusSax]

The basic difference between the HistCrit amd HistGram methods is that the HistCrit seeks to undermine and discredit the word of God for the purpose of explaining and legitimizing a certain prejudice.

No it doesn't.

For example, if we can explain away Paul's writings concerning the role of women in the church as being a mere opinion of Paul and neither inspired writ nor a universal teaching for the Church, then we can justify ordaining women.

Yes we can. Though it's probably not just Paul's opinion. I've no doubt that it was his opinion, used as reasoning and example to explain a bigger point. See below.

Or if we can somehow discredit the writings of the Torah, taking them away from Mosaic authorship and handing it over to various sources and carving it up by redactors, we can do away with such teachings as Creation, the sin of homosexuality, the God given roles of men and women, etc.

The only question about the Mosaic authorship is the section detailing Moses' death. How did a dead man write in the past tense about his death? Other than that, no one that I know of is seriously questioning whether the Pentateuch is Moses writ or not.

HistGram, on the other hand, begins with the understanding (which we have by faith) that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the sole source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith in the Church. It is an attempt to understand what the Bible has to say to us by studying the literary aspects of the writings, taking into consideration the author, his intended audience, the place and time of the writing, certain linguistic characteristics and idioms in use during that time, etc.

You sure? Cuz we just had this lesson in Sunday School, and in Bible Study, and in Church, and this definition was the one given for Historical CRITICAL. Of course, people err, so they may have meant Grammatical, gotten their definitions mixed up, whatever. The idea behind it is that if we miss the forest for the trees, we're no better off. The point of Paul saying women can't teach? It was that God is a God of order, and the women of that time were causing disorder by being very disruptive and going overboard in their freedom even though they were as yet ignorant, having only recently been allowed inside the building.

But if we only focus on the trees, then we miss what God, through Paul, was really trying to say.

See, Paul wrote to a specific church at a specific time (intended audience). He said that he did not allow a woman to teach or have authority over man. Of course, if we fail to understand WHY he said that, we lose. It wasn't that God wanted women to remain silent. It wasn't because women are incapable of rational thought which God gives them. It was not that women had no faith, given to them by God.

When Paul writes that women should remain silent in the church, people ignore that. Even the LCMS ignores that. They allow women to read the lessons (pastor reading the Gospel of course). They allow women to sing in church. Yet if we take Paul's writing seriously for all time, the churches are sinning by allowing women to even whisper in the church, let alone sing. To say anything else, from a completely literal and forever-bound standpoint, is a bold-faced lie.

The historical grammatical method of interpretation allows for women to be pastors. It allows for them to speak in church. It allows for them to sing. It also leaves room for the exact opposite.

[LutherNut]

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Now we can back and forth all day, which I choose not to do.

I've no doubt that it was his opinion, used as reasoning and example to explain a bigger point.

I have no doubt it is God's command and not merely Paul's opinion. Read 1 Corinthians 14:37

Paul wrote to a specific church at a specific time (intended audience). He said that he did not allow a woman to teach or have authority over man.

"...let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

Of course, if we fail to understand WHY he said that, we lose. It wasn't that God wanted women to remain silent. It wasn't because women are incapable of rational thought which God gives them. It was not that women had no faith, given to them by God.

Of course not. It was that God does not give that responsibility to women. The role of the pastor in the Church is the same as the role of the husband and father in the household. Women cannot be husbands or fathers. They are not given those responsibilities.

The historical grammatical method of interpretation allows for women to be pastors.

No, it doesn't. It shows us that what Paul was applying to a specific church in a specific place at a specific time was a universal teaching and command of God to be applied to all churches of all places of all time. This is maintained in his writings to both Timothy and Titus, applying the exact same teaching to them as well to apply elsewhere.

[SPALATIN]

No it doesn't.



Yes we can. Though it's probably not just Paul's opinion. I've no doubt that it was his opinion, used as reasoning and example to explain a bigger point. See below.

Well let's see why it was his opinion. He uses 'order of creation' as his basis. Adam was created first and Eve was created from his Rib. Yes, not from foot or head but from Rib which is a matter of equality to some. However, in the Garden when Eve is being questioned by the Serpent, she presumes to speak for God when she gives her answers and Adam stays silent. She takes the fruit and seeing that it is pleasing to the eye eats it and gives it to Adam and he eats. They recognize at once that they are now "naked" and become ashamed of what they have done so they hide when they hear the Lord calling out to them.

He asks them what they are doing. they reply that they were naked and were ashamed. God asks them who told them they were naked. and then "did you eat from the tree in the garden I told you not to eat from. Adam speaks up.
"The woman gave me the fruit and I did eat.'

So God puts his curse on them and gives the Man the dominion over the woman, but gives the woman her salvation through the seed that will stomp the serpents head.


So Paul doesn't just come out of the woodwork with this opinion, but bases it on scripture.


The only question about the Mosaic authorship is the section detailing Moses' death. How did a dead man write in the past tense about his death? Other than that, no one that I know of is seriously questioning whether the Pentateuch is Moses writ or not.

Maybe he had a "ghost" writer..;)



You sure? Cuz we just had this lesson in Sunday School, and in Bible Study, and in Church, and this definition was the one given for Historical CRITICAL. Of course, people err, so they may have meant Grammatical, gotten their definitions mixed up, whatever. The idea behind it is that if we miss the forest for the trees, we're no better off. The point of Paul saying women can't teach? It was that God is a God of order, and the women of that time were causing disorder by being very disruptive and going overboard in their freedom even though they were as yet ignorant, having only recently been allowed inside the building.

But if we only focus on the trees, then we miss what God, through Paul, was really trying to say.

See, Paul wrote to a specific church at a specific time (intended audience). He said that he did not allow a woman to teach or have authority over man. Of course, if we fail to understand WHY he said that, we lose. It wasn't that God wanted women to remain silent. It wasn't because women are incapable of rational thought which God gives them. It was not that women had no faith, given to them by God.

I would disagree with you here because there certainly were women that Paul admired like Lydia and Priscilla. I think he gave women more credit than you think.

When Paul writes that women should remain silent in the church, people ignore that. Even the LCMS ignores that. They allow women to read the lessons (pastor reading the Gospel of course).

Here I won't disagree with you. There are some churches that practice this (mine included), and don't think I don't grit my teeth about this.

They allow women to sing in church. Yet if we take Paul's writing seriously for all time, the churches are sinning by allowing women to even whisper in the church, let alone sing. To say anything else, from a completely literal and forever-bound standpoint, is a bold-faced lie.

The historical grammatical method of interpretation allows for women to be pastors. It allows for them to speak in church. It allows for them to sing. It also leaves room for the exact opposite.

I think you are taking your interpretation of singing to the extreme here. Singing is not an authoritarian position. Paul said that they are not to have authority over man in the church. Where is singing exercising authority over man?

I think you need to do some more studying on this one Angelus. You don't have all of your facts straight.

[BigNorsk]

AngelusSax is, I believe, mostly refering to this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:34 NET
(34) the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.

While Scott is referring to this:
1 Timothy 2:12 NET
(12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

Though it does also speak of the women being quiet.

Marv

[AngelusSax]

"...let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

Whereas boldness of authority might say "I can assure you myself that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

Sounded an awful lot like "I'll let someone else tell you whether it's God's command or not, I ain't getting pinned down!"

(That's a joke for those not in the know)

He uses 'order of creation' as his basis. Adam was created first and Eve was created from his Rib.

Amoebas should rule the earth based on order of creation.

in the Garden when Eve is being questioned by the Serpent, she presumes to speak for God when she gives her answers and Adam stays silent. She takes the fruit and seeing that it is pleasing to the eye eats it and gives it to Adam and he eats.

Eve came to believe it was not sin. Adam did it still knowing it was sin. Sounds like Adam did something much worse. His was very blatant.

Maybe he had a "ghost" writer..;)

LOL That was actually very funny! :D

I think he gave women more credit than you think.

He gave them credit that has to be ignored to support the woman-no-teach-or-talk MENtality.

AngelusSax is, I believe, mostly refering to this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:34 NET
(34) the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.

While Scott is referring to this:
1 Timothy 2:12 NET
(12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

Though it does also speak of the women being quiet.

I was referring to both. If we take one as literal for all time, we HAVE to take the other. They go hand in hand. If we're going to break one and justify it, but not the other, then we're just being hypocrites.

[Jim47]

Our reason is indeed given to us by God, but not in its fallen state. Human reason has become corrupt by sin and, therefore, is not sufficient for us to fully understand God.


To add a couple of cents here...

The basic difference between the HistCrit amd HistGram methods is that the HistCrit seeks to undermine and discredit the word of God for the purpose of explaining and legitimizing a certain prejudice. For example, if we can explain away Paul's writings concerning the role of women in the church as being a mere opinion of Paul and neither inspired writ nor a universal teaching for the Church, then we can justify ordaining women. Or if we can somehow discredit the writings of the Torah, taking them away from Mosaic authorship and handing it over to various sources and carving it up by redactors, we can do away with such teachings as Creation, the sin of homosexuality, the God given roles of men and women, etc.

HistGram, on the other hand, begins with the understanding (which we have by faith) that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the sole source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith in the Church. It is an attempt to understand what the Bible has to say to us by studying the literary aspects of the writings, taking into consideration the author, his intended audience, the place and time of the writing, certain linguistic characteristics and idioms in use during that time, etc. Nowhere and at no time does HistGram question the authenticity, the validity, or the inspiration of any portion of the Bible. It begins and ends with the faith-borne acceptance of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God and the source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith.


Jay:)


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LutherNut again. :thumbsup:

[Jim47]

SPALATIN


Maybe he had a "ghost" writer..;)








Yeah, I think it was Joshua, but not yet in ghost form! :D

[SPALATIN]

Whereas boldness of authority might say "I can assure you myself that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

Sounded an awful lot like "I'll let someone else tell you whether it's God's command or not, I ain't getting pinned down!"

(That's a joke for those not in the know)



Amoebas should rule the earth based on order of creation.

Are you Joking? Do you believe that God created Man and Woman?

If so than Amoeba are a moot issue here



Eve came to believe it was not sin. Adam did it still knowing it was sin. Sounds like Adam did something much worse. His was very blatant.

More like she denied the sin not that she came to believe it was not sin. The Serpent gave her plause of deniabiltiy by the nature of his questions. I don't think you can derive your idea here from scripture without people really scratching their heads.



LOL That was actually very funny! :D glad I can make you chuckle about this.



He gave them credit that has to be ignored to support the woman-no-teach-or-talk MENtality.



I was referring to both. If we take one as literal for all time, we HAVE to take the other. They go hand in hand. If we're going to break one and justify it, but not the other, then we're just being hypocrites.

But then God forgives us our hypocrisy doesn't he. Your supposition is very Kant-like in the way you state it.

What we have to consider is vocation. Pastor is not a JOB she is to have, however, she can be a Sunday School teacher over the young people. It is NOT about ability, but about her vocation.

[FreezBee]

Our reason is indeed given to us by God, but not in its fallen state. Human reason has become corrupt by sin and, therefore, is not sufficient for us to fully understand God.

Not really sure I can follow your argumentation here :)

How did sin corrupt human reason? Sin is by definition a transgression of a divine commandment. If human reason was not corrupt before the first sin ("the fall"), how could that first sin come about at all?

Let's try to take a closer look at it, shall we?

Genesis 1
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

So humans were created in the image of God. Doesn't that sill apply? Maybe not today, I have no proof of that, but let's look at conditions at the time of Jesus:

Mark 12
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
And they were amazed at him.

The coin has the portrait and inscription of Caesar, so it is made in the image of Caesar - so the words of Jesus here require humans to still be created in the image of God.

Nowhere and at no time does HistGram question the authenticity, the validity, or the inspiration of any portion of the Bible. It begins and ends with the faith-borne acceptance of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God and the source and norm of teaching and practice of the faith.

Yes, "teaching and practise of the faith" - please notice that!


- FreezBee

[soccerguy2594]

Question: [think back to childhood though many of us where too young when this took place in our lives] When did we first know we had done something wrong? b/c we got punished. That is when we first realized that there were consequences for our actions. From that point on, the feeling that we had done something wrong was b/c we knew there were consequences to breaking rules. That is why I like to view Adam's and Eve's sin as the "originating" sin. It is more of a commentary on human life. God blesses us and gives us wonderful things, and we try to goo our own way and be God instead of living how God wants us. That is our Sin (essence) and not our sin (act)

Also, it is interesting to note that part of Eve's consequences for disobeying God was that "...[man] shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16). THis was not God-intended originally, but was a consequence of Eve's disobedience. So, whenever man "rules" over a woman that is a sign of a disordered world...a world not as God originally intended.

It is also interesting to note that Paul (in his undisputed letters - the ones scholars agree where written by him which include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, & Philemon) does not include Eve when talking about the "originating" sin. (although I will concede that Paul talks about "man being in the image and reflection of God, and woman is the reflection of man. Indeed man was not made from woman, but woman from man." however, that all depends on which creation story you follow - Paul obviously is using the second creation story) Paul always uses Adam when talking about the originating sin. (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Cor 15:21-22)

Well, when I started this thread/discussion I didn't think it would create such a stir. :thumbsup: :liturgy: :groupray:

[SPALATIN]

Question: [think back to childhood though many of us where too young when this took place in our lives] When did we first know we had done something wrong? b/c we got punished. That is when we first realized that there were consequences for our actions. From that point on, the feeling that we had done something wrong was b/c we knew there were consequences to breaking rules. That is why I like to view Adam's and Eve's sin as the "originating" sin. It is more of a commentary on human life. God blesses us and gives us wonderful things, and we try to goo our own way and be God instead of living how God wants us. That is our Sin (essence) and not our sin (act)

Also, it is interesting to note that part of Eve's consequences for disobeying God was that "...[man] shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16). THis was not God-intended originally, but was a consequence of Eve's disobedience. So, whenever man "rules" over a woman that is a sign of a disordered world...a world not as God originally intended.

It is also interesting to note that Paul (in his undisputed letters - the ones scholars agree where written by him which include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, & Philemon) does not include Eve when talking about the "originating" sin. (although I will concede that Paul talks about "man being in the image and reflection of God, and woman is the reflection of man. Indeed man was not made from woman, but woman from man." however, that all depends on which creation story you follow - Paul obviously is using the second creation story) Paul always uses Adam when talking about the originating sin. (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Cor 15:21-22)

Well, when I started this thread/discussion I didn't think it would create such a stir. :thumbsup: :liturgy: :groupray:

There in is the nature of the creation order as well. Paul doesn't take that away from man. Man also should not try to change what God's directive after the fall by putting women in a vocation to which he didn't intend for her to have.

[LutherNut]

in his undisputed letters - the ones scholars agree where written by him which include: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, & Philemon

Huh? :scratch:

I've never heard of any dispute concerning Paul's letters.
Where did this come from??

[LutherNut]

AngelusSax is, I believe, mostly refering to this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:34 NET
(34) the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.

While Scott is referring to this:
1 Timothy 2:12 NET
(12) But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

Though it does also speak of the women being quiet.


I was referring to both. If we take one as literal for all time, we HAVE to take the other. They go hand in hand. If we're going to break one and justify it, but not the other, then we're just being hypocrites.

1 Cor. 14:34 - "...let them be in submission..." That is, submission to men in the Church.

1 Tim. 2:12 - "...do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man..." Again, exercising submission to men in the Church.

Your right, Angelus. They most certainly do go hand in hand.
Both are referring to submission to authority, but say nothing about praying, singing, and other sacrificial acts of worship.

Since the pastor has the same role and responsibility as does the husband and father in the household, and women are to be in submission to that authority and not desire it for herself ("Your desire shall be for your husband..."), she is also in submission to the pastoral role and responsibility in the Church, and not desire it for herself.


Jay:wave:

[soccerguy2594]

There in is the nature of the creation order as well. Paul doesn't take that away from man. Man also should not try to change what God's directive after the fall by putting women in a vocation to which he didn't intend for her to have.

But why shouldn't we try to live (prioritize our lives) around what God intended at the beginning? It makes no sense to continue going on living in Sin? (Rom 6:1)

Is the result of sin the fact that men have dominion or the fact that women still want men even though their is dominion? (Gen 3:16)

[soccerguy2594]

Huh? :scratch:

I've never heard of any dispute concerning Paul's letters.
Where did this come from??

If you put a room full of Pauline scholars together, and ask them which books did Paul actually write himself there would be an overwhelming majority in favor of the "undisputed" books (which is why they are called "undisputed"). The other books either no on thinks were actually written by Paul or there isn't a clear Majority. Ephesians would be an example of a book that has is disputed, but it's more like 50/50.

Read, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his writings and Teachings by Marion L. Soards. (Paulist Press, ISBN 0809128640) :thumbsup:

This book was written in the late 80's so there might be updated stuff, but I don't think so. This book is pretty foundational stuff.

[SPALATIN]

But why shouldn't we try to live (prioritize our lives) around what God intended at the beginning? It makes no sense to continue going on living in Sin? (Rom 6:1)

Is the result of sin the fact that men have dominion or the fact that women still want men even though their is dominion? (Gen 3:16)

Because we can't prioritize our lives without his divine help. Man sinned along with woman, but God did give Man the headship position. Both Paul and Peter write that the woman is to be submissive to the man as the church is submissive to Christ.

This is the model given to us and it was given to us by God after the fall. It is one that Paul and Peter continue to espouse even after Christ died on the cross. Had it been changed, the Gospel would have indicated that change and Christ himself would have announced it during his lifetime.

Many scholars will point to Christ showing himself to Mary Magdalene before the disciples as a proof-text that he had given women more prestige and power, but I think that he just treated them as men SHOULD HAVE treated them all along.

I think he chose Mary because she was the one who came and poured oil on his feet and wiped them with her hair and as he said "anointed them".

I believe strongly in vocations as did Luther. Pastor is a man's vocation not a woman's. I stand by the scriptures that speak to this fact.

[LutherNut]

If you put a room full of Pauline scholars together, and ask them which books did Paul actually write himself there would be an overwhelming majority in favor of the "undisputed" books (which is why they are called "undisputed"). The other books either no on thinks were actually written by Paul or there isn't a clear Majority. Ephesians would be an example of a book that has is disputed, but it's more like 50/50.

Read, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his writings and Teachings by Marion L. Soards. (Paulist Press, ISBN 0809128640) :thumbsup:

This book was written in the late 80's so there might be updated stuff, but I don't think so. This book is pretty foundational stuff.

This is news to me and most people I have asked.
In anything I have ever read or heard, Paul's writings have always been attributed to Paul (all 14 of them) and are also part of the homolegoumena (undisputed writings of the NT).

[soccerguy2594]

This is news to me and most people I have asked.
In anything I have ever read or heard, Paul's writings have always been attributed to Paul (all 14 of them) and are also part of the homolegoumena (undisputed writings of the NT).

I don't argue with the second half of your statement (i.e. the homolegoumena) but as for the first half....read more!! :P

[soccerguy2594]

Many scholars will point to Christ showing himself to Mary Magdalene before the disciples as a proof-text that he had given women more prestige and power, but I think that he just treated them as men SHOULD HAVE treated them all along.

So we should continue to treat women how the Bible "says" and not how we "should have been treating them all along" (a.k.a follow Jesus' example)? That logic makes absolutely no sense. Personally, I prefer to follow the example of Jesus.

I believe strongly in vocations as did Luther. Pastor is a man's vocation not a woman's. I stand by the scriptures that speak to this fact.

I agree with Luther's notion of vocations too....but I don't limit them by sexism!! :doh:

[SPALATIN]

So we should continue to treat women how the Bible "says" and not how we "should have been treating them all along" (a.k.a follow Jesus' example)? That logic makes absolutely no sense. Personally, I prefer to follow the example of Jesus.

And what is that message IYESHO?



I agree with Luther's notion of vocations too....but I don't limit them by sexism!! :doh:



In Paul E. Kretzman's Popular Commentary on 1 Tim 2:13

He states this:


The apostle now supports his rule of silence on two grounds: For Adam was created first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, overcome by deceit, was in the transgression. The priority of Adam’s creation is thus a testimony for the order of God that the man should lead and rule for all times. God made woman as an helpmeet for man, the subordination of women holding good even before the Fall. The woman was and should be in the relation of dependency to the man, from which it follows that her status should not be that of a leader or teacher in the Church. In the second place, the story of the first man shows that there was no temptation and fall as long as he was alone. As soon, however, as the woman, the weaker vessel, was present, Satan made his attack. Thus Adam was not deceived, was not seduced, but Eve was overcome by the devil’s deception; she fell into the trap set by the enemy and then persuaded her husband to join her in the foolish transgression. So the Fall was brought about, which, in its sad results, continues to this hour. Here again the subordination of the woman is plainly shown, a fact which excludes her from being a teacher in public worship, where her office would give her dominion over the man.

[AngelusSax]

It would seem that Paul appealed to the second Creation Story within Genesis, and glossed over or ignored the first, which states male and female were both made at the same time in God's image. And if order of Creation is the model for the order of authority today, I now bow to the humble amoeba, the birds, the dogs, and trees, and everything non-human, as humans were the last thing made.

Also, Adam sinned without being deceived. Yes, it's bad to be deceived into thinking a sin isn't a sin, but to still know it's a sin and do it anyway is even worse. From that appeal, I submit that men should not have inherent authority over women because we came first (as in the first story we didn't, and in the 2nd story we came after everything else), and that women, while perhaps succeptible to deception, don't sin eyes wide open.

[Protoevangel]

And you say you don't deny God's Word! ^_^

[LutherNut]

It would seem that Paul appealed to the second Creation Story within Genesis, and glossed over or ignored the first, which states male and female were both made at the same time in God's image. And if order of Creation is the model for the order of authority today, I now bow to the humble amoeba, the birds, the dogs, and trees, and everything non-human, as humans were the last thing made.

Also, Adam sinned without being deceived. Yes, it's bad to be deceived into thinking a sin isn't a sin, but to still know it's a sin and do it anyway is even worse. From that appeal, I submit that men should not have inherent authority over women because we came first (as in the first story we didn't, and in the 2nd story we came after everything else), and that women, while perhaps succeptible to deception, don't sin eyes wide open.

You are once again twisting the truth of God's word to try and justify your own ideas.

God spoke all things into existance except Man. Man, both male and female, was formed by God's hand. Their place in creation is above all else.

While the man and the woman were both formed, and the woman from the man's side (and not his head or feet) to be as equal, that all changed after the Fall. The man was placed in authority and the woman in submission, precisely because of who sinned first.


Keep trying, though. One of these days you just might get one right.^_^

[SPALATIN]

It would seem that Paul appealed to the second Creation Story within Genesis, and glossed over or ignored the first, which states male and female were both made at the same time in God's image. And if order of Creation is the model for the order of authority today, I now bow to the humble amoeba, the birds, the dogs, and trees, and everything non-human, as humans were the last thing made.

Also, Adam sinned without being deceived. Yes, it's bad to be deceived into thinking a sin isn't a sin, but to still know it's a sin and do it anyway is even worse. From that appeal, I submit that men should not have inherent authority over women because we came first (as in the first story we didn't, and in the 2nd story we came after everything else), and that women, while perhaps succeptible to deception, don't sin eyes wide open.

I'm guessing that perhaps the first Creation story is more of a Panoramic version that God created all things and the day by day account is also a model for us in how we live. We work 6 days and on the seventh we rest as God did so. Not taking into account the fact that Thousands of years later, man would only work 5 days instead of 6. (though some work 30 or 31 day weeks with no days off, TYPE A ALL THE WAY).
In reading this account I do not see that the word "equal" is used in the creation of Man and Woman. I suppose that there are those that will argue that it was implied by the fact that it says "God made Man and Woman in his own image" Therefore figuring that God would not make one faction of himself unequal with the other.

I am not a theologian, nor am I God himself so that answer is not available to me at this time.


The second creation story shows the order of creation Man on a further microscopic level giving more detail to why a helpmate was created from his rib. Luke was Paul's physician and friend and most likely learned of this story of creation from Paul so as to use it in his lineage in his Gospel account.

This story is not trying to oppress women but to understand the Creation order in terms of scripture.

[Protoevangel]

I have no problem with "equal".

"2 & 10" and "9 & 3" are equal. However, they are ordered differently, and may have different roles, depending on the context of how, where and when they are used. Mix up those roles, and things may not end up as intended. Things might just "miss the mark".