Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Galatians 3:28 There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority]. [Rom 3:22; 1 Cor 12:13] |
Bible Question: Heaven will be paradise regained, the origanal question was will their be gender distinction, and as so stated there obvioously will be , before the fall there was and at in the kingdom there shall be also. As you so correctly stated gal 3:28 is present tense, how ever if you take it so literally then what about women teaching, are we to think that since their are none that they can now usurp authority over a man,God forbid. And as we study and grow in Christ we find even errors with any commentary , Im not stating that your commentary is wrong merely one authers truth,I don't understand why you can't see what I already have stated , this chapter does by inferance refer to the fact that we all can now enter into the holy of holies by our selves with no need of a priest, lets remember that the bible is of no private interpretation, and please never grasp anyones commentary as absolute truth , their not the word of God,try not using one for awhile and see if what you came up with lines up to them.May our Lord Jesus richly bless you in your understanding . P.S. anytime you talk about the law the priesthood is allways incorporated and so implied that women slaves or greek are not.Go all the way back to vs 19.About faith vs 23 faith allways has been only now we see it completely in Christ as in times past it was hid.Heb 11:27-31 love in Christ RCSCROLL |
Bible Answer: Part 1 RCSCROLL : Good to hear from you. I would just like to take a moment to point out a few things regarding your post. Believe me, it is not my intent to offend or criticize you personally. I'll just stick to the issues. Also, please understand that I have no wish to start one of those long, drawn-out, interminable, eventually pointless debates. (I neither say nor believe that such was your intent. Sometimes these things just take off and assume a life of their own, without anyone's planning or desiring that it should happen.) Thank you for writing. Let's shake hands and come out learning (from one another), not fighting. OK? :-) RCSCROLL says: Heaven will be paradise regained, the origanal question was will their be gender distinction, and as so stated there obvioously will be , before the fall there was and at in the kingdom there shall be also. JVH0212 says: I think we are not using the same definition of the kingdom of God. And that's OK. No one says we have to. If I understand you correctly (a good place to start), you are using it in the sense of paradise and/or heaven or possibly Christ's 1,000-year reign on earth. I am referring to the invisible, but nevertheless real, kingdom of God that exists here and now. RCSCROLL says: As you so correctly stated gal 3:28 is present tense, how ever if you take it so literally then what about women teaching, are we to think that since their are none that they can now usurp authority over a man,God forbid. JVH0212 says: 1) Because some passages of scripture are to be taken in the literal or plain sense does not mean that all passages are to be taken as such. 2) The discussion is over gender discrimnation, not specifically women teaching. Yet I can see where the two are related. 3) I agree with you: God forbid that we should explain away the scripture and allow women to usurp authority over men in the church. To do so would be unbiblical. Nor did I suggest any such thing. RCSCROLL says: And as we study and grow in Christ we find even errors with any commentary , Im not stating that your commentary is wrong merely one authers truth,I don't understand why you can't see what I already have stated , JVH0212 says: 1) I quote no commentary. The writing is my own. The only sources I quote are the scriptures themselves and what you have posted. Even if I had quoted a commentary (which I haven't), I would hesitate to dismiss as erroneous every commentary with which I disagreed. (And I certainly don't say I agree 100 percent of the time with 100 percent of what I read in commentaries.) I think it would be fairer and more reasonable to say that often there is more than one plausible interpretation of a scripture, rather than use the word "error." I would be very hesitant to label as error any and every commentary note that I didn't agree with. Before I would reject someone else's interpretation, I ought to have an interpretation I do accept. I have repeatedly said on this Forum that it is inappropriate to reject or dismiss another's interpretation if one has NO interpretation of his own. (I honestly don't mean you, RC. I just mean this is a general principle to adhere to.) 2) I am glad you are not stating that my commentary is wrong, since I neither quoted nor referenced any commentary. 3) If I fail to see what you have already stated, I am not saying you're "wrong." All I'm saying is that I am unconvinced by your argument (your point). That still doesn't necessarily mean that you are "wrong." What it means is that I don't see it the way you do. I am certainly not infallible. :-) Nor is any human author. Nor is anyone else on this Forum. I merely need to be convinced in my own heart that the other person's evidence is acceptable to me, that the other person's interpretation is both biblically supported and reasonable. Another way of putting it is: If I fail to see your interpretation, it is not out of stubbornness or a desire to be quarrelsome. (continues in part 2) |