geomic1 asks:
1. Is the creative order in respect to the immediate family?
What is your understanding of this term, "creative order"?
2. Is the reason woman are not mentioned in passages of leadership, due to the general low view of woman during that period of time in Greece and the Middle East in general.
Ah, the novel "cultural bound" argument! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> This is easily refuted by the doctrine of divine inspiration. It was the Holy Spirit Who moved the writers of the Bible to write what they did. Thus the qualifications for office are not subject to any cultural influences of the writers since they are what God has commanded be done in the churches.
3. What would the general consensus be if 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1Tim. 2:12 did not exist with regards to the whole of Scripture (Systematic Theology).
Who cares? The fact is that these passages DO exist and thus we as believers who hold to the divine inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scriptures accept them and are subject to what they teach.
4. What if 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was added to the original translation at a later time? What if 1Cor. 14:34 was a note left in the margin of the original letter of Paul, and translators really didn’t know where it belongs in the chapter; may be after verse 40 of the same chapter? Why the disparity between 1 Cor. 11: 5 and 14:34-35?
I see this as simply more meaningless speculation which has no bearing upon the Scriptures which God has deemed good to put into our hands.
5. What if the translators should have used “wife and husband” in 1Tim. 2:12, instead of “woman and man” (same Greek word for both aspects)? And was this in respect to the home setting or the church setting?
CONTEXT determines how words are to be understood apart from how various individuals have translated the original text. The overwhelming majority of translators over the centuries have determined that "man and woman" according to the context. I must agree with them because of the CONTEXT.
6. Are we also to take a literal view of verse 9 and 15 of 1 Tim. Chp. 2?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> but depending, of course, on how you want to define "literal view". I am going to venture to guess here, but is your understanding of the word "saved" in vs. 15 to be soteriological? If so, then it isn't a matter of "literal" understanding, but one of "grammatical" understanding. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Women are not justified, redeemed, atoned for, etc., etc... through bearing children. This is clearly not what Paul was teaching, if for no other reason that it would be in direct contradiction to everything else he wrote concerning salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
In His grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
