[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All my previous discussions on female preachers involving Wallace did not rely upon the writings of Nee or Lee.

You either misunderstand, or want to change the subject. I was talking about discussions of doctrine in general. That you didn't mention things taught by Nee or Lee in the proximity of anything written by Wallace in the discussion about women is irrelevant. I was talking about relying on anything they say for any purpose whatsoever. Their teachings are the great unknown as far as this forum is concerned, therefore are not authoritative in any way, but rather are the subject of significant scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have it backwards I'm afraid. My approach is mathematically and theoretically sound.

As long as you begin with the unproved — such as:

• God's economy is simply God dispensing himself into man
• An assembly must be associated with a city and there can be only one assembly/church for that city having a single, lock-step set of elders.
• Christ became the life-giving Spirit, therefore became the Holy Spirit.
• There is only one ministry in each age and in this age it was from Lee and is now what is being propagated by the so-called local churches

And so on.

If you eliminate those false axioms, your logic fails.

Your hypothesis testing is pointless if you start with an unproven that is not to be tested.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The commonly accepted fact in the discussions involving Wallace was my view, the traditional view, Wallace's view, that Jane and you all were trying to argue against. Therefore it was up to Jane, you and others to reject, or disprove this null hypothesis.

And turning it into a disproof of the null hypothesis is not very important when it is a matter of reading words that are clear. It is then clear that there are various legitimate ways to understand words due to more than one acceptable definition, which then potentially paints more than one picture with the totality of the words provided, the answer is not simply tradition v another view. When there is evidence that the tradition itself creates a bias in favor of the inquisitors, then there is a serious question as to whether they are truly able to see beyond that bias.

And if you recall, in the particular discussion, I had problem with both Wallace and Jane (and her source, whatever that writer's name was). Both had a bias that, when read their way created an understanding that was flawed. Jane's that woman was not expelled from the Garden and Wallace's that woman was prescriptively cursed to be dominated by man.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The view that all the bible translations are wrong, and the majority of male theologians, is NOT the "commonly accepted view", therefore the onus is upon you to disprove my view.

First, I never made that claim. In fact, when reading Genesis, I had no problem with the text of any particular version that I can recall now. (Maybe there is one or two that were extreme in forcing the patriarchal view . . . I can't recall.) It was in what it meant that we had differences. There is no "disprove my view" to be had. But in the way it is worded, there is the ability to disprove that it was strictly one way because of any claim of preference of translation.

I think this may have been where I got into the discussion of the meaning of the Greek word "zoe." it is clear that zoe is more than just physical life or psychological life. But it is more clearly the sum total of all that is life, including quality of life, and that when viewed as a totality, a better life could be called "more zoe" in modern-ish lingo. And clearly the life that God supplies would be the "most zoe" that we could have. But that does not make God's life "simply zoe." Or more typically (in Lee's terminology) "zoe" is not "simply" God's life. That is a gross misrepresentation of the meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If I said "aliens exist", then the onus would be upon me to disprove you, because aliens existing is not a commonly accepted view. But in this case, Jane/you/etc were the ones that believes in the "aliens" (the uncommon view that the bible translations are wrong), so the onus was upon you to disprove me.

And in the context of this particular thread, the onus is on you to actually prove your positions. you have made may statements concerning how you think it is, but not supported it. You dismiss anything that is not unity on your terms, but cannot provide evidence that your version of unity is what the Bible is talking about. But I clearly point out that unity is in Christ, not anything else. If you want my evidence, I can provide it.

You said that the bible does not support the care for the widow and orphan, but I can support it if you really want me to. But you cannot support the dismissal of that command other than to point to something that Paul said, probably out of context.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person not searching for the truth would do what you are doing - discount or distrust theologians, bible commentaries, etc and provide little by way of theological counter-argument.

Actually, a person searching for the truth must start with the presumption that nothing is so sound as to be accepted without scrutiny. I do not distrust scholars. But I am willing to look at the scripture and challenge their thoughts. Make them say more than "this is the way we've been taught to think about this." When you realize that there are several schools of thought on a number of topics, there is no reason to believe that any of them have a lock on the correct thinking in all cases. Therefore even the Catholics have some things better than the guys at DTS. And I go with the guys at DTS probably 99.44% of the time. But I argue with the DTS professor that teaches the class I attend most Sundays on certain things. Not in a major way. But I am not cowed to simply tow the DTS line on theology.

And they don't know it, but I am not a very good Dispensationalist.