Thing is, I think it would be dishonest to strike-out that commentator's tone; I don't mind editing someone's word so long as the editing is [bracketed] to indicate there has been a change, but that can be done only if one is not changing the meaning that's coming across; if it's removing something unnecessary to the point, or post-text of the point, I'm fine with that: so long as it neither changed the intent, nor, even, tone.

In regards culture, "cultural" is just something "due to culture", is it not?

: )

=====

Regarding trying to see how they'd apply these verses then, versus how we would not, the post:

________Indicates that when translations say "it is not permitted to them to speak", it's not as it seems, but that:

________________1. Ignoring the grammatically mistaken-argument.
________________2. "In this passage, Paul isn't conveying some general principle of not speaking in church. (In fact, above, he talks about when women pray and prophecy in church, which, last time I checked, are manners of speaking.) In this passage, Paul's pointing to a specific group to which women shouldn't talk, namely the prophets. [...] In other words, in a passage talking about church order, about when prophets should speak and when they should stay silent,"

________________________which has the problems:
________________________________a. The actual text does not indicate the prophets, another earlier context talks about order in regards female prophets, but, contrary to claims that this passage contradicts chapter 11 because "it says women are to prophecy", to read that passage indicates no such thing (as comment above).
________________________________b. These instructions here are general, applied to women period, in the Churches: and have been unchallenged in nearly all of Christian history, until recently...except perhaps by the text's implications, during Paul's time.

________________3. "[Rather it] seems to be remarking that if the women specifically see a problem with what the prophets prophecy, they shouldn't go directly to that prophet. No, they should first discuss it with their husbands, and together the husband and wife team could go to the prophet."

________________________which is speculative, eisegesis, not exegetical, and built on misassumptions, and an argument hooking into an earlier thought on "shenanigans"; it IS valid to say women should not go to someone of the opposite sex privately (Acts 18 being a fine example to bring up), completely: but nothing in this text indicates that such is the subject matter here.

Then the post, leading toward completion, discusses that topic, of not getting into situations with the opposite sex leading either to temptation, or possible accusations: but nothing to do with, or drawn from, the particular Biblical text: so that contrary to the thought of it being about learning how to apply it now, its' about someone's thoughts on what it should be to apply it now.

As to "cultural", I brought that up for several reasons: one, that's usually the argument drawn-up these days regarding controversial passages as these; two, the post does bring culture into view, which may have triggered that connection in my mind:

"And what about singles? In Paul's day, singles were rarer than they are now as women got married earlier. Before they got married, they remained under the care of their father, which would mean single females could approach prophets with their father. Now, however, singles may live hundreds of miles from their parents. How do we honor this passage and protect these relations with singles? [...etc.]"

Though most assuredtly the post, by culture, doesn't itself try and annul this passage. this particular passage. However, Heather's own comment brings that into view:

"We must always understand the culture from which the apostles write and what issues they address. As I'm sure you know, the Bible was not written in a vaccuum. This does not in any way make it less powerful or meaningful in our culture--every culture can and should be transformed by God to be a culture that can uniquely glorify God--but allows us to better understand their point of view. As we better understand their meaning, we can better apply it to our life."

As if we haven't already understood this passage from the beginning; maybe common, contemporary, Americans don't...but they forget the faith is a transmitted one, along with its commands, practices, order, doctrines, etc.. There's not a vacuum between us and the apostles, nor is understand culture then particularly important or relevant to understanding this particular passage: to suggest such merely functions (whether intended or not) as a diversion.

For a post titled "Loosing the Tongues of Women" which immediately brings-up 1 Cor 14, there's more than a little implication that what is posted is saying,

"everyone's wrong about this passage, it's really about shenanigans, women are supposed to speak: here's why"

For going into subject matter altogether other than the passage, it's more than troubling; now in regards truly false prophets, if nobody would stand to publicly oppose them as we are told to do to false teaching...I would applaud the woman who does this: saying that it should be otherwise (or that we should go to them in private after they've publicly taught/spoke falsely) is more than eggregiously in error, one because he who prophecies must do so with 2 or 3 who are able to judge whether it is true, and two because it is written that we are to publicly expose error and those who propagate it: something which neither Paul nor Co. did with any air of being civil; or if we want a more staunch application here, she might tell ask her husband to immediately stand and oppose the public teaching too, if we consider applying what Heather is saying.

I Think it's dangerous to propose as the intent of a text, well meant or not, a meaning contrary to its first sense, and bearing little hermeneutical support (or worse, being built on linguistic mistakes), what is provably specious. It's also begging opposition when to do so is to go contrary to history and all knowledge on that particular: not that such is impermissable or never to be allowed (as people can surely err), but I think this point is clear enough.

Such speculation is gossipy, gangrene for the Church, creating disorder and tumult for it, not establishing peace: it's no good to stoke questions on a matter from a text that leaves no room for any; we often forget that scripture is usually didactic, rather than conversational; to to beg questions and get people discussing opinion on what is clear...isn't acceptable. To do so on what is not and what has actually, provably, been twisted or subverted to something other than Christ, so long as not used as another diversion, may be helpful.

If, however, someone has questions on passages like these, then good: they ought to go to those with knowledge and ask privately, whether open-doored, or someone of the same sex, and then also be critical (in the scholarly sense) of those explanations, comparing it to scripture; if married and a lady...she can ask her husband. But to broadcast all this on a worldwide medium, on a blog set-up on a hugely popular website, on a topic that's not a mystery...is not commendable.

To bring-up a passage, read it, argue against it, then opine on one's own thoughts...is not acceptable among saints, nor valid or respectful handling of scripture. It is, in fact, the method and tactics of cults, and false teachers, to give the impression that what is about to follow will be biblical when they give messages and such, but which is rather their own judgment. None of us, however, should be so quick to sit in that kind of judgment on scripture; or so wrest it.

And none of this is said to either offend, or angrily, or as an attack, either: just dead serious.

Grace.