Looking at the original language is twisting scripture? Lol, if anything sticking blindly to English translations is closer to twisting scripture. Look, if you're not going to be open minded enough to give it an honest look then I'm not going to bother straining my thumbs with the effort.
Yes it takes two tango. Never said it was just the mans fault its both. Going back to the crux of we are flawed men & women. Once we can admit that then we have a start point. Kind of like an addict has to realize they are an addict. Sure is hard for people to say yeah i'm flawed.
I said i want to know how these passages of scripture should read.
With a glib caveat that you expect me to twist scripture to get there. Like I said, I'm not interested in wasting my time.
@Drifter just provided that for you, sourced.
All youd have to do is copy and paste a better translation and then everyone can decide for themselves if it leads to a diff conclusion.
Also, why is it ok for men to be corporate slaves? Didnt another thread on here claim men are supposed to be less docile, yet their gender role is now bowing to corporations to the point were the majority of child rearing falls on the woman?
It doesnt work like that. It's not an issue of mistranslation. It would take an actual explanation to make sense.
Yes, but I dont believe I have said anything here to suggest otherwise. If I was married within a biblical context I would not rule over my wife as if my authority over her is dictated by nothing more than what I see fit. How I treat my wife would be determined by God as I am under God as the wife is under the husband and the children under both. This is the Biblical model. Not only that, but the church is accountable to Christ to intervene if mistreatment does occur. That is, if its a real church that follows the doctrines of Christ. Allot of feminists fail to acknowledge the man is under subjection to an authority too in this matter.
So it has to be interpreted to me and I am basically unfit to properly extrapolate its meaning?
No. It has to be contextualized to anyone not familiar with the original language or culture because those passages addressing marriage deal with cultural realities. Most of the scriptures used to construct a "biblical" model of marriage were responses to questions by people of a specific time and place. You cant discount that when trying to figure out what Paul was saying.
Why does the language used in these passages clearly indicate a type of hierarchy or structure, a chain of command( If you will)? What purpose could that provide if it doesn't mean anything? I suppose I just want to see how it should be translated and a brief footnote.
But again you’re going back to the concept of one controlling and one being controlled which imo is toxic. Most toxic relationships tend to end, that’s true.
Why is this model presupposed to be devoid of love though? Its actually the feminists that are contending its a model based off of control. God created it and God is love. If you set parameters for someone does that mean its intent is based off of control or love? If I had a daughter and told my son to protect her and my daughter to obey my son does that mean I am laying a foundation of control over my daughter?
That's the problem: you assume everything is clear. It's not. Ok, let's start here: isnt one of the tenets of Chrstianity, the exchange of power for servitude? That's partly why the Jews rejected their Messiah right? They were expecting a military leader to slaughter their enemies and liberate them from their oppressors . . . Not a nomadic rabbi who associated with the dregs of Jewsh society. Jesus' model of leadership was the antithesis to Roman ideals. That included the Roman household codes that gave unilateral power to the "man of the house", the paterfamilias (or the male head). In the first scripture you posted, the bit addressing wives is prefaced with a command for ALL believers to submit to one another. In Greek, the word "submit" does not occur in the passage about wives. Without going into depth, the meaning of that scripture is dependent on the reader "borrowing" the word from the previous verse. In other words, the continuation from ALL believers submitting to one another is carried over to married couples. Wives were required by law to submit to their husbands. There was nothing new about that. The revolutionary part is Paul telling men to love their wives as they love their own bodies. In the ancient world (and especially in Greco-Roman society) the female body was considered deformed, a "monstrous" and inferior version of the male body. Do you see the pushback against Roman ideals of both marriage and authority? I can go into proper detail but I'm not sure if you're willing to digest even this.
I honestly just want a copy and paste of how the passage is translated with the words that should have been used. That's all I am asking for. Surely you can respect that knowing how many different interpretations exist concerning so many thousands of scriptures.
Every job you go to you submit. That’s everyone too not just you. If you don’t submit at one you submit at another. And that’s fine with you. You can’t gloss over the things I mentioned that you submit for when it comes to a job. Turn that billion dollar corporation into a man and that all of a sudden is slavery.
Ahh the motherly/nurturing/caretaking role. I wonder where I heard that before? But either way, one hand we have men delivering value to EVERYONE, while on the other hand women provide value to the elderly or those with children? Is this where we leave it or anything else?
Yeah if you told your daughter to obey your son I think that would be a bit weird. I think you are arguing about power and control and not love like Christ taught, simple as that. If you want to argue from a Christian basis, Christ said he had only one teaching which was love. What does love imply? Sacrifice, transcending the I self, benevolence, respect for another’s will, can you say you love someone if you don’t respect their will, or they love you if they don’t respect yours. The only problem you are describing is how relations without love are failures. If you say someone doesn’t love you because they don’t follow your commands, I think again you are misunderstanding that one underlying concept. You see God as a power, a controller, and you project that into relations but power only comes in when love is absent, to replace what it would fulfil at a lower level, power instead of cooperation etc.