ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

A failure of dialectic

This account of feminism perverting theology is an excellent example of the way in which dialectic is impotent when faced with a literally unreasonable opponent:
The meaning of head in Ephesians 5 is critical not for egalitarians, nor even for traditionalists.  Even if head meant “source” in Ephesians 5, the passage still tells wives to submit to their husbands, and it is merely one of many which does so.  Egalitarians are lost even if they win this argument, and traditionalists are largely unfazed even if they somehow lost it.  On the other hand, the meaning of the word head is critical for complementarians, because complementarians twist themselves into knots to avoid telling wives to submit to their husbands out of a fear of seeming harsh, demeaning, and male supremacist.  The only way complementarians can sound traditional while avoiding preaching submission is to focus all of their energies on the responsibility of the husband to act in such a way that his wife naturally wants to submit.  This is not the biblical model of marriage, it is the complementarian model of marriage.  The closest to a biblical justification for this invention is the word head in Eph 5.  This is true despite the fact that even the word headship is discomforting to complementarians, who have coined the term servant leader and focus on cartoonish chivalry.

Even so, Grudem has done a great service by vigorously refuting the spurious claim about head.

Why did I do this? So that commentaries, Greek lexicons, and Bible translations in future generations will accurately teach and translate a crucial verse in the word of God. If head equals “authority over” as has been shown now in over sixty examples, then the ballgame is over. And even today, twenty-four years after my first article, there are still zero examples where a person is called “head” of someone else and is not in authority over that person. Zero.

But as Grudem notes, despite the original claim being made without evidence, and having been thoroughly debunked, the Bible is not (and never was) the issue:

That kind of evidence would normally settle the debate forever in ordinary exegesis of ordinary verses.

But this is not an ordinary verse. Because the evangelical feminists cannot lose this verse, they continue to ignore or deny the evidence. I think that is very significant.

It now seems to me that, for some people in this dispute who have thought through the issue and are committed to the egalitarian cause and have the academic knowledge to evaluate the evidence for themselves, what the Bible says on this question is not decisive. And, sadly, InterVarsity Press (USA), in spite of being given evidence of multiple factual errors in Catherine Kroeger’s article on “head” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,5 still continues to refuse to make any changes to the article.

Grudem goes on to recount his recollection of the founding of the CBMW.  I won’t summarize it here, but you can read it in the linked piece.  After the CBMW was founded, Grudem had his second major learning experience with egalitarians. Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) asked for CBMW leadership to meet with them in an effort to find common ground.  At CBE’s urging the CBMW created what they expected would be a joint statement on abuse.  The CBMW leadership did not seem to understand that feminists are very open that their focus on abuse is about eradicating headship, not on actual abuse.  Even worse, the CBE was merely trying to take the CBMW off message, and had no interest in a mutual statement:

As we talked, there seemed to be agreement that one thing we could do together would be for both organizations to agree publicly that abuse within marriage is wrong. So we agreed to work on a joint statement on abuse. After the meeting, Mary Kassian drafted such a statement, and we got some feedback from the CBE people, and we were going to issue it. But, then on October 10, 1994, we received a letter from them saying that their board had considered it, and they would not join with us in the joint statement opposing abuse. I was shocked and disappointed when the letter came. I wondered then if their highest goal in this issue was to be faithful to Scripture above all and stop the horrors of abuse, or was to promote the egalitarian agenda. We ended up publishing the statement ourselves in CBMW NEWS (later renamed The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

Even after this, Grudem seems to have still expected good faith from egalitarians.  In yet another incident, Grudem and the CBMW were assured that the gender neutral version of the NIV had been scrapped:

But just before the meeting began, the IBS issued a statement saying they had “abandoned all plans” for changes in gender-related language in future editions of the NIV. So we thought the controversy was done and the NIV would remain faithful in its translation of gender-related language in the Bible.

Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV. They had publicly “abandoned all plans,” but privately they were going full-steam ahead. Then suddenly in 2001, they announced unilaterally they were abandoning the agreement not to publish gender related changes in the NIV, and they published the TNIV New Testament in 2001 and the whole Bible in 2005.

In his conclusion Grudem says he originally thought the whole feminist rebellion would blow over once he and others carefully explained the correct meaning of Scripture:

I am surprised that this controversy has gone on so long. In the late 80s and early 90s when we began this, I expected that this would probably be over in ten years. By force of argument, by use of facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear word of God, by the truth, I expected the entire church would be persuaded, the battle for the purity of the church would be won, and egalitarian advocates would be marginalized and have no significant influence. But it has not completely happened yet!

Unspoken in this (and complementarianism at large) is an attitude that Christian feminists are not rebelling against God in a pattern that dates back to the fall, but are the natural reaction to a suddenly harsh generation of Christian men.  This is why Grudem and his colleagues repeatedly fell for the feminist ruses, and why to this day they are most concerned with showing how reasonable they are.
I have a simple and efficient metric that permits me to avoid such problems. Any time anyone relies on "equality" for any aspect of their argument, I assume they are, at best, deluded, and on average, dishonest. I take arguments that appeal to, or rely upon, equality, about as seriously as those that rely upon "unicorns" or "leprechauns" as their justifications.

I have yet to see anyone make an honest and compelling argument that utilized equality. It is an intrinsically evil concept that always leads even otherwise honest men astray.

Mr. Grudem could have saved himself 21 years of pointless argument by applying this extraordinarily reliable metric. But at least he did the rest of us the favor of demonstrating that Churchian equalitarianism is every bit as evil and deceptive as its worldly counterpart, and that it is only a matter of time before Christian feminism drops the adjective as well as the concept of Scriptural authority.

What a pity that even Biblical scholars don't know how to utilize the wisdom of Proverbs.

A continual dripping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike; Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand.
- Proverbs 27:15-16

Labels: ,

74 Comments:

Anonymous Tom B January 19, 2017 5:40 AM  

This is an example of Gramsci's long march.

I find that when I studied the Bible in Grad school, the egalitarian position was the default position on a lot of contentious issues, and the entire project of academic theology is built on a base of discovering passages in other religious traditions that can be interpreted towards a common "secular" theological message.

The methodology was the same as it is here for the feminists; read into the text what you want it to say rather than read out of the text what it's telling you. And quote the French (Derrida, Foucault, etc) to justify it.

Blogger JACIII January 19, 2017 5:41 AM  

No surprise you couldn't drag a man to church for awhile there. It's been a cuck mill.

Things have improved, but how many ilk still cringe at the invite to join the "men's group". Can't do it. Don't know about the rest of you, but I see those sweater vests and I just want to beat on someone.

Anonymous TheHardRight January 19, 2017 5:50 AM  

Do have a particular translation/study guide for the Bible that you prefer?

Anonymous Rocklea January 19, 2017 5:51 AM  

What a pernicious infection in the body politic equality is. I was speaking with an elderly women; a retired lawyer; about the state of the west and how it relates to our current lack of in-group preferences. She asked me "What are in-group preferences?", so I asked her "Why do you think it's only the west that has to embrace multiculturalism?". She said she thinks all countries should embrace it. I explained that it was predominantly white people that built the west, and if we keep on bringing in third worlders the results will not be good. She said she agreed, but all people should be equal. Stonewall, waste if time. Only consequences will instruct.

Blogger SteelPalm January 19, 2017 5:52 AM  

As someone who enjoys Dalrock a lot but doesn't attend any church, I have to ask;

Surely, people notice that the "egalitarians" always end up demanding women have a bunch of rights with zero responsibility, while men get no rights but have a heap of responsibility?

Blogger SteelPalm January 19, 2017 5:55 AM  

@4 Tell her that yes, all people are equal. Then ask why she thinks a third-worlder in his native land is somehow less equal than when he is imported to the US?

She either has to admit that there is no difference or note that she is in fact a hateful raycciiisss who looks down upon foreign countries and peoples.

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 6:03 AM  

> I have yet to see anyone make an honest and compelling argument that utilized equality.

We're all born and we all die. Everything in between is unequal.

Anonymous Rocklea January 19, 2017 6:08 AM  

@1 Tom B said:
"The methodology was the same as it is here for the feminists; read into the text what you want it to say rather than read out of the text what it's telling you. And quote the French (Derrida, Foucault, etc) to justify it."

Politicians do the same thing, when asked a question they don't want to answer they reform the question in their mind and answer the question they would have preferred being asked.

I met a West Australian politician a couple years back who'd just been promoted to the front bench. I asked if he'd learned this yet, he said "Thats sounds wonderful, I will have to learn how to do that.". At least he was keen, I don't think he picked up the mocking tone in my voice. Or perhaps he did and was already practicing.

Blogger VD January 19, 2017 6:26 AM  

She either has to admit that there is no difference or note that she is in fact a hateful raycciiisss who looks down upon foreign countries and peoples.

What part of "the failure of dialectic" do you not understand? She doesn't have to do anything of the sort.

You'd do better to call her a pedophile and shun her.

Blogger Cerdic Ricing January 19, 2017 6:26 AM  

She either has to admit that there is no difference or note that she is in fact a hateful raycciiisss who looks down upon foreign countries and peoples.

I doubt that. She'll probably continue onward and say "what of the children?" or something seemingly random of the sort. She's rationalizing the "good" feeling she gets from helping them. Make it a bad feeling instead, then her behavior will change.

Blogger VD January 19, 2017 6:27 AM  

We're all born and we all die. Everything in between is unequal.

To quote Stefan: "not an argument".

Blogger Arithtoddle January 19, 2017 6:37 AM  

Anyone who has served in any capacity in the military remembers one universal, unbreakable, and undeniable maxim: "You don't have to *like* it, you just have to *do* it." There is no Biblical mandate for a wife to enjoy submission, only that she do it. Better marital harmony if she does so without complaint or resentment, but life goes on, regardless.

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 6:47 AM  

> To quote Stefan: "not an argument".

Well, yes, I was agreeing with you. I apologize that it apparently wasn't clear.

Anonymous Rocklea January 19, 2017 6:48 AM  

Bastiat laid out some good arguments against universal suffrage, back in the good old days when women could not vote, when they could have the 'feels' without adversely effecting society. Now in Australia the left wing Labor party wants 16 year olds to vote. Now that demographic is even more sure of what they 'know' than women. Of course in Australia we have the joy of compulsory voting, enforced by fines for non compliance. Perhaps property ownership should be the benchmark, then some women could participate.

Blogger Lazarus January 19, 2017 7:04 AM  

OT but serious

Trump's deep staters may have just re-opened Pizzagate

This may be why Milo was asked to hold off for awhile.

CBS Reality Check with Ben Swann Airs Honest Segment On Comet Ping Pong

Blogger S1AL January 19, 2017 7:06 AM  

"We're all born and we all die. Everything in between is unequal."

Elijah would like a word.

Blogger Michael Maier January 19, 2017 7:10 AM  

Arithtoddle wrote:Anyone who has served in any capacity in the military remembers one universal, unbreakable, and undeniable maxim: "You don't have to *like* it, you just have to *do* it." There is no Biblical mandate for a wife to enjoy submission, only that she do it. Better marital harmony if she does so without complaint or resentment, but life goes on, regardless.

No joke. I'm not married but were I so, I would be commanded to LOVE my wife, even when she's an irrational bitch and all I want to do is backhand her.

Blogger LibertyPortraits January 19, 2017 7:38 AM  

The greatest example of egalitarianism I ever came across was a guy who said everytime he uses the toilet he puts the lid down so both he and his wife have to lift something when they go.

Anonymous John VI January 19, 2017 7:43 AM  

OT: Praying you and your family are safe and well.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 19, 2017 7:48 AM  

@17. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, Michael Maier.

@18. ... Purge it with fire.

Blogger William Meisheid January 19, 2017 8:00 AM  

There is in Galatians 3:28 a leveling of the access to salvation in that, as noted elsewhere, such as Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11, it can be demonstrated that this is a universal aspect of God's dealing with man since God acts for his own purpose, to achieve his own will, not because of anything in us. While Galations makes clear that about us stops God from blessing us (race, gender, social standing), nothing about us causes God to bless us either. This is the essence of God's sovereignty, his election of his adopted children and the outworking of their salvation, and it places everything in the hands of God and NOTHING in us. God is not egalitarian, for he never treats everyone equally, for he chooses for his own purpose some vessels for wrath and some vessels for honor (Romans 9:19-24).

The mistake comes from twisting the fact that since nothing about us limits God from blessing us that must somehow mean that we are all equal in God's economy and system for how he expects us to act in the world. Nothing can be further from scriptural truth. But then that has never been the issue to those who are submitted to God in Christ.

Blogger William Meisheid January 19, 2017 8:03 AM  

Would that we could edit our posts for a limited time after posting. "While Galations makes clear that about us" should have been "While Galations makes clear that NOTHING about us"

Blogger Phillip George January 19, 2017 8:06 AM  

Equality. "The same rain falls on two men's houses".
The just and the unjust both get sunlight.

I think that's as far as it goes.

Jesus has no equal. If they get that sentence the rest falls into place. The universe had light before the sun.

Did God really say? Yep. Fear is the Key.



Anonymous VFM #6306 January 19, 2017 8:08 AM  

Even the ideology "equality before the law" is an argument in favor of inequality as the natural state. It would not need to be imposed (or attempted) at all if the innocent and guilty were in truth equal.

Van Creveld does argue that tyrannical whims do create a form of equality for everyone but the tyrant. So under a satanic lord where none are free from his potential wrath there is a near form of equality. The Soviets other than Stalin, for example, experienced the horror of equality within the Soviet, if not the horror of true globalist equality.

Blogger 2Bfree January 19, 2017 8:11 AM  

I believe Proverbs 27:22 is more apropos

Proverbs 27:22 Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them.

Blogger SouthRon January 19, 2017 8:12 AM  

Grudem failed. Hard.

There is or was a several thousand member, multi-campus church in St. Louis whose pastor admired and often quoted Grudem. We visited the church and heard the head pastor say that they didn't understand the proper place and use of deacons, which in their church was a mixture of men and women. That was a loud warning signal.

We also knew female staffers who were attempting to carve out what anyone here would recognize as safe zones.

Unsurprisingly, some years later the pastor was made to step down not for adultery, sexual sin, abandonment of his wife or children, but putatively for foolishly having meetings and conversations with a two women. That was the excuse but the main list of reasons given centered around his strong personality and leadership style that offended the weaker folk in the positions of lower authority at the church that he founded.

There had been several attempts over the years to cow the man and make him into a nicer Churchian leader that was more palatable to the genteel, socially conscious, college educated crowd in the pews and leadership under him.

Unfortunately the man in spite of being a pretty strong and dynamic alpha had never read SJWAL and having been fed all the SJW claptrap at seminary and through his time in ministry foolishly apologized for the perceived offenses and was nonetheless removed.

Blogger Greg C. January 19, 2017 8:17 AM  

This dawned on me some time ago,that Feminism and Islamic Jihad, have one thing very much in common. They both want to chop off the head! At the least, one literally, and one figuratively.

Blogger SouthRon January 19, 2017 8:23 AM  

Wow has the place fallen quickly. I went looking for follow up and here's the agenda for a "Biblical Sexuality Forum" the "church" is holding:

Biblical Sexuality w/Sean Maney

Female Sexuality & Addiction, Singleness as a Christian Virtue, Spousal Response to Sexual Betrayal, Homosexuality & the Bible

Engaging Transgender Issues w/Dr. Winter

Caring for Homosexual Christians, Talking to Kids About Sex/Sexual Abuse in the Church, Pornography and the Christian

I guess they got what they wanted.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 19, 2017 8:49 AM  

Progressivism was once explicitly Protestant. It jettisoned Christianity in favor of Utopian Statism presumably during the early 1940's.

In following years the Theocracy developed, and by the 1960's bloomed in full with all the Utopian "make the USA into the Kingdom of Heaven" crap we all know and "love." (As in "Ministry of Love, AKA MiniLove."

It stands to reason that when any person tries to hold two different religions at the same time, the cognitive dissonance will eventually resolve. Now that the social mood underlying the Theocracy is finally changing, those trying to balance faith in their Christianity and faith in their Statism (Cult of Homogeneous Diversity with a side of feminist equality) will probably swing toward Christianity.

The Cult was a tent far too big to survive in a time of splintering.

Anonymous Faceless January 19, 2017 8:50 AM  

Grudem and his fellow traveler John Piper were engaged in what one of Dalrock's regulars calls "lift chasing". Grudem is the one of whom I question the honesty in that he did all these labors to hopefully find one thing that would permit the liberal feminist interpretation. He only landed at his conclusion that it wasn't supported once he had completed his catalogue and it was inescapable.

I question his honesty because he was involved in building the CBMW. The CBMW exists because they wanted to placate feminism, and they found their Savior lacking, so they needed to invent a new conservatism that was as recent as the New Woman and conserving that gay nineties sensibility. They were afraid and ashamed of the Bible.

Grudem is famous for his big blue book of systematic theology - because a book that big must be correct, right? I remember putting it down and questioning whether it was heresy at some point. (I do not have the book in front of me, je me souviens that it was when he explicated the possible wiggle room on the unbaptized baby question. (I believe he repeated the idea that the conversion of the head of the household provided a covenantal shield for those in the household that was as good as being personally saved. Seeing as Augustine's position was accepted as settled 1600 years ago, I concluded that Grudem applied all this great intellectual horsepower to the finding of gray areas and exceptions - like a canon lawyer seeking grounds for an annulment with children or a Pharisee seeking to narrow the definition of neighbor.)

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 19, 2017 8:51 AM  

@23. Not even, I've seen it rain on the other side of the street while the sun shines on this one and vice versa several times in my life.

@26. That there were ANY female deacons in the first place tells me that it was already a churchian congregation. They always eat their own first, and that place was already mostly converged when you found it. You jut got to see the last couple degrees of convergence in action. Rest assured, there are more degrees of convergence still to come until the church collapses into its own abyss.

@27. Nah, you're not thinking dirty enough.

Q: "What's the difference between islam and feminism?"
A: "Islam only wants to chop off one head per person."

Blogger Cail Corishev January 19, 2017 9:10 AM  

"By force of argument, by use of facts, by careful exegesis, by the power of the clear word of God, by the truth, I expected the entire church would be persuaded, the battle for the purity of the church would be won, and egalitarian advocates would be marginalized and have no significant influence. But it has not completely happened yet!"

Even now he's putting too positive a face on it. Not only hasn't it happened yet; they've been losing ground all along. I know veiled women chanting Latin in traditional churches who have attitudes about marriage that would have stood out as feminist when he says this battle started, but they've been immersed in them so long they can't even see it now.

OpenID elijahrhodes January 19, 2017 9:48 AM  

Little did we know, however, that the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV had not “abandoned all plans”! Far from it! Unknown to anyone outside their circles, for the next four years the Committee on Bible Translation, apparently with the quiet cooperation of people at Zondervan and the International Bible Society, continued working to produce a gender-neutral NIV.

In light of this, which translation is the most faithful?

Blogger KSC January 19, 2017 10:57 AM  

Vox,

I'm still interested in what you mean when you say spiritual equality in particular is nonexistent. I take it you believe that each human being bears the image of God, which is what is typically implied by the phrase (though of course people use the idea for all sorts of mischief.) I assume you mean something different, but I'm not entirely sure what it is.

Anonymous JustMakingItUp January 19, 2017 11:01 AM  

@3
@33

I find that, for both accuracy and readability, the New American Standard Bible works best. For casual reading, I like the New Living Bible. There are a variety of other translations, each with its own focus.

But to experience the full power, beauty and poetry of God's Word in the English language, it is hard to beat King James.

Anonymous Red Cabbage January 19, 2017 11:04 AM  

When I first returned to the Church as a prodigal, I studied the Bible with an NIV translation which someone had given me. I was shocked to discover that the story of the adulterous woman was called out of the text with a special note that Biblical scholars doubted its authority and believed it to be a later addition.

So they get through the entire Old Testament, and all of the probable additions, and all of the (to a new Christian's mind) strange and dubious miracles, but they call out that one passage in the New. And they do it in such a way as to install doubt about the whole document.

This is what "progressives" do. They don't take a stand as Christians. If they really believed in God and wanted an accurate Bible, they'd just take the verse out. Instead they undermine.

It's the good old KJV for me now.

Blogger rumpole5 January 19, 2017 11:05 AM  

You put the lid down because when flushed the toilet spews out a mist of the contents into the air.

Anonymous BBGKB January 19, 2017 11:17 AM  

If you can't oppose an inaugural protest because of work during the day, you can show up with a "WHITE LIVES MATTER" Sign to troll on Saturday the women's stroll https://www.womensmarch.com/sisters?source=moveon

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm Heather C., a MoveOn member and Girl Scouts troop leader, and I started a petition to Sylvia Acevedo, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Girl Scouts of the USA, which says:

By marching in Donald Trump's inaugural parade, you are failing to live up to Girl Scout of the USA's values. Please do not make GSUSA party to normalizing racism, misogyny, and fascism. Do not march in the inaugural parade.

Blogger Jay January 19, 2017 11:22 AM  

Yes, by all means pull some hair.

Just remember Nietzsche's warning:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

When you fight pigs, the shit has a way of getting to you.

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 11:22 AM  

> In light of this, which translation is the most faithful?

You might find this links useful:

http://www.gty.org/resources/Questions/QA167/Which-Bible-translation-is-best
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4/which-modern-english-translation-of-the-bible-is-considered-the-closest-or-m

If you can handle the 400 year old English, then my personal preference is for the King James Version.

Blogger Bard January 19, 2017 11:22 AM  

FIV Bible
Femanist International Version

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 11:25 AM  

> "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

If I become a monster, then in a few short decades I pass away and will no longer inflict my monsterhood upon the earth. If in the process I manage to preserve Western Civilization, those few short decades are a small price to pay.

Blogger Jay January 19, 2017 11:32 AM  

Monsterhood has a way of passing itself on unwittingly. Better to work hard to avoid it in the first place. God bless and good luck.

Blogger The Kurgan January 19, 2017 11:37 AM  

I am not really sure what an ideal, non-converged church would look like. What would such a priest speak on every week? I mean I am sure a real priest SHOULD have at least one sermon per week of susbstance, but what would that look like without any cuckism in it, I'd sure be curious to know.

Blogger Sagramore January 19, 2017 11:42 AM  

My soggy knees RC parish has a way of avoiding this issue entirely.

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 11:57 AM  

> Monsterhood has a way of passing itself on unwittingly.

Then I'm sure you can list innumerable examples of same. We'll be waiting.

> Better to work hard to avoid it in the first place.

I've got more important things to work on.

> God bless and good luck.

He already has, in ways to numerous to count.

Blogger DrAndroSF January 19, 2017 12:00 PM  

Once Liberalism takes hold --and it is, be under no doubt, a competing religion-- it will always take pride of place over Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian liberal who, when the two religions clash, chose Christianity over Liberalism. This is stunningly true of "Christian feminists".

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 12:02 PM  

> What would such a priest speak on every week?

I can't say anything will ever come of it, but we're working on creating a compendium of the sermons of Elijah White (http://loudounnow.com/2016/03/28/elijah-brockenbrough-white-iii/)from the time he was the minister at Church of Our Savior at Oatlands (outside Leesburg, VA). If it ever gets published I'll ask Vox to post a link here.

Blogger Dalrock January 19, 2017 12:05 PM  

Thanks Vox.

Blogger Basil Makedon January 19, 2017 12:17 PM  

I don't think that you should just pick one translation/version and roll out. Compare/contrast several credible translations. KJV is a monumental work of English Lit and worth reading just for that reason; however, because it was a work of committee (actually divide and conquer) some claim its translations are uneven.

I have an ESV, NSV and a red-letter KJV. I avoid the NIV (Non-Inspired Version) and some of the goofier modern ideas, like "The Message" Bible and others. I don't want a "thought-for-thought" "translation" as I'm not interested in the Gospel of Bill let alone the Gospel of Patricia.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 19, 2017 12:17 PM  

@ Jay. Nietzsche was atheistic. Obviously if you've no way to resist evil, even coming into glancing contact will infect you irreversibly. From his perspective he could not afford to "become a monster" because he had no means with which to regulate it.

Nietzsche, due to general degeneracy, lacked the context of Christian tradition, or lacking that, even chivalry, either which put brutality and bloody violence into the proper, healthy context.

Anonymous digger January 19, 2017 12:55 PM  

KJV, nkjv,nasb are all good. Grudems esv is a piece of work,makes a lot of dumb translation mistakes.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 19, 2017 12:59 PM  

@32 Cail Corishev
I know veiled women chanting Latin in traditional churches who have attitudes about marriage that would have stood out as feminist when he says this battle started, but they've been immersed in them so long they can't even see it now.

Fish don't know what water is, either.

Got to admire Grudrem's persistence, but 20+ years of repeating the same work is an epic failure to understand who he's talking to.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 19, 2017 1:01 PM  

@38
Given all the lesbians infesting the Girl Scouts for years, I'm surprised they are marching in the inauguration at all. Or maybe not, even some lesbians know an alpha male when they see one.

Blogger bob kek mando ( Death To The Boor-geois, Keks To The Lol-etariat ) January 19, 2017 1:23 PM  

9. VD January 19, 2017 6:26 AM
What part of "the failure of dialectic" do you not understand? She doesn't have to do anything of the sort.



exactly. she already told you she would have nothing to do with Dialectic when she discarded it so that she could assert Equality.



21. William Meisheid January 19, 2017 8:00 AM
that must somehow mean that we are all equal in God's economy



yeah, even that is not True.

some will wear crowns and live in mansions and sit at the right hand ... but not all.



39. Jay January 19, 2017 11:22 AM
When you fight pigs, the shit has a way of getting to you.



but ... i am a pig?

Anonymous The Old Sarge January 19, 2017 1:36 PM  

"Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate." -- Robert Stacy McCain

Much of the problem with feminists -- Churchian or otherwise -- is that they do not believe in an objective reality.

Blogger Jay January 19, 2017 2:00 PM  

LOL, that's the most remarkable inversion of the truth about Nietzsche I've ever seen. Well done.

Blogger Jay January 19, 2017 2:02 PM  

But forget about N. Simply watch the movie "Defiance", and see the main characters struggling not to become the nazi monsters they are fighting. Even if your characterization of N were correct, it wouldn't matter. The principle still holds. But maybe you are beyond falling into problems like that?

Blogger Jay January 19, 2017 2:03 PM  

Well then, aloha snackbar!

Blogger Danby January 19, 2017 2:22 PM  

@Jay,
Thank you for your useless and preemptory warning against using any tactics that might result in winning. We have noted it and it will be taken under advisement.

Blogger James Dixon January 19, 2017 2:46 PM  

> But forget about N. Simply watch the movie "Defiance", and see the main characters struggling not to become the nazi monsters they are fighting.

So hours later your only example is a movie? Why am I not surprised?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 19, 2017 3:51 PM  

@57.
@58. Jay, do you read the drivel you wrote before you post it? Fighting evil does not make one evil. If anything, it actually develops something of an "evil immunity" to that evil. I can sort of see what you're saying (in a few cases), but most examples I see of people fighting evil who are also committing that same evil are actually people who were committing that evil before they ever started fighting it, and only started fighting in order to be overlooked when the inevitable witch hunt begins.

The principle does not hold, because it's obvious bullshit. Can it happen? Sure, but it does not necessarily happen. This is why I posit Christianity as a system of defiance to falling into evil. If you don't have it, obviously you're a lot more susceptible.

Why the everloving hell would I EVER attempt to get my understanding of how people actually work from a hollywood movie?

Blogger Feather Blade January 19, 2017 4:34 PM  

@50 The Geneva Bible is contemporary with the KJV, but wasn't done at the instigation of the secular monarch, So it's probably worth checking out as well.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 19, 2017 4:47 PM  

Douay-Rheims, as well.

Blogger Resident Moron™ January 19, 2017 5:00 PM  

Oddly, I was married by a Dr Wayne Grudem, but not this one.

And ... you know, it was my first wife, so ... yeah, thanks a bunch.

The bible portrays a model in which all things belong not merely to a category but to an organised hierarchy, and reference to the head of the hierarchy is all that is required to reference the entire organisation, i.e. all its members.

(This is what happens in Job, when Satan turns up at a church meeting, and God asks him "WHERE did you come from?" What are your bona fides? His answer is instructive: "I'm the representative from Earth." Cheekily, he says this by quoting the very principle God had previously espoused to Abraham; he's been walking to and fro in the Earth, at will, and therefore he concludes/claims that it belongs to him.

God instructed Abraham to walk to and fro in Canaan, and wherever he set his foot would belong to him and his heirs in perpetuity. Genesis 13: 17)

Anyway, in the sense in which God considers us all equal according to his own words, we're all going to die and face the judgement. All we men, that is. Women are not mentioned because they are assumed to be included by reference to the head of the organisational hierarchy to which they properly belong; a man.

I'd also note that God loves His sparrows, too. He feeds them, clothes them, and cares for them; His eye is on the sparrow.

But a man is not equal to a sparrow, or vice versa, even though all these things are also true of men.

Why does this need explaining to anyone?

Oh, right: MPAI.

As you were.

Blogger DonReynolds January 19, 2017 5:11 PM  

One of the most limiting features about life in the USA in the past 50 years is the creeping mythology around "equality".
There is no equality and there never was....not in nature or in any society. But somehow, equality have become an article of faith, a value, a given,.....without any proof or evidence that it ever existed.
The sooner that egalitarianism is dismissed, even as a goal, the better.

Blogger Natalie January 19, 2017 5:26 PM  

NKJV is my favorite too. It's more "accessible" than the straight up KJV but still retains a lot of the poetry and heft (IMO).

I gave up on Piper when he went full cuck on self defense. He might have had a good point in there somewhere, but if I was his wife I'd be feeling like Abigail before she went out and said "Guys, this idiot is going to get us killed if we don't do something."

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 19, 2017 6:20 PM  

@67
Preachers that claim to be above self defense for themselves are one thing, when they decide Christians can't do that they are getting a little bit above their pay grade. Besides, these types are always ready to call the cops and have some woman in uniform sent around to do something they can't or won't.

Jesus sent his followers out armed. "If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one". Translate that now "If you have no pistol, sell some clothing and buy one. " Preacher thinks he's above Jesus? He's got some explaining to do.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 19, 2017 6:23 PM  

Forget the Pinochet choppers. It's way past time for a good old fashioned witch-burning. The church is every bit as infested with them as a certain fast-food emporium is infested with their offspring.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 19, 2017 6:37 PM  

@68. Paradigm, if someone's going to even think about attempting to go the full-on Christian pacifist route, they need a God-given calling and gift to back it up. The only substitute would be both charisma and wisdom in quantities I do not think any human can possess.

To attempt to say that all Christians should do it is definitely saying something the Bible doesn't specify, extrabiblical.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 19, 2017 7:12 PM  

If a nan wishes to show his love and imitation of Christ by refusing to even defend himself, that can be a fine and deeply Christian thing. He must make absolutely sure, however, that he has no prior duty of defence. He must have no family, and no neighbors.

Only monks and hermits have the freedom to abjure violence.

Blogger Skyler the Weird January 19, 2017 8:53 PM  

Time to make a whip of cords and clean up the Temple

Blogger Natalie January 19, 2017 11:09 PM  

A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:@67

Preachers that claim to be above self defense for themselves are one thing, when they decide Christians can't do that they are getting a little bit above their pay grade. Besides, these types are always ready to call the cops and have some woman in uniform sent around to do something they can't or won't.



Oh it was worse than you suppose. Piper actually said that it might be wrong to call in the police to enact violence on his behalf.

I suppose there's some consistency in that, but Piper also has a wife. He spent some time considering what he'd do if she was attacked - let's just say that pulling out his .45 and/or going berserk on the attacker's ass wasn't at the top of his list.

As I pointed out to someone else regarding Piper's stance - we act according to our training. Piper has trained himself to sit back and pray while some low IQ mongrel rapes his wife. As a woman that's where I cite Abigail and figure it's time to save my own skin.

Anonymous Luke January 20, 2017 1:20 AM  

A man should only take a wife (or bed partner, etc.) whose Bible includes Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Colossians, Malachi, Isaiah, Ephesians, Timothy, Corinthians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Proverbs, Mark, Peter & Revelation. Ecclesiastes 7:28 tells him the odds:

"...while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts