«Home

Are Women Save Through Childbearing? How Are Men Saved?

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

—1 Timothy 2:15, NIV

How are men saved?

Avatar
Newbie
19 answers

@SeanT21:

We do not get it. Please explain to us, what it means, as you read it in plain english. Please don't twist the meaning. Thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Huxley: Why haven't you became a muslim? Your ego is stopping you from it?

Whats the dimension of the garden that could contain the Creator? Laa ilaha ilallah. It will be better and more applicable if the chairman of Sony Corporation could fit inside a small screen, hand held TV, than any of the creations of Allah the Almighty God to be able to contain Him!

Let the blame game begins. Who is being blamed here, by Biblical Adam?

And the Anacondas and pythons, cobras, etc all eat flesh not dust. And so many snakes are pets, loved by the children of Adam.

@Donnie:Posted on: Today at 07:20:59 PM

You need to read the passage again. There is nothing there except curse. Afterall, Adam was cursed there after. And before, the snake was cursed. How can you say that Eve was not cursed. I mean women.

@Tpia:

Hardly.

@Davidylan:

Read it as you read your academic textbooks. Or do you interprete them, too?

The truth finally came out! If Timothy did not write 1 Timothy 2; 15, then who wrote it? What audacity the person has to have put forward the idea that Timothy authored it? If this is the case, who is to say that we know any of the true author of any part of the Bible, then? It therefore may just be that all that the christians are claiming to have came from Jesus are actually from somebody else.

You seem to have been the one who is guilty of what you are accusing me. Read it again. I asked if Huxley quoted 1 Peter 2 : 15 and thats the exact worlding and verse number of your quote from Timothy, who is right or who is wrong? Finally why having 2 exact post Jesus verses in the Bible, when you could not have all the Gospels in the Bible because you claimed that there would be duplication/repetition of verses. Now tell me why your Bible did not apply the same process to Timothy and Peter in this case? Read it, again.

Huxley quoted 1 Peter 2 : 15. This verse even though is exactly numbered and worded as your 1 Timothy 2;15, you will realise that it talks about being saved through childbearing, if a woman beliefs, with the other listed infrastructures. Please approach 1 Peter 2;15 for the sake of this conversation. Or accuse Huxley for giving Peter if he is wrong, instead of Timothy as you quoted.

The confusion is your and your trying to mask the Biblical skiddishness of thought. Let me go along with you in your new idea. It will not be disingenous that some women will be saved, by the cramps during menses. But it will be disingenous that those who do not have cramps during menses will be saved by just having menses. The operative word and idea here are "saved" and how a woman can get it. Those who do not have cramps will therefore have to be get their Saved or safety from another means.

Now apply that to the childbearing through your famous 1 Timothy 2;15. Those who are not with the pain of childbearing or never childbearing will not be saved through this method, even though they are women and have all the other aspects of belief or faith, in Christendom. Read David and don't be emotional with me. I know tht I am your weaping board.

Don't blame me. Blame your Bible that is never clear about anything. Hence giving room for your twisted interpretation, which is what i am taking you to task on. Come on, man.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well, how else could be read? I prefer to read the text as it is given;

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

What right have you got to read it any other way? This was a specific curse to Eve, and NOT to Adam. There was also a specific curse for Adam.

Alas, I am not surprise. Christians are wont to read and twist the bible any which way to get a message they desire. So what is new?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Even if you prefer to refer to that passage as God cursing Adam and Eve (cos i do not see it to b so but an announcement of the consequences of their disobedience), i still say that that shouldnt be the case with the new creation man or woman who is born, not after the 1st Adam but after the 2nd Adam (Jesus Christ). 2cor 5:17. Old things are past away n all things hv become new!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Even if you prefer to refer to that passage as God cursing Adam and Eve (cos i do not see it to b so but an announcement of the consequences of their disobedience), i still say that that shouldnt be the case with the new creation man or woman who is born, not after the 1st Adam but after the 2nd Adam (Jesus Christ).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Oh my goodness. Where shall you hide you unclothedness?

This is Genesis 3;

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was Unclad; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were Unclad? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"

The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock

and all the wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly

and you will eat dust

all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return."

What do you make of verse 16? Is that not god inflicting the pain of childbirth on the woman?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Curse? no no no a thousand times, No.

Read the passage for yourself. God couldnt curse them 'cos he had already blessed them. He simply told them the consequences of their actions.

He rather cursed the groung for Adam's sake and turned to the serpent and cursed him.

The scriptures are clear about this.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Was it not god who curse the female to suffer pain during childbirth, or am I mistaken?

0
Avatar
Newbie

It isnt the will of God for women to experience much pain or complications during child birth.

I'm grateful to God who has given me the oppportunity of hearing testimonies from women who gave birth withou any labour whatsoever.

It happend in d old testament and its still happenin in our day. I hv witnessed over d past couple of months several women givng birth right on d prayer line in few seconds without any labour whatsoever @ d Synaguge church of all nations. Imagine watchin a live service on TV; d MOG TB Josuah stops the message abrutly, stretching his hand towards a lady with an 11 month pregnancy who came to be prayed for for safe delivery and woosh. . . water gushed out n then, d baby came out right in front of everyone. For the first time i witnessed a live delivery n it ws a glorious one, in less than 15 seconds!

She was told by d doctors dt she would have to be operated upon as she cldnt deliver normally. And guess what, as d baby came out, we sw d umblical cord wraped around her neck.k.

0
Avatar
Newbie

There's still very much we christians are yet to learn b4 the rapture takes place.k.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Alhaji olabowale, your problem is confusion coupled with mental laziness.

1 timothy 2:15 is simply a prayer of healing to the saved woman from brother Paul. It didnt say that ONLY women who continue in faith deserve succour during childbirth.

Timothy did not write that book.

If you bothered to crosscheck facts before hyperventilating you shld be able to realise that i meant to say 1 Timothy 2:15.

I CLEARLY answered Huxley's misrepresentation of the bible. The "saved" used in 1 Timothy 2:15 is not about salvation of the soul but a prayer of succour to the believing mother during child-birth. Since men do not get pregnant, it makes sense that such a prayer wont be applicable to them.

You seem to be confused here. What are you talking about?

How about this scenario - every woman of age goes through menstrual cycles . . . suppose brother Paul had said . . . "every woman shall be "saved" from menstrual cramps if they continue in the faith . . ."

Would it be disingenous to state that it is possible that some women will NEVER have cramps during their menses?

Your confusion is appalling. Next time try and digest the issue before spamming the board with your incoherent posts.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Huxley:

I quite agree with your question. It seems to me that women can be saved from the New Testament point of view if she continues in faith, love and holiness with propriety, along with childbearing. No one of the two groups will be exclusively sufficient to save a woman. The case is dire therefore for a woman who do not couple continue in faith, etc, with childbearing. It is the same with a woman who does childbearing alone.

@Tpia

You are not even sure. You should do a little bit of research to find out what Timothy the author of that verse meant before you give unsubstantiative meaning or opinion, and then have the audacity to ask Huxley that if french is his language, while you quipped that he is reading the verse literally. How is he supposed to read it, with a twist or reading a foot note as to the state of the mind of the author? Where is that material to make a person not read or give it a literal meaning, exactly what the verse said. He asked you what about men, you have not responded. By the way Huxley lives in England, and not in France. I believe he is a good writer of the Queen's version of the English language.

@Davidylan:

Huxley quoted 1 Timothy 2;15, you are talking about 1 Peter 2;15. If both of you are correct, then both Timothy and Peter wrote exact same thing. You guys used to argue that there were only 4 canonized Gos[els, because the others which were discarded and not entered into the Bible, are more or less a repeat of verses in the 4 accepted Gospels.

Here is my question, if Timothy and Peter have the same exact words in their same numbered verses, why is it that one of them is not discarded aong the same reason that the other non canonized Gospels were not entered in your Bible? That is just a good question that arise from these two verses having to be exactly alike.

Apart from you not giving any approach to the core of huxley's question, how is man being saved since woman's is having childbearing, is in addition to her continue in faith, etc. But Genesis 3:16, is a commanded curse, which includes the very thing, Childbearing!

It is in this state of childbearing that they will have sorrow and it is by having husband will they have desire towards that husband who is also the one to rule them. To simply states that woman will have the curse of Genesis 3: 16 removed as you stated in 1 Peter 2: 15 and Huxley's 1 Timothy 2: 15, is a pure disgenious presentation from you.

Having a husband who she desires and by gender authority rules over her, is the legal way for her to get pregnant. It is at childbearing itself that the sorrow wll be fulfilled, all of them as part of the Biblical curse of Genesis 3 :16.

How you came about, you and Timothy of Huxley's quoted verse and Peter of your own quoted verse came up with the woman being saved at childbearing is a mystery, especially when a woman who does not childbear will not have the curse of Genesis?

How can you use the Succour from the curse, thereby on the woman who is having the pain/sorrow which is experience at delivery, childbearing?

0
Avatar
Newbie

You do not understand the text at all. This is just one of those funnny games you play to rebuke the bible. Try again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

you're reading the verse too literally. It's not about the soul.

Is French your first language? Its all getting a bit clearer now.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Rather than read this with hypocritical lenses, it would behove us to go see what Brother Peter was refering to here:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Its easy to see what 1 Peter 2:15 was talking about, the "saved" used there did not imply salvation of the soul but succour from the curse placed on every childbearing woman in Gen 3:16.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Don't understand. Try again pls

0
Avatar
Newbie

Its been a long time since I saw this particular verse, but I think you may be reading it wrong, Huxley.

I'm not sure but "saved through childbearing" here may refer to having a safe delivery. ie as opposed to having complications or a fatal one.

0
Avatar
Newbie

so a woman who cannot give birth has not chance of being saved?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Huxley,whatcha say to dat?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.