Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Let's dive into the argumentation by first going over the faulty verses that my opponent has brought up, and then moving on to my own superior verses from the bible. Contention 1. Exodus verse: This was a prophetess, and it was before the new testament. I will be referring a lot to the fact that there is a difference between the new testament and the old one. Also, God decided to use her as part of his word. There's a difference between electing a woman pastor and God choosing a woman pastor. Judges 5: My opponent has used a verse that, laughably so, can be used against him. This verse is referring to Deborah and her leadership position. Note, this is the ONLY time a woman had such a position in the Bible. My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12) Ouch. That means women were inadequate for leadership. Also, there was a reason she was the leader. a. There were no men that would take her position The men were afraid. b. It was done as a rebuke. As the isaiah verse evidenced, they didn't like the idea. Deborah also asked the general to take a leadership role in the battle. So she was giving men the most authority possible. As we can see, this verse does not apply to prove his point, and in fact actually is a point for me. Luke: Cross-apply what I said under the Exodus verse. Also, this is before the death of Christ so it's still the old covenant. As we can see, the verses used under this contention do not prove my opponent's weak point. Also, Judges 5 was more of a point for me, not my opponent. Contention 2. This verse does not apply. It's talking about animals, not humans. The verse can be translated as "God told humans to rule over animals". And of course I'm not arguing that woman can't rule over animals. Do not be fooled by this verse, it was wrongly applied. Contention 3. Again, appointed by God and not by some men. Also, this is again before the new covenant. Contention 4. This point is on the verge of silliness. My opponent is trying to say that because women are CAPABLE of teaching that means they should and may. As all my refutation has evidenced, women are capable but should not. I will bring my own verse in soon. It's like saying that because women can work and men can cook, that women should be the head of the home and go to work rather than stay home and do what women should do. Note: I am not at all opposed to women working. I'm opposed to women working if the man is perfectly capable and she's just taking his place. If a woman has to support herself, she has to support herself. So don't think I am taking my position to the extreme. My own verses I would like to bring in my own verses. Unlike my opponent's faulty verses, they are actually during the new covenant and DIRECTLY state my position. 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. These two verses clearly refute my opponent's weak position. In summary, all of my opponent's verses have been before the new covenant, and a few were mentioning women appointed by GOD, rather than PEOPLE. Judges 5 actually flows as a point for me since it was considered a punishment to the Israelites. Contention 4 was on the verge of silliness since it was saying that just because women can, they should. Another analogy is that just because you can jump off a cliff, you should. (Not).