The
following email exchange took place just prior to the death of one of the most
exhaustive, most diligent, most persuasive watchman on the wall, one whose
writings have had a positive effect on men all around the world, particularly
those who’ve awoken to the glorious heritage of those of the House of Israel—Arnold
E. Kennedy. You can find excerpts from
his excellent writings at http://fathersmanifesto.net/aek
which is where this document will soon be found.
Prior to
Arnold’s untimely and almost instant death, this author, while traveling across
Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Ireland and other Eastern European and European
countries, had been in almost daily contact with Arnold by Skype, and had some
magnificent video conferences. Some of
those video conferences were from an HP Ipaq which
involved 6 different conferees who, because Skype video doesn’t work on an Ipaq, were able to log in to Russian webcams which did have
video to complete the connection. Because the six of us agreed on so many fine
details about Scripture, even though we had all come to it from completely
different perspectives, we had agreed to pick topics on which we could
disagree. The cantankerous tone of the
following email exchange was the result of that agreement.
Had we all
known then what we all know now, that his health was failing, this author would
have gladly taken him up on his offer to visit him in Australia. But it was not Arnold’s nature to complain
about personal problems, all of which he concealed very well in some very
lively video debates, so we never understood the urgent nature of his
invitation.
God bless
you, Arnold—and please excuse us for missing the opportunity to visit you when we
had the chance.
But you
have eternal life—by your intellect, your holy seed,
and your writings which will live forever.
Feminism's
Finest Hour
Edited
2/8/07
Dear
Arnold,
Even my
wife was ticked off by the following feminazi
statement. Please don't cancel your
subscription to "How to Win Friends and Influence People":
"Some
controlling men"
It's
REQUIRED by God that men "control", otherwise they reject God's Orderly Arrangement. You may retort "some over-controlling
men", but that leaves the topic wide open about WHO decides that, and
someone who espouses feminism so forthrightly is not the person I would want to
decide just HOW much is too much in my life.
Betty
Friedan would be proud of you.
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and
the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ, 1
Corinthians 11:3
How can a
man be the "head" of a woman or his family if he doesn't control her
and it?
He cannot.
And just how MUCH control is not something to be decided by amoral feminazis like Friedan.
<<<But
is it about all women ? The contexts do NOT say so. In
both verses the word for "women" is "goo-nay" (or
"wife") and the word for
"man" is "an-aur"
which means "husband".>>>
It is
actually translated as "husband" in one verse, but not in the other,
but this is shown in the Adam and Eve relationship mentioned in that verse
Agreed
that there's no provision for single women:
because Numbers 30 which Paul was quoting makes NO provision
for single women to be granted legal rights.
Agreed also that "goo-nay" has been
translated as both "woman" and "wife", and agreed that it
must mean one or the other. But
your assertion that this verse applies only to wives, based on the putative
"marriage" between Adam and Eve [a concept which didn't even exist at
the time], is faulty.
"goo-nay" must mean woman, not wife, and clearly Numbers 30 shows
how all women are to be under the authority of A man--usually a husband or
father, but sometimes a brother or another close male relative.
All of
Numbers will be included here because it's pertinent to some other serious
errors:
Num 30:1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children
of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath
commanded.
Num 30:2
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul
with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
Num 30:3
If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond,
[being] in her father's house in her youth;
Num 30:4
And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound
her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall
stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
Num 30:5
But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth;
not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall
stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
Num 30:6
And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought
out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
Num 30:7
And her husband heard [it,] and held
his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then
her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
Num 30:8
But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he
shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips,
wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
Num 30:9
But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they
have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
Num 30:10
And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond
with an oath;
Num 30:11
And her husband heard [it], and
held his peace at her, [and] disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond
wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband hath utterly made them
void on the day he heard [them; then]
whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the
bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the
LORD shall forgive her.
Num 30:13
Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may
establish it, or her husband may make it void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace
at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her
vows, or all her bonds, which [are] upon
her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at
her in the day that he heard [them].
Num 30:15
But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard [them]; then he
shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16
These [are] the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and
his wife, between the father and his daughter, [being
yet] in her youth in her father's house.
So in both
verses Scripture refine the women concerned down married women only . We can see this in the second verse where it talks
about
the wife being saved in childbirth. A single woman does not have a
husband to have children with. There is no evidence that these two
passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner.
Biblical
marriage in its real meaning is not established without witnesses to a covenant.
Because of
morons like Betty Friedan and her band of feminazis,
who God HATES to His Marrow [whose phallic symbols, or "groves" God
commanded the Israelites to pound to DUST] most women in the US who have
children do NOT have husbands. But you,
of all people Arnold, know that "marriage" doesn't require a ceremony,
nor even a vow from a woman [a vow which she can't
even take unless her husband or father allows it]:
·
Exo 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her,
he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
·
Exo 22:17
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money
according to the dowry of virgins.
Unless her
father "utterly refuse[s]", a man who has sex with a woman must
"endow" [read: marry] her.
It says
exactly nothing about women being subject to other men than her husband here.
Which is
why you must refer to Numbers 30 which DOES say something about other men, and
many of those other men are not husbands, which is why "goo-nay" must
be a reference to any "woman" and not just a "wife".
Historically,
husbands and wives sat on opposite sides of the meeting place
Chapter & verse, please. I've never heard such a
preposterous thing, never saw a single verse which says that, never personally
witnessed it in any place I've ever been in the entire world, and can imagine
it to be true only in sinagogues. I also can't imagine how it would cause such
a reaction, but have seen many unruly, noissome women
in churches who this should and most likely does apply to.
·
and Paul prohibited wives from calling out to their husbands to ask
questions, but to wait until they were at home to do it
Where does
Paul get such authority? Paul was simply
quoting Scripture as he always did.
·
Asking husbands at home says absolutely nothing about praying,
praising and prophesying in public.
You of all
people KNOW, Arnold, that the word "ekklesia"
which you infer means only "church" is used numerous times, by Paul
himself, to refer to any public meeting, so your disingenuity
here is, well, exposed for all to see and witness. What else can I say about that--you know
you're wrong the instant you pen it.
There's no provision for "single" women to even BE in church,
much less have rights & priveleges denied to
married women.
[additional note: ek klesia actually refers
specifically to those Israelites "called out" by Jesus. Iow, unless Jesus
Himself called you out, you are not part of the "ek
klesia"]
·
Subjection to a husband is not to be the result of a wife being
terrorized!
·
The essence of this passage can be seen in the word
"silence"
No, the
essence is "have no authority" &
"obedience", which is translated from "hupotasso",
which is defined as follows:
G5293, hupotasso¯, hoop-ot-as'-so, From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate;
reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue
unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit
self unto.
Would you
say that "reflexively to obey" would appear to be a Greek military
term? If so, as an ex-military officer,
I can knowledgeably advise you that "reflexively obey" does not even
begin to imply "terrorized", as these are two different and almost
opposite reactions or emotions. You
cannot reflexively obey if you're terrorized.
Sincerely,
John
Knight
From:My MSN
Write
E-mail
Inbox
Address
Book
Folders
From:
"Jacob Israel" <jacob1srae1ite@gmail.com>
To:
fmanifesto@hotmail.com
Subject:
Fwd: Women in he church
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From:
Arnold Kennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz>
Date:
Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:35:53 +1200
Subject:
Women in he church
To:
clintonfultz@charter.net, YAYA <minerva24@verizon.net>
Cc:
debunks <debunks@sbcglobal.net>, jk@jacobisrael.us, preacher
<preacher@sfaw.org>,
Ray Williams <tlmray@bellsouth.net>,
FRANKKJV@aol.com,
clay@freeamerican.com, Don Brown
<donbro8729@bellsouth.net>, horse176@windstream.net,
"Stephen E.
Jones"
<Godskingdm@aol.com>, Clifton Emahiser
<caemahiser@sbcglobal.net>,
ricniemela <ricniemela@earthlink.net>,
chrseparatist@netscape.net,
Daniel Johns <bydpastordan@yahoo.com>,
Buddy
<buddy@netcommander.com>, Trisha Kelly
<nlovewithyahshua@msn.com>,
Columbus Marcum <cmarcum7849@charter.net>,
Raymond
Campbell <lastumpjumper@yahoo.com>, Eli James
<eli-james@sbcglobal.net>,
rowell@gcstation.net
Dear
friends,
I have
been much concerned at the emotive way the subject of "women"
has been handled. If contexts are ignored, we are going to have wrong
conclusions, and wrong conclusions seem to be in vogue!
I will try to
be as simple as possible and I have transliterated the Greek words.
Let us
examine the context of two passages that involve the role of
women in the assembly. Please watch out for context all the way
through. Below are the two major passages that are
often used, in my
view quite wrongly and out of context.
1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith
the law. And if they will learn any thing,
let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church.
1 Tim
2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in
modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women
professing godliness) with good works.
Let the
woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not
a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And
Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.
Notwithstanding
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue
in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Some controlling men [it's REQUIRED by God
that men "control", otherwise
they reject God's Orderly
Arrangement: christ
head of man] will read
these verses and say, "See, women are
not even
to speak in the assembly", the Bible makes this very clear".
Indeed,
if the contexts were the same in every way, this might appear
to be so, on the surface that is. In both verses we have
"women" as
one subject and both contain the word "learn". The two
phrases are,
"if they will learn anything" and "let the women
learn", and so the
context is about women learning something from
someone. In both the
word "learn" is the same Greek word "man-than'-o"
which is about
understanding as well as learning. So
obviously women can both learn
and understand.
But is it
about all women [no provision for "single" women in Numbers 30]? The
contexts do NOT say so. In both
verses the word for "women" is "goo-nay" (or
"wife") and the word for
"man" is "an-aur" which
means "husband". It is actually translated as
"husband" in one verse, but not in the other, but this
is shown in the
Adam and Eve relationship mentioned in that verse. Those
with a
little knowledge of language know that the word for "man" here
is NOT
the generic term "anthropos". It
is "husband".
So in
both verses Scripture refine the women concerned down married
women only [dowry, Exodus 22:16]. . We can see this in the second
verse where it talks about
the wife being saved in childbirth. A single woman does not have a
husband to have children with. There is no
evidence that these two
passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner.
Now that we have looked at some things in
common in these verses, we
can consider some of the differences. The major difference is found
in the word "silence" which is one single word in English,
but they
are two different words with different meanings in the Greek. This
effectively makes a context and meaning change in
regard to married
women opening their mouths in public meetings.
In the 1
Corinthian 14 passage, the word translated as "silence" is
Strongs 4601 "see-gah-o"
to which he assigns the meaning as being, "to
keep silence, hold one's peace, to be kept in silence, be
concealed"
In the 1
Timothy 2 passage, the word translated as "silence" is
Strongs 2271, (hay-soo-khee'-ah) to which Strongs
assigns the meaning
as being "stillness, that is, desistance from bustle or
language: -
quietness". It is the feminine form of Strongs 2272 meaning "still
(undisturbed,
undisturbing): - peaceable, quiet".
In the
light of these different words for "silence" we can re-appraise
the application of these two verses. We will read the first verse
again,
1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith
the law. And if they will learn any thing,
let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church.
Here the
context is that of husbands and wives in the assemblies.
Historically,
husbands and wives sat on opposite sides of the meeting
place [chapter & verse, please, I've never heard such a preposterous
thing, never saw a single verse which says that, never seen it, and can imagine
it to be true only in sinagogues. I also can't imagine how it would cause such
a reaction, but have seen unruly, noissome women in
churches who this should and most likely does apply to], and
Paul prohibited wives from calling out to their husbands to
ask questions, but to wait until they were at home to do it [where does
Paul get such authority--Paul was simply quoting Scripture as he always did]. This
passage is prefixed with "For God is not the
author of confusion, but
of peace, as in all churches of the saints" and thus we see
that it
would be shameful for wives to so "speak" in the church
because this
would be confusing and disturbing in such a public meeting.
We have
here the phrase, "as also saith the Law".
Some men say this
means that all women are to be subject to all men, but they cannot
produce any place in the Law of God where this is
said.
What we
can find in the Law is much about wives being subject to their
own husbands. Ephesians 5:22 says, "Wives, submit yourselves
unto
your own husbands, as unto the Lord". There is
nothing said about
wives being
subject to other men's' husbands [which nobody claims it does--but it does make
no provision for "single" women to even BE in church, much less have
rights & priveleges denied to married women]. Peter
puts it this
way:
1 Peter
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose
daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not
afraid with any
amazement.
Subjection
to a husband is not to be the result of a wife being terrorized! [hepatuso]
Then comes the
balance in the next verse:
7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge,
giving honour unto the wife, as unto the
weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not
hindered.
Next we have
the extension to all members of the believers:
8
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
Asking
husbands questions is where wives are required to be silent in
the assembly and this limitation only is what is determined by the
context.
Thus Paul
details the objective of the exercise which is to maintain
quietness and order an assembly. Asking husbands at
home says
absolutely nothing about praying, praising and
prophesying in public. [the word "ekklesia" which you infer means only
"church" is used numerous times, by Paul, to refer to any public
meeting].
Now we can compare the second passage and see
if it means that all
women should not speak in the assembly.
1 Tim
2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in
modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided
hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women
professing godliness) with good works.
Let the
woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not
a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And
Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.
Notwithstanding
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue
in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The essence of
this passage can be seen in the word "silence" [no, the essence is
"have no authority" & hepatuso]. We
have seen that it carries the sense of "stillness, desistance
from
bustle or language, quietness, still, undisturbed, undisturbing,
peaceable, and quiet". It is about a wife's
attitude, behavior,
manner of attire and her relationship with her (own) husband. This is
about the manner of speaking rather than not speaking at all.
The
latter part of this quotation has reference to Eve being deceived.
This
provides an indication as to why women are not to teach
husbands, and this indication is that women are more
easily deceived
than men. We can all see how many cults were started by women. The
woman said: "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat". Adam
received
the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he
was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of
this
she was subjected to the domination of her husband: "Thy desire
shall
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"- Gen. 3:16. In
God's
order He has subjected the wife, expressly, to the government of her
husband. This context continues to the end of this
chapter where we
read about "if they continue" showing the context is still
about the
husband and wife in regard to teaching - and that
much only. It says
exactly nothing about women being subject to other
men than her
husband here.
To extend these limitations beyond the context
of each of these
passages, is to be found guilty of false teaching by
wresting
Scripture.
Below I
have listed the two passages with Strong's numbers so that all
can see that the word "silence" is NOT the same in both
verses. Then
I have
listed the Strong's details. If anyone wants to say this is
"wordsmithing", their argument
is not with me. It is more certain
that the "wordsmithing" is being
done by those who deny the "it is
written". If someone says their view stands,
then it is obvious that
the different words for "silence" have NOT been viewed, AND
NEITHER
HAVE THE
CONTEXTS.
In view
of the simple context of both passages it is absolute folly to
even mention foreign women as being the subject. From these passages
it is folly to conclude that all women should be subject to all men.
The only
place where this applies is in church order, apart from
husbands! Even the "straw man" mention is
folly. The emails on this
subject have been mostly folly, but it is good to
see some sense in
such as David Bell's email summarising this
subject. This is found
somewhere below. I commend it to all.
If this
forum continues on ignoring context, it will be like the
person who put a pin in the Bible and read, "Judas went and hanged
himself. Then they put in another pin and read,
"Go thou and do
likewise". Yes, the Bible does say, "Go
thou and do likewise", but
that is in a different context, so it does not mean anyone should go
and hang themselves, does it? So all those who want to really
understand the role of woman must apply the context
rule, else they
will hang themselves - and others!
One thing
more, what is it that you all seem to find so difficult
about context? You should be able to understand my simple but graphic
example.
Arnold Kennedy.
1Co 14:34
Let your5216 women1135 keep silence4601 in1722 the3588
churches:1577 for1063 it is not3756 permitted2010
unto them846 to
speak;2980 but235 they are commanded to be under obedience,5293 as2531
also2532
saith3004 the3588 law.3551
1Co 14:35
And1161 if1487 they will2309 learn3129 any thing,5100
let
them ask1905 their2398 husbands435 at1722
home:3624 for1063 it is2076
a shame149 for women1135 to speak2980 in1722 the church.1577
1Ti 2:9
In like manner5615 also,2532 that women1135 adorn2885
themselves1438
in1722 modest2887 apparel,2689 with3326
shamefacedness127
and2532 sobriety;4997 not3361 with1722 braided
hair,4117
or2228 gold,5557 or2228 pearls,3135 or2228 costly4185
array.2441
1Ti 2:10
But235 (which3739 becometh4241 women1135 professing1861
godliness)2317 with1223 good18 works.2041
1Ti 2:11
Let the woman1135 learn3129 in1722 silence2271 with1722
all3956
subjection.5292
1Ti 2:12
But1161 I suffer2010 not3756 a woman1135 to teach,1321
nor3761 to usurp authority over831 the man,435
but235 to be1511 in1722
silence.2271
1Ti 2:13
For1063 Adam76 was first4413 formed,4111 then1534
Eve.2096
1Ti 2:14
And2532 Adam76 was not3756 deceived,538 but1161
the3588
woman1135 being deceived538 was1096 in1722 the
transgression.3847
1Ti 2:15
Notwithstanding1161 she shall be saved4982 in1223
childbearing,5042 if1437 they continue3306
in1722 faith4102 and2532
charity26
and2532 holiness38 with3326 sobriety.4997
2271 h`suci,a hesuchia
{hay-soo-khee'-ah}
Meaning:
1) quietness 1a) description of the life of one who stays at
home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the
affairs of others 2) silence
Origin:
from 2272;; n f
Usage: AV
- silent 3, quietness 1; 4
4601 siga,w sigao
{see-gah'-o}
Meaning:
1) to keep silence, hold one's peace 2) to be kept in
silence, be concealed
Origin:
from 4602;; v
Usage: AV
- hold (one's) peace 4, keep silence 3, keep close 1, keep secret 1; 9
John, I
have just answered this in another email in which I said, "You
amaze me. You quote a lot of verses about husbands and wives, and
then transfer to context to men and women in general. Can society's
activity modify the word of God? I know that you
believe that casual
sex equates with marriage, but Biblical marriage in its real
meaning
is not established without witnesses to a covenant. The
very nature
of Biblical espousals bears witness to this. You have missed out
something important and by doing this have reached a
wrong
conclusion".
No, it is
not true that there are only wives and virgins. What ever
makes you think that a chaste married woman is the same as a married
woman who is a whore?
You have
once again abused context, in this case 1 Cor. 7:34. Paul is
making an issue between godly wives and godly virgins. Whores do not
come into the equation, do they? What Paul is saying here is a matter
of comparing differing attitudes between godly wives and godly
virgins. If you want to say that there are godly
whores, then you
are way off beam.
If you
care to read the passage more carefully, you will see reference
to "her husband" and "his wife" (both singular).
In your view, a
whore must have plural husbands. So when you ask, "Do you agree that
if a woman has sex and is no longer a virgin, that she's then a
wife?", my response is that if she was a whore, she would be
"wives"
to more than one husband. If a single woman had sex just once, she
is a fornicator, not a wife. Under the Law a whore is to be stoned,
but a wife is not. So they must be very different! So, my answer is
"No"!!
I will explain a little further.
In regard
to marriage, this is expressed as being a covenant through
Scripture. Mal 2:14, "Yet ye.
say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath
been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou
hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of
thy covenant". Your definition of marriage being just sex is
seriously deficient and is one that leads to wrong
conclusions. Your
whole email is based upon a wrong premise.
No, I
have not said there is gender equality in all ways. There are
so many things where this is not so and not so in a big way. What I
said is that there are some things a wife can do that you would not
allow.
What
Chief said about your not reading emails properly is one I agree
with. For instance, I detailed the differing words for
"silence" and
gave the differing meanings, and yet you breeze on as if they were the
same. You do not really "hear" what other people are saying
as your
own thoughts overpower you. If you do not accept such differences you
are not "hearing" what is written.
I am
sorry to have to say this, but you demonstrate this too often
not to be true.
-----
Original Message -----
From:
clintonfultz@charter.net
To: YAYA ; Arnold Kennedy
Cc: debunks ; jk@jacobisrael.us ; preacher ; Ray Williams ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; clay@freeamerican.com ; Don
Brown ;
horse176@windstream.net ; Stephen E. Jones ;
Clifton Emahiser ;
ricniemela ;
chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Daniel Johns ; Buddy ;
Trisha Kelly ; Columbus Marcum ; Raymond Campbell ; Eli James ;
rowell@gcstation.net
Sent:
Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:26 AM
Subject:
Re: WTL-100.pdf
-- The
word say's in genesis 3:16 :" That a woman desire
would be
unto her husband and he would rule over her. "
Yahweh set the divine
order it is the law, & commandments. look
in numbers 1 yahweh tells
moses to go and number Israel according to there father houses. ( not
mother)and set men up as governors not women.. and if A man hear his
wife make a vow the man (husband) can nulify
the vow the woman made .
But the
woman cannot dis-anul the man vow. There is a divine
order,
God, man ,woman.. This is the order because man was first
created. You
cannot pick and choose what part of the truth you will accept.
Sarah
obeyed Abraham in all things even calling him lord. this
is
your example.
Women are
not to teach they are to be help mates and take care of
children.They even sat outside in a section
for women outside the
temple. Only the male priest was chosen to enter the holiest of holies
. not a woman. If a woman was in her menstration
cycle she was not
allowed in the camp. Or the temple;. she is unclean.. same for today
we do not lay with women in there menstration cycle because they are
unclean.
It's not
my attention to offend you but you must obey the word of
Yahweh
and do not try to teach Or asurp
authority over a man. Your to
teach the young women and children at home.
Did
Yahweh choose a woman to go and teach ? no
The woman
is the weaker vessel and Yahweh and me love her. but she
has her place at home & not teaching. Show me were Yahweh said
for her
to teach men? were he commanded her to
teach.
www.clintonfultz.com
---- YAYA
<minerva24@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
"Women are not to teach or asurp authority over
a man. "
>
>
Clinton....I agree with this statement, to a DEGREE, but NOT
because it is SCRIPTURAL....in the OLD testament
YAHWEH had WOMEN
perform some of the duties that would NORMALLY fall
to a man to do,
which they either neglected to do, or maybe because it was more
expedient for a woman to do. At any rate, if YAHWEH
selected WOMEN to
fulfill some of the things HE wanted done, who is
PAUL to enter the
picture and USURP YAHWEH'S authority, and replace
it with his, PAUL'S,
authority????
>
>
"There to keep silent in church, and if they have any question
there to ask there husband at home."
>
>
Clinton...this is a bunch of B.S. THIS is a STATEMENT that SAUL of
TARSUS,
the ''jew-PLANT'' made....there is POSITIVELY NOTHING
SCRIPTURAL
IN HIS ALLEGATION AND IF YOU CAN FIND JUST ONE REFERENCE IN
THE
BIBLE, PLEASE FORWARD IT TO ME, SO THAT I MAY READ IT, TOO>
>
> YAYA
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
>
From: clintonfultz@charter.net
> To: YAYA ; Arnold Kennedy
> Cc: debunks ; jk@jacobisrael.us ; preacher ; Ray Williams ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; clay@freeamerican.com ; Don Brown
; Stephen E.
Jones ; Clifton Emahiser
; chrseparatist@netscape.net ; ricniemela ;
Buddy ; Daniel Johns ; Columbus Marcum ; Trisha
Kelly ; Raymond
Campbell ; Eli James ; rowell@gcstation.net
>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:15 AM
>
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
>
>
>
--Women are not to teach or asurp authority over a
man.
>
>
There to keep silent in church, and if they have any question
there to ask there husband at home.
>
>
There desires are to be unto there husband and he shall rule over
her. gen 3:16.
>
www.clintonfultz.com
>
> ----
Arnold Kennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >
Yaya,
> >
The "BibleWorks" Bible program has the
Douay Version that is
searchable, plus just about every other translation
equally searchable
[but not the Holy Name version]. There are a number of Greek
Bibles
with verse separation in this program, and comparisons on a verse by
verse basis [even English and Greek] can be made extremely quickly. It
is well worth the money to buy it. At first glance it appears
complex
to use, but the basics are not difficult.
> >
The Douay of course has the RC Egyptian/Alexandrian text
modifications and this is where untranslated words such as "gentiles"
comes from.
> >
Overall, very often these ctranslation omparisons do not really
help because there is so much copying one from another. For example we
find "gentiles" in a dozen and one versions, and a
comparison means
exactly nothing.
> >
With BibleWorks a click onto Srongs
1484 will find every place
such a word [from the Hebrew or Greek] is found regardless of
translation. In the end we have to get beyond
concordances and
versions and use lexicons because concordances only
give ways words
have been translated and not definitions. Concordances tell us nothing
about grammar and how this can modify meaning. This is why so much of
email flow is useless, pointles and
childlike. One concludes one thing
and another concludes another, just as Jesus said in Matt. 11:16
> >
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto
children sitting in the markets, and calling unto
their fellows, And
saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have
mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For
John came neither
eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man
came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a
winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
wisdom is justified
of her children.
> >
Many emails are devoid of wisdom and understanding. I can recall
my mother teaching me, "Wisdom is the principal thing;
therefore get
wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"- Prov. 4:7.
> >
If we all had a single perfect translation, different people
would take different meanings from a single verse, because of their
pre-conditioning as to doctrine and word
meanings [and their reliance
on concordances]. This is why Jesus said we have to be doers before we
can build upon that doing foundation. None of us could believe that
who send abusive and rude emails are "doers". They are
anything but
"gentle, easily entreated" which indicates the wisom that is "from
above".
> > Regards, Arnold.
> >
----- Original Message -----
> >
From: YAYA
> >
To: debunks ; Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton
fultz ; Buddy ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; preacher ; Godskingdm@aol.com ;
Eli James ; Trisha
Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond
Campbell ;
rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela
; Columbus Marcum ;
chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser
> >
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:19 AM
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
debunks...
> >
The KJV has been COMPROMISED over the years with each printing.
I use the
Smith-Goodspeed Bible which has the Books of the Apochrypha
included, but the one I use most is The Holy Name
Bible published by
The Scripture Research Association in Brandywine, MD. My Greek
bibles
are more difficult to use for reference because there is no division
of the verses in the chapters, but I refer to them when the need
arises. Several of my friends who have left the RCC teachings have the
Douay
versions and the KJV and they tell that the Douay version
IS
different. I cannot confirm this as I do not have the
Douay for
comparison.
> >
YAYA
> >
> >
> >
> >
----- Original Message -----
> >
From: debunks
> >
To: Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy ; YAYA
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton
fultz ; Buddy ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; preacher ; Godskingdm@aol.com ;
Eli James ; Trisha
Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond
Campbell ;
rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela
; Columbus Marcum ;
chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser
> >
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:20 PM
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
PS: I am just as comfortable using the KJV as well insofar as
the New Testament is concerned. I will not use the New World
Translation which contains insidious insertions and excisions.
> >
> >
-------Original Message-------
> >
> >
From: YAYA
> >
Date: 8/29/2006 1:45:15 PM
> >
To: debunks; Jacob Israel; Arnold Kennedy; donbrown
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton
fultz; Buddy;
FRANKKJV@aol.com;
preacher; Ted Weiland; feedback@stonekingdom.org;
Godskingdm@aol.com;
Eli James; Trisha Kelly; Daniel Johns; Ray
Williams;
Raymond Campbell; rowell@gcstation.net; ricniemela;
Columbus
Marcum;
chrseparatist@netscape.net; Clifton Emahiser
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
Don....don't bother....notice that his claim to reading of the
Bible is
in the PAST tense....that may mean that he doesn't read the
Bible that we read. In fact, I know some FORMER ''catholics'' who told
me that they were not even allowed toOWN
or read the Bible that we
use.....there is an entirely different Bible that the catholics
use....I think they called it the ''adonai''
bible...am not sure, but
I may be
able to find out.
> >
----- Original Message -----
> >
From: debunks
> >
To: Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy ; donbrown
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton
fultz ; Buddy ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; YAYA ; preacher ; Ted Weiland ;
feedback@stonekingdom.org ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli
James ; Trisha
Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond
Campbell ;
rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela
; Columbus Marcum ;
chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser
> >
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:09 PM
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
I have READ the Bible. What citation do you want to draw my attention to?
> >
> >
-------Original Message-------
> >
> >
From: donbrown
> >
Date: 8/26/2006 5:30:32 PM
> >
To: Jacob Israel; Arnold Kennedy; debunks
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton
fultz; Buddy;
FRANKKJV@aol.com;
YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;
feedback@stonekingdom.org;
Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha
Kelly;
Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;
rowell@gcstation.net;
ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;
chrseparatist@netscape.net;
Clifton Emahiser
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
READ THE BIBLE GOD DIVORCED THEM AND TOOK THERE IDENITY ,READ
THE BIBLE
> >
> >
-------Original Message-------
> >
> >
From: debunks
> >
Date: 08/26/06 19:20:08
> >
To: Jacob Israel; donbrown; Arnold Kennedy
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton
fultz; Buddy;
FRANKKJV@aol.com;
YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;
feedback@stonekingdom.org;
Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha
Kelly;
Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;
rowell@gcstation.net;
ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;
chrseparatist@netscape.net;
Clifton Emahiser
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
Paul repeatedly draws a clear distinction between Israelites and
Greeks or any other pagan cultures. The
culture and religious
convictions of the Greeks and Israelites are so
dissimilar that it is
ridiculous to seek to compare them as equals. How does
Zeus, by any
stretch of the imagination, translate into Adonai/Yahweh? It doesn't.
Greeks
had a very long established belief in mythologies which were a
by-product of their own culture and peculiar to their
ancient beliefs.
These
beliefs existed among them for ages and there is not ONE hint
that these idolaters who worshipped multiple gods had any concept of
the God of the Israelites. If the Greeks were really Israelites, why
didn't the Old Testament Israelites, during the age of the prophets,
applaud the intrusion of the Hellenes into their
society and welcome
them as long lost brothers? The rites and beliefs of the Greeks are
easily traceable for thousands of years in their own writings, as in
Herodotus,
Plato, Socrates, Plutarch, Solon, etc as well as in the
numerous monuments, statuary and artistic
representations erected in
homage to these pseud-gods. The names alone
prove that they bear no
relationship to Hebrew cognomens. Why is Scripture
completely SILENT
in respect to this theory of yours which is, with all due respect to
you, absurd, fanciful and factually unsustainable.
> >
> >
-------Original Message-------
> >
> >
From: Arnold Kennedy
> >
Date: 8/26/2006 3:52:09 PM
> >
To: Jacob Israel; donbrown
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton
fultz; Buddy; Debunks;
FRANKKJV@aol.com;
YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;
feedback@stonekingdom.org;
Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha
Kelly;
Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;
rowell@gcstation.net;
ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;
chrseparatist@netscape.net;
Clifton Emahiser
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
John, By "Paul used "jew"
to refer to Israelites of the House of
Israel
living in Judaea, and "Greek" to refer to Israelites of the
House of
Israel living in Greece" you really mean, "Jew" to refer to
Israelites
of the House of Judah living anywhere and "Greek" to
Israelites of the House of Israel living anywhere. The Galilleans for
instance were not in Greece. Arnold
Kennedy.
> >
> >
---- Original Message -----"
> >
From: Jacob Israel
> >
To: donbrown
> >
Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton
fultz ; Buddy ; Debunks ;
FRANKKJV@aol.com ; YAYA ; preacher ; Ted Weiland ;
feedback@stonekingdom.org ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli
James ; Trisha
Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond
Campbell ;
rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela
; Columbus Marcum ;
chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser
> >
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:26 AM
> >
Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf
> >
> >
> >
donbrown,
> >
> >
Even the most comitted Christian or Israelite student
has
questions about the way the "church" has
"interpreted" what Paul wrote
[to say the least], so you should SUPPORT a fellow Israelite
who
supports someone who criticizes Paul.
> >
> >
Had it not been for Pastor Weiland raising these same
questions
and writing his excellent critique of Galatians 3, many of us might
still now know that Paul used "jew"
to refer to Israelites of the
House of
Israel living in Judaea, and "Greek" to refer to Israelites
of the House of Israel living in Greece. Someone who hasn't yet
grasped this could easily misunderstand what Paul
wrote:
> >
> > http://fathersmanifesto.net/weiland.htm
> >
> >
John Knight
> >
> >
On 8/26/06, donbrown <donbro8729@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
do you people know that ELI AND DAN JOHNS had this guy on the
radio show and are now supporting
> >
> >
clay douglas and giving out
his number for people to support him
i would like to know if you people
> > support clay also. ELI is going to be on
clays show also and
this guy hates paul.he is a paul
> >
basher ,so i guess now ELI
and dan johns are too,this
is what i
call helping the anti-christ
> >
let me know what you think.if you do not believe me
listen to it
on yahweh design ,The Voice of Christian
Israel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
> >
The right of jews, niggers,
and latrinos to impose themselves on
us will never exceed our right to free association with whom we
please
> > http://blackexile.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
No virus found in this incoming message.
> >
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/430 - Release Date: 8/28/2006
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
No virus found in this incoming message.
> >
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 8/29/2006
> >
> >
> >
> >
__________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________
> >
> >
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
__________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________
> >
> >
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No
virus found in this incoming message.
>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/2006
__________
NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________
This
message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________
NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________
This
message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
--
The right
of jews, niggers, and latrinos to impose themselves on us
will never exceed our right to free association with whom we please
http://blackexile.com
© 2005
Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
Privacy
Statement
Arnold
Kennedy
To:
clintonfultz, minerva24, debunks, jk, preacher, tlmray, FRANKKJV,
clay...
Date:
3:35 pm
Subj:
Women in he church
Dear
friends,
I have been much concerned at the emotive way the
subject of "women" has been handled. If contexts are ignored, we are going to have
wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions seem to be in vogue! I will try to be as simple as possible
and I have transliterated
the Greek words.
Let us examine the context of two passages that involve
the role of women in the assembly.
Please watch out for context all the way through. Below are the two major passages that
are often used, in my view quite wrongly and out of context.
1 Cor 14:34-35 Let
your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith
the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church.
1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in
modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or
more (31 pages left)
Next
conversation
1 Reply
2 Reply
to all
3 Forward
4 Archive
5 Mark
unread
6 Add
star
7 Trash message
8 Compose
Mail
0 Inbox
(14238)
Starred
Sent Mail
Drafts (2)
All Mail
Spam (1254)
Trash
Contacts
more views
Sign out
| Help
©2006
Google
3/3/07