On 11/29/13, 7:15 PM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2013 5:47:42 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 11/29/13, 6:12 PM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, November 29, 2013 9:52:22 AM UTC-6,

The quote is very clear...that wives must *submit* to their husbands.



*Submit* does not mean the same thing as "respect," as you are trying to



claim here. You are making a bull**** claim. Submit means being



subservient.



"The husband is the head of the wife..."



What do you think that means? It means the wife is to do as she is told





You ar3e obviously thinking that 'subjective' is another term for being a 'slave' which is clearly not representitive of the scripture. but you can believe that if you wish.







I think the meaning of the word "submit" in the
context of that word as used in your bible is
pretty clear. It means, as the OED says, "to place
oneself under the control of a person in authority or power; to become subject, surrender oneself, or yield to a person or his rule."


You "think" That's what it means? Man, that's concrete!



That is the *first* definition given in the OED. The second and third

definitions are pretty much the same.



The etymology of the word "submit" with many references predates the

King James Bible, so the meaning of the word was well-known to the

literate hundreds of years prior to that translation and compilation.

Plus, there are plenty of contemporary religious writers who have

offered up definitions of that phrase, and they all pretty much have the

same meaning...that the "husband is the boss, and the wife must do his

bidding in all things." All, of course, except the christian apologists,

who spend their time trying to misinterpret the meanings of fairly

simple and well-understood words.


Wow, Harry, I didn't know you were such a theologian. Do you have a MDiv?


Women were and, sadly, are second-class citizens, "scripture" says, to

be ruled by men. Just add that to the many reasons why a growing number

of educated "christian" women are not "obeying" what their churches tell

them to do in this regard. Your objection is just another example of how Christians use their
bible to back up whatever they think it means.

Harry, why should bother with my own faulty interpretations, seeing you're doing a great job of it. I'll listen to you from now on.

?;^ )

No, I am not a theologian, but I did have as a college roommate for an
academic year a fellow who got his master's at Union Theological
Seminary, and was ordained an Episcopal priest. He got me to go to
Sunday Episcopal services on campus because, he claimed, they served the
best Sunday student breakfast and had the best-looking coeds at their
services. He was right on both counts.

He and I argued some on issues religious. We're still close friends.

I have an M.A. in English, and my concentration was in etymology. As for
your interpretations, you're just proving my point, that biblical
interpretation is in the mind of the beholder. There's nothing wrong or
intellectually dishonest about that, as long as one admits it.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.