What the Bible Really Says about Women

No, I don't like to ascribe that title to myself considering what that word means today. I am a born-again of the Spirit above disciple of Immanuel and you have no clue to what you speak of you foolish woman. Nothing but a lawless apostate pauline anti-Christ goat is what you are. You feminist dogs are putrid.

^^ This is how to drive people away from salvation. Nobody can hear anyone say "Jesus loves you so much he died for you" while they beat them over the head.

He has already rejected the gospel Jezebel.

You exhibit NOTHING of the Holy Spirit. You do not know Jesus, and most importantly, Jesus does not know you. For you to flame Paul and then quote him is the height of hypocrisy.

Fuck the bible.
It was written by men.

So have you.



This thread is to discuss the Bible and how its teachings about women have been twisted. Let's try and stick to that topic now, okay everyone (else)?

There you go. Your guilt be upon your own head.

I have no guilt, my God doesn't believe in man written bullshit.
My God is a god of compassion, to whom I have a direct connection with.

No bible, torah, or any other biblical crap written by men disturbs the direct communication I have with my creator.

Again, who wrote, distorted and twisted these books to fit their own agenda.
Hmmm....let me think, man!

Sheeple follow the man written words.
Now, go pay up to the church, they want their cut.

Your god is a figment of your imagination. Just another blind person wandering through this World with no clue to what is going on behind the scenes while Satan winds down your clock. Go back to sleep.

You have committed the oldest sin in the book, Idolatry. Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand or perish.

Your god is a figment of your imagination. Just another blind person wandering through this World with no clue to what is going on behind the scenes while Satan winds down your clock. Go back to sleep.

This isn't your thread, troll. Take your hate someplace else.

Many criticisms of the Bible, especially Christianity, are based upon what I believe are gross misunderstandings. The worst part is that many of these are perpetuated by Christian teachers. But truth to tell, there has been bias and tampering since the apostles died, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read their words.(1)

Many squabble over which version of ancient texts are best, or which translations. But anyone familiar with linguistics, translation, and textual transmission will tell you how ridiculous such squabbles are, and how inherently imprecise the whole exercise of understanding ancient writings truly is. There is always "something lost in translation", even when you have the originals in front of you, and even if no one disputed the content. And if this is true of the fairly technical side of things, it is much more true of the interpretation side.

With that background I'd like to focus on this one very controversial topic. Given that misogyny and patriarchy have been the overwhelming norm throughout history, bias in that direction is to be expected; it is female equality (let alone the much-rarer superiority) that is "counter-cultural" and in need of a fair trial. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and just as teachings today may have many good points in them, the bias of the writers can still taint the teachings to some extent. We should be sure to note that God worked through and around people throughout history, rather than yanking people into line or micromanaging them. Thus some things were permitted that were never God's intent.(2)

I'm going to approach this post by listing common misconceptions and giving a concise response to each.(3)

---Adam ruled Eve because he was made first. If being first means having authority, then the animals all had authority over Adam. If being last means having authority, then Eve had authority over Adam. It is the fallacy of "special pleading" to make creation order a basis for authority only in one case.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was made from him. Adam was made from dust. Is dust therefore superior to Adam? Instead, being made of the very same "flesh and bone" as Adam made Eve his absolute equal. Adam focused on Eve's sameness, not her difference.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was his helper. The Hebrew word for "help" means "a strong ally" and is also used of God. There is no hint of inferiority on the part of the helper; in fact, it is the one being helped that lacks strength or ability. (Gen. 2:18)

---Adam ruled Eve because he called her "woman". The slave woman Hagar gave God a name. (Gen. 2:23, 16:13)

---Eve lusted after Adam's authority before she was tempted. There is not one hint in the entire Bible to back up this claim; it is a man-made myth. There is no scripture between the creation of Eve and her temptation, and neither she nor the serpent mentioned Adam during or after the temptation. No NT writer even hints at such a thing.

---Adam was unaware of the temptation or the source of the fruit. He was there with her and heard her voice as she was tempted. When she handed him the fruit he ate it even though he knew where it came from. If Eve had been tempting or tricking Adam, then it was she and not the serpent who was the real deceiver, making Adam the deceived. And there is not the slightest hint anywhere in the Bible of Eve using "feminine wiles" to seduce Adam. (Gen. 3:6, 17, 1 Tim. 2:13)

---Adam is shown to rule over Eve since God confronts him first. The confrontation is in the order of a typical philosophical argument, where statements are made leading to a central point and then traced back in reverse order. Scripture shows this to be man–woman–serpent–woman–man. So the order has nothing to do with rule but only with making a point. And the point was the serpent's curse and the accompanying prophecy of a Savior through the woman's seed alone. Eve is thus honored with truly being the "help" that Adam needed.

---Adam is charged with bringing sin into the world because he was the "federal head" of the human race. Scripture never gives Adam this title or anything like it, and does not say why sin is attributed to him alone. Yet consider these facts: both he and Eve ate the fruit and thus became mortal, but only Adam blamed the woman and God for his sin. While Eve is only said to have been deceived, Adam is said to have rebelled against God and dealt treacherously with Him. And if they base this "federal head" belief on the statement in Hebrews about Levi being credited with giving a tithe since he was "still in the body of his ancestor" Abraham when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, they need to answer the question of why any of Abraham's descendants needed to tithe, or how Levi could literally have existed in Abraham when a person is not created till sperm meets egg. Also, if Adam was Eve's "federal head" before sin, then God would not have confronted her at all but only Adam. (Hosea 6:7, Job 31:33, Heb. 7:10)

---Adam's rule over Eve was made harsh after sin. There is no hint of Adam having authority over Eve before sin, and God never told Adam he must now rule better or more strongly. In addition, the statement was made to Eve, and it was not a command but a prediction of the consequences of her choice to follow Adam out of the garden. Only Adam was ordered out, and only Adam was told he would return to the dust from which he alone was taken, which God cursed on his account alone. Neither he nor Eve were ever cursed. (Gen. 3:19-24)

---Eve was cursed with labor pain and subservience to Adam. The verse about pain in childbirth is more accurately rendered "a snare has increased your sorrow and sighing; in sorrow you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, who will rule over you." Note that she was indeed snared or tricked, and also that it would be her husband, not anything he allegedly possessed, that she would desire or turn toward. And because of this she would be ruled over by him. This was in the future tense for both her desire and his rule, proving that neither previously existed. Even in the traditional rendering, the word "curse" is not used with Eve as it was with Adam and the serpent; God never told Eve "Because you have done this…". And how could God increase her labor pains if she had not yet given birth? Even if she had, was birth supposed to have pain before sin? (Gen. 3:16)

---Adam was given rule over Eve because she was deceived. This makes no sense whatsoever. Adam sinned deliberately and without excuse, and showed no concern or responsibility for Eve while she was being tempted. If Eve had been made by God with a deceivable nature, how could she have been "a suitable helper" for Adam? And if all women are to be labeled as deceivable, then all men are to be labeled as poor leaders and rebels against God who always pass blame. To think God rewarded Adam for his rebellion and inaction, and cursed Eve for being tricked, is to turn God into Satan. And again, God never granted this rule to Adam; it was a prediction to Eve concerning the choice she would make. We must also not forget that the Savior was promised through her seed alone. Would God send His Son through the inherently deceivable? Why did He have to be born of a virgin?

---God never used women as leaders unless there were no men available. None of the references to women in leadership are ever said to be God's last resort or evidence of a divine curse or punishment. The lone verse that allegedly says so is very badly translated; even if it weren't, one verse is hardly enough to overturn the unchanging basics of the faith such as the Golden Rule and "not so among you". (Ex. 15:20, Judges 4:4-5:12, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Isaiah 3:12)

---God never condemned patriarchy. He also never condemned polygamy, slavery, rape, pedophilia, and a lot of other things. He never intended for Israel to have a human king but gave them one because they nagged him. We see throughout scripture God's pattern of making concessions, of working through and around humanity instead of immediately condemning every sin or weakness. Whenever God did intervene, we observe that He chose the young over the old, the weak over the strong, and the small and insignificant over the great and powerful. We also see His compassion and mercy, His offer to "come and reason". So His silence is not an indicator of approval but of patience and mercy. (1 Sam. 6:6-9)

---Jesus was male, and all his inner group of disciples were male. Jesus, as well as the disciples, were also all Jews, all speaking Aramaic. Why aren't these other qualities cited as proof that Christian leaders must be Jewish and speak Aramaic? And why was only Judas ever replaced among the Twelve? Why isn't a group of twelve required in every church? There is also proof that the Twelve were to be mapped to the twelve tribes of Israel, not to any sort of church structure. (Rev. 21:12-14)

---Jesus never condemned male supremacy. As with the claim about patriarchy, there were many other things Jesus never spoke out against, not even the Roman government. He also did not rebuke Mary for sitting at His feet to learn, and if male supremacists are consistent, they have to take that to mean Jesus approves of female theology students. And to be under a rabbi like that meant the student was expected to eventually take the place of a rabbi as well, so that means Jesus approves of women as pastors. Either arguments from silence are legitimate across the board, or they are not. (Luke 10:39)

---None of the Bible was written by a woman. Who is the author of Hebrews? Some historians believe there is evidence of "a conspiracy of silence" because the author was a woman, most likely Priscilla. Who wrote Esther? Ruth? We should also note that none of the Bible was written by a Gentile or a sea captain or a court jester. How many women were taught to write? How many should we expect from a patriarchal society? Does God ever say why He does things like commending the bravery of a prostitute (or possibly, an inn keeper, which in patriarchal thinking is a greater sin than prostitution since she ran a business without male oversight!) and allowing the Savior to be born of her line? So again we must ask why something like this is taken as tacit approval of male supremacy by God. (Joshua 6:25, Mt. 1:5)

---The "plain reading" of scripture says women can't teach men. That same "plain reading" also says that we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin, that we should take wine for our stomach problems, that we should wash each other's feet, that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, that our only debt should be love, and that "the first will be last and the last will be first". And if anyone tries to cry "context" in defense of their "plain reading" they have defeated their own argument. More questions for "plain reading" and consistency: Why does a woman need a head covering to signify male rule if she can only pray and prophecy in private or among other women? Where does God ever tell godly women they are in sin if they teach truth?

---Males must guard females from error and deception. The Holy Spirit cannot do the job? Who is guarding all those men teaching error? How many women compared to men have started false religions? How many women have been popes or imams? How many men have fallen for tricksters and embezzlers? And where is the scripture that states men must guard women from deception? Why are women allowed to teach children, who are the most easily deceived?

---Men and women are equal in being but have complementary "roles" where the man leads and the woman follows. If two people are equal in being or essence, there cannot be permanent hierarchy between them on the basis of essential qualities of being. That is, if someone is held to a permanent subservient role, based upon their flesh in some way, then that person is inferior by definition. Temporary hierarchies, such as employer/employee or parent/child, do not violate this rule because the employee can change jobs and the child can grow up. But slavery is defined as "submission to a dominating influence; the state of a person who is a chattel of another" (Webster's). A slave can be freed but is at the mercy of the owner. Though the slave is acknowledged to be as fully human as the owner, the slave is nonetheless held to be inferior in being. A "role" is, by definition, a part to play or a function to perform. The latter is held by male supremacism as meaning a woman's role is to submit permanently to a man for no other reason than the flesh (the physical). Yet because it is based upon a permanent and intrinsic quality, it defines the woman as inferior to the man. It is held that this leader/follower relationship is "complementary" between equals, but this amounts to defining equal as unequal, since the woman can never outrank the man in return. Truly equal complementation would be between friends or co-workers who each have different skills or jobs, or like the cooperation between the left and right hands.

---The man is the head of the family. Scripture never says this; it only says the husband is the head of his wife. But "head" in Greek never meant ruler or boss; the head/body metaphor was an expression of unity. If it meant boss, then the Bible would be ordering wives to "serve two masters", especially since male supremacism insists that a wife is to obey her husband "as to the Lord".

---No woman is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No man is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No NT letter is ever addressed to an individual having a title— except 2 John, which is addressed to a woman he calls "the chosen master" (lit. Greek). Many are called "apostles" (lit. "sent out"), including Junia, and many are called "servants" or "ministers" (all from the Greek word diaconos), including Phoebe. And "pastor", mentioned only once in the entire NT, is a spiritual gift, not an office or title. (Rom. 16:1, 7, Eph. 4:11)

---An elder must be a man. By the method used to determine this, then an elder must also be married, have well-behaved children, and do a good job of protecting the home. This would disqualify Paul, Timothy, and many others. Paul's list of qualities are exactly that: qualities of character, not matters of the flesh. And that same word for provide and protect in 1 Tim. 3:4, proistemi, is used of Phoebe. By this same method, the Great Commission would only be for men since it involves preaching the gospel, teaching, and baptizing. (Mt. 28:19-20, Rom. 16:2, 1 Tim. 3)

---A husband plays the role of Father to his wife's role of Son.That is blasphemy and idolatry, not to mention symbolic pedophilia. No believer is ever told to play God to another believer. The ONE passage used to teach this blasphemy (on the man's part) and idolatry (on the woman's part) is Eph. 5:22, but there is no verb there, because it goes with verse 21, not verse 23. In Greek it reads like a list starting in vs. 19, describing the "filled with the Spirit" in vs. 18: speaking, singing, thanking, and supporting. All believers are to defer (Paul always uses other words when discussing submission to authority) to one another; there are no exceptions. The man as "head" to the wife is her source, and she is his support, just as the head feeds the body and the body supports the head. In spite of the Roman law that made her attached to her father for life (instead of her husband)*, Paul tells Christian wives to be loyal to their "own" husbands. To say this as a matter of obedience would make no sense in a society where this was already presumed and encoded in law, and to treat any human as The Lord would be idolatrous. So Paul is not making "lording over" a new definition of submission.
(* The law was "marriage without hand", designed to give abused wives a way out of a bad marriage. She remained the property of her father, who at any time could give her to another man. So Paul is saying something quite radically opposed to Roman law.)

---Christian Equality is a slippery slope to homosexuality. Then male supremacism is a slippery slope to wife abuse, and clergy supremacy is a slippery slope to the cults. The "slippery slope" argument was raised to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War south, fearing the breakdown of society should slaves be freed and treated as equals. And historically (even today), homosexuality has been rampant in very patriarchal societies.

---Christian Equality bows to culture. The overwhelming cultural and religious paradigm has been that of male supremacism, so it is patriarchy which bows to culture. That modern Western society has been a rare exception to the cultural tradition does not make Christianity's acceptance of equality a case of bowing to culture, any more than the abolition of slavery was also bowing to culture.

---Men cannot give birth but they don't complain about it, so women should not complain about what they cannot do either. This is the "equivocation" fallacy, since it confuses ability with permission. Neither side believes women lack the ability to preach, teach, or lead. The absurdity of this argument is clear when we substitute the proper meanings for ‘can': "Men lack the ability to give birth, so women should not complain about lack of permission to hold authority."

---Not all men can have ecclesiastical authority, so they too must submit gladly to it. But men are not barred from such positions because they are men, but because they lack gifting or credentials. Yet women are barred from those positions solely because they are women, an intrinsic quality and thus a matter of ‘being' or ‘essence' rather than an ability or a role to play; women's gifting or ability is not even considered. And of course it is not all men who are denied authoritative positions, while it is all women who are denied. And in the home, all men are designated leaders and authorities over their wives, while no women are ever designated leaders and authorities over their husbands.

-------------------------------------------------------------​----
(1) [link to bible.cc]
see also these articles about tampering with the text:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to powerscourt.blogspot.com]
[link to www.touchstonemag.com]

(2) [link to bible.cc]

(3) [link to www.fether.net]

Articles about women:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Translation and Interpretation series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Context and Exegesis:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible Canon:
[link to www.fether.net]

Why does my opinion threaten you so much? Are you afraid to be shown up for what you are? You are pathetic.

And your God shows up at Starbucks for his morning coffee daily does he.

Re-read what you just wrote and you will see that you are the delusional one.
At least I know my God is a figment of my imagination.
More than I can say for you.

If you believe in imaginary beings that tell you how to live, there is a ward in the hospital that can help you with that. Just don't ask for the ssri treatment.
Otherwise your God may tell you to do bad things.

so if i no longer turn my inheirtance check over to my husband every month will i go to hell. can i start wearing makeup and cut my hair, and buy me a pair of bluejeans, in fact i would like to divorce my husband, he puts heavy burdens on me that is very hard to bear. please help with scripture, as i am not allowed a bible at home to read myself, my husband reads to me from the bible, mostly wives submit yourself to your husbands, he is the head of the wife, and wives reverance your husbands, even sarah called arabham lord. Are you saying i no longer have to do this.

i hate the church i have to go to every time they open their doors, and guess what next week is revival week, oh boy i can hardly wait. i dread next week, i would like to pack up and leave. what do you say op should i leave.

You don't need to listen to anything the false Prophet Saul says to do since he was not one of the 12 Apostles, therefore he had zero Authority to speak on these matters.

so if i no longer turn my inheirtance check over to my husband every month will i go to hell. can i start wearing makeup and cut my hair, and buy me a pair of bluejeans, in fact i would like to divorce my husband, he puts heavy burdens on me that is very hard to bear. please help with scripture, as i am not allowed a bible at home to read myself, my husband reads to me from the bible, mostly wives submit yourself to your husbands, he is the head of the wife, and wives reverance your husbands, even sarah called arabham lord. Are you saying i no longer have to do this.

i hate the church i have to go to every time they open their doors, and guess what next week is revival week, oh boy i can hardly wait. i dread next week, i would like to pack up and leave. what do you say op should i leave.

For those with eyes that see.

[link to www.jesuswordsonly.com]

[link to www.judaismvschristianity.com]

But God hates divorce!!!

Can't handle the truth, can ya.

Seek professional help with your delusions.

The content of the bible and all biblical books were and are controlled and edited by MEN, for the benefit of MEN.

Without women there would be no men, it's pretty simple.
Again I reiterate, I truly pray that all men who are disrespectful and belittling of women come back as one in their next life.

Joke will be on them.

The only thing that sends people to hell is if they reject Jesus as God in the flesh who died for them and rose again. Whoever accepts this Jesus and trust only him to reconcile them to God will be saved.

Your husband sounds like a control freak and a misogynist. God is neither of those things, and doesn't care what you wear. Jesus said "my burden is light", so whoever puts a heavy burden on you is a liar and a tyrant.

The list in my OP here has a few references for each point. If you need help finding them in the Bible, let me know, since there are free online Bibles you can read. One is [link to www.biblegateway.com] .

Yes, I'm saying those scriptures have been twisted. For example, here is a link to my study on that passage about Sarah: [link to www.fether.net]

I left churchinaity 7 years ago, after attending nonstop for 47 years. You can contact me via my blog if you'd like: [link to www.fether.net]

God bless, and know that Jesus truly does love women and came to set us all free.

Stop this! She came to my thread for help, and you're trying to run her off as though you can barge into someone else's home and make the rules.

This is a chat forum you nutcase!

so if i no longer turn my inheirtance check over to my husband every month will i go to hell. can i start wearing makeup and cut my hair, and buy me a pair of bluejeans, in fact i would like to divorce my husband, he puts heavy burdens on me that is very hard to bear. please help with scripture, as i am not allowed a bible at home to read myself, my husband reads to me from the bible, mostly wives submit yourself to your husbands, he is the head of the wife, and wives reverance your husbands, even sarah called arabham lord. Are you saying i no longer have to do this.

i hate the church i have to go to every time they open their doors, and guess what next week is revival week, oh boy i can hardly wait. i dread next week, i would like to pack up and leave. what do you say op should i leave.