What the Bible Really Says about Women

Stupidest thread ever.

Religitards have got to be the dumbest, most brainwashed peeps on earth.

If you were not so pushy with your religicrap, I'd almost feel sorry for you.

But I don't.

Man made religion is just that, man made, a ways and means to control the masses of sheeple, that would be you folks.

Thanks, Bette and Canadian AC!

Not much time left...don't waste it on HATE

Not much time left...don't waste it on HATE :timeup:

I don't waste time on hate, it's a useless self eating emotion.
But I do get tired of all the religitards that gobble up the doctrine they have been fed and regurgitate it all over the internet.
Besides, they get all riled up, and I must admit, it is a little more than fun to see them trying to validate their beliefs with nothing but an ancient book to back them up.

Not one of the religitards from any religion can provide any proof other than "faith".

You may as well put your money on the man on the moon.

The 12 Apostles were male, not female.

The beloved Disciple was a disciple of John the Baptist, of the two sent to follow Jesus by John only Andrew went on to become an Apostle.

The Apostle John saw two events with peter and John's brothet James. Neither are in the Gospel of John so there goes any support for him being the writer of either of those books. Don't beat yourself up, read and learn instead.

2Jo:1:1:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth;
and not I only,
but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo:1:13:
The children of thy elect sister greet thee.
Amen.

Lu:10:42:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.

Can you prove LOVE...

Love is an emotion you can feel, as is hate.

Faith is just a belief.
Religious faith is just a belief in a scripted doctrine set forth by MAN that religitards buy into.

I have not once, in all my posts, denied or confirmed the existence of God.
Because none of us have any proof one way or the other. Just belief.

I will never, ever, ever buy into organized religion again.
Been there done that, bought the t-shirt and it didn't fit.
Religitards are the biggest bunch of hypocritical, judgemental, self righteous I have crossed paths with.

Organized religion, imo, is organized brainwashing for the masses, the sheeple, people that will follow a leader like the pied piper.

So, when it comes down to it, to believe what MAN has written as rules for women, this woman is not buying into it.

Bring me a book that I can personally verify as being the word of God, as in he hands it to me personally and then I may believe.

Hand me a book that has been distorted, re-written and concocted by MAN and you can just forgetta bout it.

No, John was the beloved Apostle.

You forgot to show how that thought is valid.

Joh:1:40:
One of the two which heard John speak,
and followed him,
was Andrew,
Simon Peter's brother.

Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

Joh:19:26:
When Jesus therefore saw his mother,
and the disciple standing by,
whom he loved,
he saith unto his mother,
Woman,
behold thy son!

Lu:24:9:
And returned from the sepulchre,
and told all these things unto the eleven,
and to all the rest.
Lu:24:10:
It was Mary Magdalene,
and Joanna,
and Mary the mother of James,
and other women that were with them,
which told these things unto the apostles.

Yes...it's our choice to BELIEVE...God gave us the will to choose

Being a woman as well, I feel the same way you do. It's a lot to take in...believe me even as a woman of God I still have a hard time with it.

I pray for discernment and for wisdom...let God show you the way. We are all spirits after all is said and done...we were given gifts and so we should use them.

Find out what God gave you and how to use it.

PRAY and always believe your HEARTFELT words will be heard.

Will keep you in my prayers

My belief and relationship with God is a personal direct communication that
I most certainly don't require validation or a third party intermediary to connect with.

As far as I am concerned, man made religion does much more harm than good, there are so many examples of it, as you well know.

As a woman, I am disgusted by the failure of men to advance in their thinking.
The failure of them to do so is only due to their fear of losing some perceived control and loss of masculinity.

The universe has responded to my requests on many occasions and I have found, it may not provide what I want, but it does provide what I need,

Run as fast as you can from any sort of man made religion, it is corruptive to the soul.

If I am a member of a study group and I say to you, "I presented my paper to the study group", does that mean I'm not part of the study group?

So post how the beloved disciple is a man then because her being a woman blows your theory out of the water.

I do hope everyone finds the time to read the links, as they go into all the detail I couldn't post here due to length. I did mention this one specifically in my OP.


Do you know the Greek word being rendered "subject" here? Its semantic range includes "be supportive, upholding, appending, attached or joined, aligned, associated, related, loyal, committed, brought under influence". Notice also the word "own"; it makes no sense to specify this if it means what the surface-skim appearance is.

What no one can dispute is that in that time and culture, women simply did not have multiple husbands, and hardly needed to be told to "obey" or "be subject" with that meaning, since all the women had that drilled into them all the time. And I hardly think Paul was in the habit of overstating the obvious.

Instead, looking at all aspect of context and the actual Greek, Paul is telling Christian wives that their freedom in Christ is not a license for promiscuity. He is saying this in the context of telling those with power and privilege how to change and become more Christlike. Otherwise, we would have to make Paul contradict everything Jesus said and did regarding all his disciples and the need for ALL to be humble, not just women.


No, not at all. There is no verb in vs. 22; it gets it from vs. 21, and the passage is about MUTUAL SUBMISSION of all believers to all other believers. Clearly, this cannot involve authority because you can't have everyone being the boss of everyone. Submission is NOT a master/slave hierarchy at all, but deference and humility to all. Then Paul lists ways in which various groups can model that mutuality. See my commentary for more: [link to bible.fether.net]


Why are you appealing to OT rules for the NT church? We are not Israel; we are not under the Levitical priesthood (see Heb. 7); we are not Jewish society. And if we are appealing to society, let's remember that it was Paul being "counter cultural" in his letters about these things, not going back to the law, which is why he was persecuted by the Jews for the rest of his life.


Wives are not children, not property, not slaves, and not animals.



What you fail to acknowledge is that God is NOT the one limiting women in Christ, or making Paul contradict all that Jesus said about humility and laying privilege down. It is indeed "man's rules" to twist the Greek by imposing English onto it and then claiming God said it. Why do YOU fight against what Jesus did, in setting us ALL free? Why do you fear women as equal human beings? And it is double-talk to say a woman, by being a woman, is a permanent child, yet is somehow still equal in being.

Why did god give man nipples ?

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]

Wake up and get a clue already.



Nightwatchman

Thank you for your opinion. I totally disagree with it, but telling me that because I disagree with you I need to "get a clue" isn't an incentive for me to change my mind or read your diatribe.

Curious, that a "night" watchman wants people to "wake up".

Thank you for your opinion. I totally disagree with it, but telling me that because I disagree with you I need to "get a clue" isn't an incentive for me to change my mind or read your diatribe.

Curious, that a "night" watchman wants people to "wake up".

I guess you can't read, the bible itself says NOT to take it LITERALLY, I didn't say it, if you disagree with anyone, then it would be the bible writers NOT ME!!!!!


Nincompoop




nw

1.2Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


So here is the Bible itself telling us not to take it literally.



Some people just can't read I guess.



nw

That's all you're basing this on?

And why do you take THIS verse literally?

And why do you take it OUT OF CONTEXT? It's about contrasting the old Levitical law with the new covenant of grace. It is NOT a blank check to ignore genre.