The Male Bias of the Bible [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

kathryn

06-14-2011, 10:39 AM

.
My premise for stating that I do not believe the Bible is the word of God, is based on the fact that Scripture is totally skewed and biased toward the male. The verses below are a glaring example of how the laws of Yahweh given to Moses are arbitrarily biased in favor of the male, showing an inequality in the treatment of the woman.

The passage in Leviticus deals with childbirth and how many days the woman is unclean after giving birth to a male child, and a female child. When a male child is born the woman is considered unclean for 7 days, and then another 33 days for purification is required, BUT when a woman bears a female child she is unclean for double the time (14 days), then another doubled time (66 days) is added for purification on top of the first.

Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).
This is just one of the many verses throughout the entire Bible that screams in our ears….MALE BIAS!

Rose

Hey Rose,
Regarding the male bias in scripture; I've always thought God (or CC:)) exhibited such a wonderful sense of humor,after all of their bias, to then relegate them to the position of Bride. :D

And about the periods of confinement. There is an underlying meaning in this, regarding the purification or refinement time and process of the Bride...both male and female. Jesus was the "male" whose time to fulfill the Atonement sacrifice as the first goat, in Christ's "death" work, came at 33.

33 is , as you know, written with a Lamed (authority) and gimel (camel..or to lift up) Jesus said that "if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me."
This holds the prophetic meaning of the 1st part of the Atonement sacrifice, for His fulfillment in the second goat, His Body who offer themselves up as a "Living Sacrifice".
It shows the lifting up of the Head of the Body, as seen in the account of the baker/butler at Pharoah's feast.

The 66 is the double Vav and is the crucifixion nail (Jesus) and the fish hook of the 153 fish representing the "Sons of God"/or Christ in His corporate son/second goat.
Of course it is also the Head/Body, corner/headstone, and the double witness of male/female , represented by the female child as the Bride.
66 has also the rolling/consuming connotation which expresses the completion of the refining period, as did the 12 stones placed in Gilgal, after they had passed through the Jordan.

Adding the two together, we have the fulfillment of the two parts of the Atonement sacrifice expressed in the 99:
It is:
The Amen, The Branch, Door of Hope, and Fountain (of living water).

ps..I left out the most obvious meaning of the 99, or double Tet. It is the fulfillment of the two parts of Atonement sacrifice as the double witness of the Bronze Serpent "lifted up". It is the Bridegroom/Bride consumated.

Richard Amiel McGough

06-14-2011, 11:56 AM

The "uncleanness" is remedied by the passing of time.........by the circumcision of the male child.....the time is shortened.

Does uncleanness apply more to females than males?

joel
How does circumcising the male baby make the momma get clean faster?

And what exactly was "unclean" about the woman who gave birth to a child? It can't be physical, because there is no physical difference in the cleanliness of the woman when she gives birth to a girl rather than a boy.

And why was giving birth considered sinful?

joel

06-14-2011, 12:21 PM

How does circumcising the male baby make the momma get clean faster?

And what exactly was "unclean" about the woman who gave birth to a child? It can't be physical, because there is no physical difference in the cleanliness of the woman when she gives birth to a girl rather than a boy.

And why was giving birth considered sinful?

There is a difference between sin.....and uncleanness.....so it seems.

I think it has to do with the flesh which is unclean. It is a condition related to infirmity, weakness.

The infirmity of the flesh may have to do with the presence of sin within it.

With a male child, the flesh of the foreskin is cut off.......not possible with a female child.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

06-14-2011, 12:25 PM

There is a difference between sin.....and uncleanness.....so it seems.

I think it has to do with the flesh which is unclean. It is a condition related to infirmity, weakness.

The infirmity of the flesh may have to do with the presence of sin within it.

With a male child, the flesh of the foreskin is cut off.......not possible with a female child.

Joel
OK - but how would the cutting of the flesh of the male baby's foreskin make the mother become "clean" twice as quickly?

I'm pretty sure we can't say that it is talking about a physical condition of the flesh, since there is no difference in the mother's flesh based on the birth of a boy or girl.

kathryn

06-14-2011, 12:50 PM

I believe it has to do with the blood as well. If we take this into the illustration of us as the mother, giving birth to the Christ in us , it is connected to the placenta that feeds the baby in the womb. (her nutrients pass through the blood) We are what we "eat" as spiritual food...and until the "donkey" is fully redeemed by the "Lamb", the placenta will hold an mixture. A mixture is always considered unclean (like the donkey).
The menses of a woman are on the same cycle of the moon, which represents the carnal mind in one application. The shedding of the blood after childbirth , while the woman is considered unclean during this phase, is a picture of the scarlet thread in Rahab's window, through which the spies/rahab and household escape before the walls of Jericho (moon) fall.
As I mentioned above, the time factors have the underlying meaning of the first and second work of Christ.

joel

06-14-2011, 01:09 PM

OK - but how would the cutting of the flesh of the male baby's foreskin make the mother become "clean" twice as quickly?

I'm pretty sure we can't say that it is talking about a physical condition of the flesh, since there is no difference in the mother's flesh based on the birth of a boy or girl.

Jesus said that whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh.....and whatsoever is born of the spirit is spirit. He also said that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The flesh profiteth nothing........there is no difference between the flesh of a male and that of a female in this regard.

The difference, in this case, is in the ceremonial cleanness of the mother linked to the circumcision of the male child.......which is a spiritual issue, having to do with her relationship with God. In the case of a male child, the cutting away of the foreskin on the eighth day, as instructed by God to Moses, accrues to the benefit of the mother in that she is ceremonially clean after a shorter period of time due to the cutting away of the flesh of her new-born son.

Circumcision relates to an inward truth even though it is outward when the flesh of a male is cut away. Both male and female are to be circumcised of the heart, by a circumcision not made with hands, but by an operation of God.

It is my opinion that this citation in Leviticus is instructive to us......just as there are spiritual truths in many of the obscure narratives of the OT......we see first the outward......and are to seek an understanding of the inward truth which affects our spirits.
Joel

Rose

06-14-2011, 04:35 PM

Jesus said that whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh.....and whatsoever is born of the spirit is spirit. He also said that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The flesh profiteth nothing........there is no difference between the flesh of a male and that of a female in this regard.

The difference, in this case, is in the ceremonial cleanness of the mother linked to the circumcision of the male child.......which is a spiritual issue, having to do with her relationship with God. In the case of a male child, the cutting away of the foreskin on the eighth day, as instructed by God to Moses, accrues to the benefit of the mother in that she is ceremonially clean after a shorter period of time due to the cutting away of the flesh of her new-born son.

Circumcision relates to an inward truth even though it is outward when the flesh of a male is cut away. Both male and female are to be circumcised of the heart, by a circumcision not made with hands, but by an operation of God.

It is my opinion that this citation in Leviticus is instructive to us......just as there are spiritual truths in many of the obscure narratives of the OT......we see first the outward......and are to seek an understanding of the inward truth which affects our spirits.
Joel

First off, nothing of what you have said is even mentioned in the Bible, so in order for a ritual to have meaning it must be given a symbolic purpose. Nowhere, is it even remotely hinted at that the circumcision of a baby boy affects the purification of a woman.

More than likely what we see in Lev.12 is the "male bias" of the Bible. Over, and over again in Scripture women are given less value than men, they are treated as the property of the man and denied the same rights given to men. There is absolutely no defense, or justification for such behavior, but there is a reason. Since men were in control of society because of their brute strength, it only stands to reason that their ideas influenced the writing of the Bible.

Rose

Rose

06-14-2011, 09:34 PM

.
Continuing on with the theme of Male Bias in the Bible, I’ll now turn to the book of Numbers. Scripture states: the Lord told Moses that if a man becomes jealous, because he thinks his wife might be having an adulterous affair, but has no evidence or witnesses to support his suspicions “only that the spirit of jealousy has come upon him”, then he is to take his wife to the priest, who goes through a ritual of scraping dirt off the floor of the Tabernacle in front of the altar, and mixing it with “holy water” forcing the woman to drink it. If the woman becomes ill she is assumed guilty and cursed, whereas if she does not become ill she is free.

Let me point out there is NO equivalent law pertaining to a woman if she becomes jealous and thinks her husband is having an adulterous affair.
Num. 5:11-19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: …..27) And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
If for no other reason these abominations should wake us up to some of the horrendously unjust, biased laws contained in the Bible, and cause us to be more discerning and careful when we speak as if every word in Scripture is coming from God...even when the Bible says "the Lord spoke". It’s time to take off the blinders and face reality; otherwise our progress to search out truth will be blocked.

Rose

joel

06-15-2011, 03:32 AM

Rose

06-15-2011, 08:08 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-15-2011, 08:22 AM

There is a spiritual perspective to all things written in the scripture.

But, to the mind that is "biased" towards the flesh, such things are foolishness.

To the ones becoming "spiritual".....the wisdom of God shines forth, and they judge from a new perspective.

The cross of our Lord is the place where the flesh is judged, and is put to death. And yet, we live on having been put to death on the cross with Him. This is foolishness and spiritual obscurity to those who have not seen the truth of His cross.

Those who have been given a glimpse of the liberty gained in the death of God's Son see themselves and all things around them from a new perspective.

The flesh is "biased" towards all things pertaining to flesh. Your arguments are fleshly, and will not lead you to liberty, but to bondage.

....the truth will set you free.

Joel
I think you are misapplying the Scriptures here. The "spiritual perception" of which you speak refers to understanding the "foolishness of God" seen in the Gospel. It cannot be used to transform a moral evil like killing babies into a moral goodness. It seems absurd to say that only those with a "fleshly mind" would object to baby killing as "immoral" while those with true "spiritual perception" will recognizes the real "truth" that baby killing is good.

I also think you began with a false assumption. It is true that many Scriptures cannot be understood without spiritual insight, but it is false to assert that "all things written in the scripture" are "foolishness" to those who are not able to see their "spiritual perspectives." Case in point - anyone with any moral sense at all can see that the command to kill innocent babies is morally wrong. There is no "spiritual perspective" that can fix something that is an objectively immoral. At best you could come up with a "pragmatic perspective" that says it was "relatively good" to kill all the men, women, and children to make room for "God's people" but pragmatism is quite the opposite of a "spiritual perspective."

Rose

06-15-2011, 02:38 PM

.
The verses below once again exemplify the strong male bias of the Bible against women, giving overwhelming evidence that the God of the Bible was created in the minds of men.

In this section of the Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy, both the ownership and gender-bias is exposed. Under the Law of Moses, given by the God of the Bible, we read of a case pertaining to a man finding a virgin woman who is not engaged, and raping her (The Hebrew word used is 'taphas', which means 'to take hold of, or seize'). The punishment for this crime of rape is that the accused man is required to pay the woman’s father '50 Shekels' and marry her because he has 'humbled' her (anah: to afflict, browbeat, or oppress)…also; he is never allowed to divorce her!

The poor woman in not only forced to marry her rapist, but she must also be bound to him for life! The father profits by getting recompensed for his damaged goods (his humbled daughter) and the rapist profits by gaining a life-long sex-slave.
Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her (anah), he may not put her away all his days.
Of course this is just another prime example of the mindset of male dominated societies…and the authors of the Bible were no different then any other peoples of their time period, which is expressed very clearly in their writings. Women were considered the property of the male; first of the father and then of the husband. This was the norm for most cultures of the world at that time and is exactly how the authors of the Bible created their 'God' to view women and incorporate it into the law. As I have said: 'Men created a god in their own image' the only thing that changed from other cultures was having one god make all the rules instead of many.

Rose

joel

06-16-2011, 05:19 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-16-2011, 01:22 PM

God purposes to develop within us a spiritual mindset (phronema pneuma....Romans 8).

Is it any wonder that the mindset of the human race, exemplified in the ancient scriptures, is expressed at times from such a fleshly, carnal perspective?

But now, at this time, we have the opportunity to have this paradigm nurtured within us. It seems to me that engaging in conversations that are attuned to such a God pleasing mindset are needful, and helpful in developing a spiritual viewpoint.

Otherwise, there is only one other mindset.......one which focuses on the flesh (phronema sarx.....Romans 8). Such a mindset is not pleasing to God no matter how rational, and learned may it seem to be, and can only lead to a walk in this world according to the spirit of this age, and focusing on matters of the flesh and not of the spirit.

The cross of Christ is where the flesh is judged, and if we view the flesh as being crucified with Him, then......we may have hope that God can deliver us from the fleshly mindset which hinders our walk with Him.

Joel
Hey Joel,

I agree very much. I think the purpose of the Bible is to develop the "mind of the spirit" (to phronema tou pneumatos). And yes, I think that the fact that humanity has been growing out of the "mind of the flesh" explains very well why much of the Scripture is so carnal. That's all good. But it also indicates how very wrong it is to assert that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" since that would be identifying the "mind of the flesh" - the "carnal mind" - to the status of the Mind of God, and that would be a very big mistake indeed.

Richard

joel

06-16-2011, 02:06 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-16-2011, 02:26 PM

I see your point. Thanks.

If the carnal, fleshly viewpoint of mankind takes scripture and puts a spin on it.....it would surely convey wrong perspectives.

I agree with you on this matter.

Obviously, then, if the original scripture (prior to the "spin") were available, what a blessing that would provide.

Joel
I'm confused: on the one hand, you seem to be saying that the problem is caused by a "fleshly viewpoint" of Scripture, while on the other hand you seem to be saying that the problem is caused by a corruption of the "original scripture."

Do you think that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are an adequate representation of the "original scripture" or have they been so corrupted that we'll never know what was in the "original scripture"?

joel

06-16-2011, 03:03 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-16-2011, 03:12 PM

In so far as I view God as absolute sovereign, whatever state the scripture is in, however weak it may be in its current state of delivery to us, it is fully capable of conveying truth in spite of the weaknesses.

The weaknesses are due to the flesh, the adversary, to name just a few causes.
Fleshly man can twist and turn the words to mean things not originally intended.

One the most harmful influences upon the truth of scripture is attributed to the wrong interpretations of words. It is very helpful, in the study of God's Word, to seek an understanding through competent concordances the original meanings of words.

God does not force a correction of these matters and make sure that we have the exact wording as He may have originally intended....... and God has chosen to remain "silent" concerning such, allowing man and woman to say whatever they want, however far from the truth they may be in their reasonings.

But, God can by His spirit, cause us to believe and to understand in spite of all the impediments........this too is attributed to His sovereignty.

While grace is reigning, God is not reckoning the offenses of mankind against them. However, this will not be the case when He chooses to demonstrate His wrath.

Joel
Your post raises many questions in my mind. What do you mean by "absolute sovereignty?" Does it relate to the Calvinist position? Here's how it is expressed in the Westminster Confusion of the Faith (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html):

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
I love how they built an explicit logical contradiction into their "confession" of the faith. God ordaining that I pick my nose on Tuesday does no "violence" to my freedom to choose. Yeah ... that makes sense. It's also interesting that this fundamental doctrine of "God's Sovereignty" is not supported as stated in Scripture. There is no passage of the Bible that says God did "ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

Sorry if that is a digression that has nothing to do with your understanding of God's "absolutely sovereignty." I very much would like to know what you mean by that statement.

joel

06-17-2011, 04:23 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

06-17-2011, 09:52 AM

Because of our human tendency to overstate things of which we think we believe, and in the overstatements venture down innumerable side trails, I choose to be brief in response to your question, Richard.

One word has to do with His purpose.......prothesis.

Can you look that up and see if it fits?

Joel

The word "prothesis" basically means "to set forth." It is accurately translated as "purpose" in the verse I presume you are implicitly referencing:
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose (prothesis) of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
But this does not answer my question. It speaks only of God choosing to use two individuals for his purpose. It says nothing about God ordaining "whatsoever comes to pass."

Why don't you just plainly state what you think on this matter? I feel like we are playing a game of "cat and mouse."

joel

06-17-2011, 10:22 AM

The word "prothesis" basically means "to set forth." It is accurately translated as "purpose" in the verse I presume you are implicitly referencing:
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose (prothesis) of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
But this does not answer my question. It speaks only of God choosing to use two individuals for his purpose. It says nothing about God ordaining "whatsoever comes to pass."

Why don't you just plainly state what you think on this matter? I feel like we are playing a game of "cat and mouse."

Sorry, Richard,

I don't like that type of game, so, I was not intending to draw you into one.

The verse that I was contemplating was;

II Tim. 1:9;
Who hath saved us and called (us) with a holy calling,
not according to our works,
but, according to his own
purpose (prothesin) and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (pros chronOn aiOniOn).

During the ages, His will is contested every day, and over-ruled by the "free will" of man.....but.....His purpose (his before-placing), and His grace which were given to us before the age times began cannot be thwarted by anything. That is, in my opinion, an example of His sovereignty, as the All Mighty God.

Joel

Beck

06-17-2011, 10:41 AM

.
The verses below once again exemplify the strong male bias of the Bible against women, giving overwhelming evidence that the God of the Bible was created in the minds of men.

Rose

How is it that man relinquish his male bias in the new covenant? Galations 3:28 What evidence does that give? Just wondering why this still is coming up? Wasn't there also women bishops in the early church? Where is that male dominates? Again I hope we don't conclude that this God isn't male bias!!!

Richard Amiel McGough

06-17-2011, 12:20 PM

Sorry, Richard,

I don't like that type of game, so, I was not intending to draw you into one.

The verse that I was contemplating was;

II Tim. 1:9;
Who hath saved us and called (us) with a holy calling,
not according to our works,
but, according to his own
purpose (prothesin) and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (pros chronOn aiOniOn).

During the ages, His will is contested every day, and over-ruled by the "free will" of man.....but.....His purpose (his before-placing), and His grace which were given to us before the age times began cannot be thwarted by anything. That is, in my opinion, an example of His sovereignty, as the All Mighty God.

Joel
OK - it seems that by "absolutely sovereignty" you mean that God will accomplish what he intends "in the end" even though folks right now are able to do things contrary to his will. That makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't sound anything like the Calvinist doctrine that says God's sovereignty implies that he ordains "whatsoever comes to pass."

joel

06-17-2011, 12:40 PM

it seems that by "absolutely sovereignty" you mean that God will accomplish what he intends "in the end" even though folks right now are able to do things contrary to his will. That makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't sound anything like the Calvinist doctrine that says God's sovereignty implies that he ordains "whatsoever comes to pass."

Exactly.

Joel

Rose

06-18-2011, 09:46 AM

.
In the Law of Moses, given by the God of the Bible a man may give his wife a bill of divorce if he is dissatisfied with her, but the same is NOT true if a wife finds dissatisfaction with her husband. There was no voice given to the woman who suffers abuse at the hands of her husband, because she had no say over her own life. This typifies the treatment of women in most dominator societies and the authors of the Bible were no different.
Deut. 24:1-2 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Once again I have pointed out the double standard that is prevalent throughout the entire Bible (mostly in the Old Testament) with issues pertaining to women.

Men could choose their wives/ women were sold to men for wives
Men could have multiple wives and concubines/ women could have one husband
Men could divorce their wives at will/ women were divorced by men
Men could marry virgins they raped/ women were sold to their abuser

In the Bible women were considered property, which gave the man the right to buy and sell them at will. This once again confirms the fact that the 'God-given' hierarchical order of the Bible is one of inequality, creating a system that favors one gender over the other, thus establishing an imbalance found nowhere else in the animal-kingdom. The only place in all of the animal-kingdom that male suppression of the female is found is in the human species where the male dominates and oppresses the female keeping her from realizing her full potential. The Bible actually establishes this domination of women as a 'God-given' rule of the hierarchical order of the Hebrew society, proving the innate inequality and imbalance of that system.

Rose

Rose

06-18-2011, 02:08 PM

.
According to the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy, the reason the woman is put under the authority of the man, is because Eve was deceived by the Snake. For that reason, and that reason alone all women from "The Garden" till now bear that curse in their femininity. Meaning, that woman are placed in subjugation under the man solely because of gender…not because of lack of intellect, not because of lack of ability, not for any reason other than the fact of being female! Now that’s pretty bad!
1 Tim. 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Would any person ever dream of punishing every male or female on the planet, because an individual man or woman committed a crime? Of course not! But, that is exactly what the God of the Bible is portrayed as doing. The ONLY reason ever given throughout the entire Bible for the hierarchical order of male headship is the one I just cited (Eve’s transgression), and that is the lame excuse Christian men have used for centuries to keep women from sharing equal rights with them. It truly is a shameful thing.

Rose

Rose

06-19-2011, 08:25 PM

.
Of course the bias continues big time in the New Testament, despite the fact that the teachings of Jesus are for the most part extremely egalitarian. The Apostle Paul is the culprit for most of the bias against women, but the Apostle Peter also plays a significant part even though only two book are attributed to him verses 14 for Paul.

According to Paul a woman is nothing without the man, for she is his glory, and came from the man and was created for the man. With teachings like that is it any wonder that Christian women have had to struggle so hard to get an equal standing with men.

1Cor.11:3-10 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God….But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
But, only the tip of the proverbial iceberg has been touched. The egregious bias continues in 1Timothy where Paul sets forth the standard for proper conduct of the woman that is solely based on gender…no such standard is set forth for men. A woman who is widowed can only be taken in by the Church IF she has been the wife of one man, and IF she has lodged strangers, and washed the feet of the saints, IF she has relieved the afflicted and diligently followed every good work. Then Paul goes into a tirade against young widows, refusing them support from the Church, commanding that marry and bear children, otherwise they will become idle, wandering from house to house, tattlers, busybodies, and ultimately turning to Satan. Wow, what a load of male chauvinism…funny thing is the same standard does not apply to men.

1Tim.5:9- Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.
It is very apparent that the teachings of Paul concerning women directly paralleled many of the traditions practiced by the surrounding cultures, once again pointing to the fact that the words of Paul were not 'God-given', but rather a direct reflection of the customs and traditions of the time.

Rose

Rose

06-22-2011, 09:54 AM

.
The book of Numbers gives another good example of the status of women as 'property' in the eyes of the Hebrew culture, which was in keeping with the customs of their surrounding pagan neighbors.

The verses below highlight the fact that the Israelites under 'Gods' command, were doing exactly what their pagan neighbors did. When a battle was fought and war 'booty' was taken, the virgin women were counted as 'booty' to be divided up amongst the men along with the livestock.

Numbers 31:30-31 & 35 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses…..And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
Does anyone not see the picture these verses are painting? The supposed hierarchical order given to the Hebrews by their warrior god, Yahweh is no different from any of the other Dominator societies – perhaps worse. So, what makes a Christian believe that this 'God' of the Bible who bases his hierarchical order solely on gender is real, and not the mythical imaginings of ancient minds?

Rose

debz

11-22-2011, 01:00 AM

When confronted with another equally hideous Mosaic Law issue (divorce for any reason by the husband), Jesus responded, "Moses permitted this because your hearts were hard...but it was not this way from the beginning..." (Mt 19:3-9). He did not affirm that any of this was "OK," but rather pointed back to God's original intent...in the beginning. In the beginning, contrary to most traditionalist teaching, God did not "command" that men "rule over" women (Gen 3:16). This was a prophecy[I], not a command: this was Him saying, "Now that you have chosen to be separated from my perfect will, unfortunately these are the things you will have to endure...woman, your 'desire' will be for your husband (not a good translation--should read, "you will be 'turning to' your husband (as in for leadership from him instead of from Me directly, as it should be), and as a result, he will rule over you." It does not say "he SHALL rule over you," as O.T. command language usually reads--it says he "will." This was all a prophecy of how it was going to be now, unfortunately, because of their choice to disobey...it was not a command for all time!

It's important to know God's original intent for marriage, and what was [I]actually said:

Gen 1:26-28
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." NIV

This is the first passage on the creation of 'man,' which in Hebrew is the word 'adam' and here refers to 'humankind.' The important thing to note is that it is NOT just the 'male' that is created in God’s image—He created THEM, male and female, in His image and blessed THEM and told THEM to be fruitful and rule over everything—together. God is calling them both, male and female, 'adam' at this time. I personally believe this is the creation in the spirit realm (yet every bit as real as the physical realm), as Gen 2 is where Adam/male and Eve/female are formed in body. So let’s look at what precedes Eve being formed:

Gen 2:18: 'The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

The first thing to note is what God said was 'not good'—man being alone. He didn’t say, 'it’s not good that Adam has all this work to do by himself, he needs someone to assist him with this, someone to delegate to…' or anything like that (remember He had commissioned them both to rule/reign in Gen 1). It was Adam’s aloneness—his lack of fellowship with someone like himself that God called 'not good,' so God said He’d make a 'helper suitable' or a 'helper comparable.'

There are several Hebrew words used in the O.T. that translate in English as 'helper.' The one used here is 'ezer'— ezer is a very strong word used 21 times in scripture, 20 of which refer to God's own help in our lives. The one time it is used to refer to human help, it's in the context of having help in times of trouble, especially when needing deliverance from one's enemies—in other words, this 'help' is coming from someone stronger and more able to help us than ourselves—are we to assume God is in subjection to us because He's described as our Helper? How about the Holy Spirit, who is The Helper, the Comforter…is He 'under' us in authority??

One often overlooked method of Bible study that gives better understanding to what the text is saying is to look up which words were not used. For example, there are several other words translated 'help' in the Old Testament that are more close to the meaning of 'helper" as in a personal assistant, to just "help" with whatever needs done under the guidance of another. If God had meant for the wife to be a 'helper' in this sense, the writer of Genesis would have used one of those words, but He did not.

The 'helper' God was making was also described as 'suitable' which is the Hebrew word neged and also translated 'comparable.' Neged means "to stand boldly out opposite; eye to eye; nose to nose; chest to chest; knee to knee; etc." This balances out the 'eger' help she was to be (help that comes from someone stronger than you) and shows specifically they were on equal standing--woman wasn't to be man's mother and dominate him, but neither was she to be his child to be dominated by him--she was to be his wife, and one with him. There was never a hierarchy from the beginning. If any argument for hierarchy could be made, we could say that God created things in ascending order of complexity in design and intelligence: water --> plants --> fish/birds --> animals --> Adam --> and finally, the crown of creation, the best He could do: EVE!! But we all know that's a ridiculous argument! They were EQUAL under God as far as authority, but differently created as to function. There is no indication otherwise, except where people have presumed something that is not there.

So God makes Eve from one of Adam’s ribs/sides—which is why he declares 'bone of my bones'—and another picture of equality. Then immediately the Scriptures tell us:

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.' Gen 2:24

'For this reason….' What is the reason? Because they were 'one flesh' in Adam before Eve was taken out of him and now the man is instructed to 'cleave' (adhere tightly to/BOND) to his wife to become as one again. Remember, in Gen 1 they were created in God’s image, male and female—it was as if the substance of God’s image was all just in Adam until the female part was removed (remember, God is Spirit, not flesh). When Eve was made, the image of God was not added to or subtracted from. It was divided into male and female. Yet they were one. Think of it as God’s image being purple, and Adam and Eve then divide to become blue and pink. It is only by their coming together, uniting 'as one' that they then reflect His full image again (blue + pink = purple). Note that it doesn’t say the female is to leave her parents and be joined to the male, but vice versa—and that’s for a reason: The male could forever then use that as his 'God-ordained' reason for the woman to be subjugated to him. But nor does this mean that the woman is to have 'authority over' the man—the two are to be ONE.

Eph 5:28,33 (translated according to Vincent's Word Studies) says: "so husbands ought to love their wives since they are their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself…nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his wife as being his very self"

Also, Gen 2:24 is repeated FOUR TIMES in scripture! (Gen 2; Matt 19; Mark10; Eph 5) When a word is mentioned once in the bible, we need to take special note. When it is mentioned four times, it becomes a red-flag alert! God wants us to pay very special attention!!

Marriage was never supposed to be about who is in control or who serves who…it is about becoming one. But a married couple cannot enjoy this deep level of oneness if the man views the woman as an inferior person in any way.

Next we see in Genesis 3 the temptation and fall. The temptation was to be 'like God' (Gen 3:5). Eve was deceived by the serpent and when confronted by God she acknowledged this, repenting of the sin: 'the serpent deceived me' (vs 13)—she spoke the truth of what happened. Adam, however, willfully indulged in this sin, deliberately disobeying the command God gave him not to eat of the tree. When confronted by God, he didn’t repent as Eve did—instead, he shifted the blame to both Eve and God: 'the woman YOU gave me…she gave me some fruit and I ate it' (vs 12). Adam never repents of his desire to be 'as God.' So what must have been the inevitable result of continuing to indulge that desire? Adam & Eve were already both given equal dominion over all the earth; so Adam, in his desire to be 'as God,' had no one else to be 'as God' to, but to Eve. Therefore, he would desire to extend his dominion by subjugating Eve to his rule. And this is what God addresses when he is pronouncing the curse and what will now happen to them as a result of their disobedience in Gen 3:16:

'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."

This is not a command from God as to how He wants the marriage relationship to be! This is part of the curse Jesus redeems us from!!! It is a prophecy of what’s going to happen now and not how He originally intended the relationship to be. It is Him saying to the woman, 'because you and Adam sinned, now one of the bad things that will happen is you will be turning to*/desiring your husband instead of Me, and as a result, he will take advantage of that in you and he will rule over you.' (Note: 'he will rule over you' instead of 'he shall rule over you' … 'Shall' was the O.T. terminology for commands from God; e.g. 'Thou shall not steal…')

*The word "desire" as used here is wrongly translated in the English versions. The Hebrew word teshuqa is is best translated as "turning". Because of how the word is translated in other passages, the verse should read: "Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee." Eve is "turning" from God, and He warns her that if she does that, she will bring herself under the dominion of Adam.

Even if it could be translated as 'desire' in the sense of affectionate desire, one Bible scholar states this: "There is therefore ground for the opinion that the author in this passage [gen 3:16] intended to make Jehovah say that the very tenderness of the woman for the husband would enable him to make and keep her his inferior."

We have to recognize that Eve's subordination to man did not occur at her creation--it occurred here; it was a consequence of their sin. God's original plan was not that women be oppressed and "ruled over." In some cases the church has taught that Eve's curse was God's ultimate will for her: like, "From now on, because of Eve's deception, women must be ruled by men as a form of punishment, or everlasting consequence of Eve’s sin. But this isn't God's intention--it is simply the consequence of disobedience APART FROM redemption! It’s actually an affront to the atonement Jesus gave to believe this—as if He gave His life to redeem us all from all sin, but somehow that didn’t cover Eve’s sin? Somehow women everywhere are destined to be ruled by their husbands because that part just wasn’t covered in the atonement?! It’s a ridiculous assumption.

Adam was told that he would have to toil by the sweat of his brow in the fields because the ground was now cursed. This refers to a curse of poverty--not a curse that he'd now have to work, because he was already given meaningful, purposeful work when he was placed in the garden. It's a curse of tragic economic depravity that rules every pagan culture. But we don't use this verse to teach that abject poverty is God's perfect will for men any more than we believe that because of verses 17-19, all males should have agricultural occupations.

The curse of poverty on man--along with the curse of oppression on women--was reversed because of the grace that was released into the world by the finished work of the Savior's cross. God's plan to draw all of his fallen creatures back into fellowship with Him through Jesus includes the strategy to restore both men and women to a place of rulership that the first couple enjoyed before the fall. Through the cross, women overcome the curse, and they can once again eat from the Tree of Life. It is at the Tree of Life, the place of restored relationship and intimate communion with our heavenly Father, that we find woman's ultimate calling. Yet we have tried to define a woman's destiny by the act of disobedience that occurred at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God has offered woman redemption through the cross and deliverance from the curse of sin--yet our tendency is to continue to blame Eve for her deception.

One more note on this passage. Gen 3:17 says: '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…' Some people try to imply from this verse that Adam’s sin was in 'listening to his wife,' because he was supposed to be the leader and make the decisions. This cannot be true. If the serpent would have spoken directly to Adam instead of Eve, the verse would read, 'because you listened to the serpent and ate from the tree…' The issue is not the listening, it is the eating of the fruit that God had directly forbidden him to do! He never forbade Adam from listening to his wife, but He DID forbid him from eating from that tree. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, and God doesn’t change, and if God had meant that the sin was in listening to his wife, we would never find in other O.T. passages how God commanded the husband (Abraham) to listen to the wife (Sarah)!

Gen 21:12
12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

Actually, the word 'listen' in that verse is most often interpreted as 'obey'! We could build a doctrine that the husband is to obey the wife just as easily from this one verse as others have on that one in Genesis!

There is another popular argument used to support the idea that God established Adam’s authority over Eve from the beginning. It states that 'to name someone or something in ancient times implied having authority over the one named.' But assuming that Adam had authority over Eve simply because he named her and that’s what the 'ancient practice' meant is faulty logic and certainly not following sound interpretation practices. In fact, it’s conjecture bordering on 'adding to the Word of God.' How could there possibly be an 'ancient custom' in place when they were the first created beings?! The custom did not precede the first instance! Adam didn’t name Eve because this was the established practice/custom of his day—he was the first to do this!! And just because he did in no way implies having 'authority over' her.

In fact, in the entire Old Testament, there is NOTHING supporting male 'headship' as in the husband is in a higher position of authority over his wife. There are, however, a few cases supporting the husband deferring to his wife or the wife 'disobeying' her husband’s wishes and being commended for it! But the fact is, God doesn’t want them in any kind of hierarchy—they are to be 'one'—which is on the same level—different functions and different predisposed masculine and feminine tendencies and roles, but never one 'above' the other in any way as far as authority.

Charisma

11-22-2011, 04:20 AM

Hi all,

Great post, debz. Really enjoyed it, especially:

'The 'helper' God was making was also described as 'suitable' which is the Hebrew word neged and also translated 'comparable.' Neged means "to stand boldly out opposite; eye to eye; nose to nose; chest to chest; knee to knee; etc." '

A very big Amen to all that you shared.

A great deal of confusion today arises because fallen women are trying to be like fallen men, rather than trying to be like redeemed women, who fit naturally and effectively in relationships with redeemed men.

heb13-13

11-22-2011, 06:28 AM

Hi Debz,

Excellent post.

When confronted with another equally hideous Mosaic Law issue (divorce for any reason by the husband), Jesus responded, "Moses permitted this because your hearts were hard...but it was not this way from the beginning..." (Mt 19:3-9). He did not affirm that any of this was "OK," but rather pointed back to God's original intent...in the beginning. In the beginning, contrary to most traditionalist teaching, God did not "command" that men "rule over" women (Gen 3:16). This was a [I]prophecy[I], not a command: this was Him saying, "Now that you have chosen to be separated from my perfect will, unfortunately these are the things you will have to endure...woman, your 'desire' will be for your husband (not a good translation--should read, "you will be 'turning to' your husband (as in for leadership from him instead of from Me directly, as it should be), and as a result, he will rule over you." It does not say "he SHALL rule over you," as O.T. command language usually reads--it says he "will." This was all a prophecy of how it was going to be now, unfortunately, because of their choice to disobey...it was not a command for all time!

I woke up today to your post and it brought a huge smile to my face. This is the same understanding my wife and I have always had about our marriage in the Lord and the scriptures. Jesus Christ really is the "Magna Carta" of women. He brings liberty not only to the woman but also to the man. Liberty to trust, share, love and work together for the glory of God.

Rick

Rose

11-22-2011, 09:57 AM

Rose

11-22-2011, 11:10 AM

Eph 5:28,33 (translated according to Vincent's Word Studies) says: "so husbands ought to love their wives since they are their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself…nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his wife as being his very self"

Also, Gen 2:24 is repeated FOUR TIMES in scripture! (Gen 2; Matt 19; Mark10; Eph 5) When a word is mentioned once in the bible, we need to take special note. When it is mentioned four times, it becomes a red-flag alert! God wants us to pay very special attention!!

Marriage was never supposed to be about who is in control or who serves who…it is about becoming one. But a married couple cannot enjoy this deep level of oneness if the man views the woman as an inferior person in any way.

Hi Debz

Have you ever wondered why the husband had to be told "he ought to love his wife"? If as Paul says: the man's place is to be in the position of headship over the wife, why should he have to be told to love her? To qualify for a position of leadership shouldn't one already possess the qualities of leadership before one is given the position? But as we know in the case of the Bible authority is given based solely on ones gender, it has nothing to do with qualifications.

Another question I've thought about goes back to the Garden story...doesn't it seem a bit odd that Adam who followed the woman's lead in eating of the fruit when he knew Yahweh had told him not to was the one who was given a position of leadership? It appears Yahweh is not a good judge of character, putting someone who is easily influenced in a position of leadership and giving blanket ruler-ship based on gender. :confused:

Just some things to ponder :pop2:

Rose

Charisma

11-22-2011, 11:22 AM

Hi Rose,

the way the actions of Yahweh are portrayed in the Bible is directly in keeping with the way the male bronze age mind thought This is an astonishing statement!

How could you possibly know what the general mindset of bronze age males was?

Have you ever wondered why the husband had to be told "he ought to love his wife" Paul the apostle, and Paul Washer's cryptic (but genuinely sincere and deadly serious) answer would be - God is saying 'you know how to love yourself! Now go and love others that way!'

Of course, loving one's wife is a whole different ball of wax, and neither Paul the apostle or Paul Washer are in any doubt about that. This instruction is a direction to embrace the cross, and love someone selflessly and unconditionally in the way Christ loved the Church by dying for her. Who wouldn't find this a major challenge?

Be honest. We are not without our own faults, sisters. :)

debz

11-22-2011, 12:32 PM

Hi Debz

Have you ever wondered why the husband had to be told "he ought to love his wife"? If as Paul says: the man's place is to be in the position of headship over the wife, why should he have to be told to love her? To qualify for a position of leadership shouldn't one already possess the qualities of leadership before one is given the position? But as we know in the case of the Bible authority is given based solely on ones gender, it has nothing to do with qualifications.

Another question I've thought about goes back to the Garden story...doesn't it seem a bit odd that Adam who followed the woman's lead in eating of the fruit when he knew Yahweh had told him not to was the one who was given a position of leadership? It appears Yahweh is not a good judge of character, putting someone who is easily influenced in a position of leadership and giving blanket ruler-ship based on gender. :confused:

Just some things to ponder :pop2:

Rose

Thanks, Rose...although from your responses I am not sure you understood what I was saying in my post. The teaching on male "headship" and "authority over women" is SO prevalent in the church, sometimes we can't even see that this is not actually what the Bible teaches--which is what I was trying to show. I was saying God did NOT give Adam a position of leadership "over" Eve, despite the popular belief. Same with Paul and "headship."

Eph 5:23-24: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Many men have read this to say something like, 'For the husband is the boss of the wife as Christ is the boss of the church.' And that supports their sinful desires to be 'as God to,' to control the relationship, to assure their self-interests will always win out, etc. But it cannot mean that and keep with the rest of Jesus' teachings ("do not call anyone lord or master, for One is your master"). Once again we have to also look at which words were NOT used here—and although there are several Greek words that could have been chosen that have the clear meaning of 'chief' (as in boss), or 'governing authority,' 'leader,' 'lord,' or 'master,' NONE of these words was used. So we have to see which meaning best fits with the concepts being taught, and which are also in agreement with the rest of Scripture.

The word 'head' (kephale) as Paul intended here can be likened to the 'head of a river'—it is not the boss of the river, but it is the river’s 'source.' This also keeps with the Greek culture’s belief at the time this was written of the head of the body being the 'life source,' or having a supportive, life-giving role to the physical body. This is why the verses also affirm Christ’s role to the church—they are not referring to His Lordship (they could have chosen that word, but didn’t)—they are referring to His role as the 'life giving support' and "source of Life" of the Church. And as the church submits to Christ (is built upon, arranging herself after and responding to that Life source), so the wife responds to the life-giving efforts of her husband. Husbands can be a source of life or a source of death to their wives—and how he treats her will also be reflected through her attitude in their home, even extending to the children. Sources of life build-up, support, tenderly care and provide for, and help them attain their best and highest. This is why it goes on to show Christ’s role in helping the church become 'without spot or blemish'—He is helping her attain her best and highest. Sources of death expect subordination, want to be served and honored, want to 'lord over' others, criticize, neglect, etc., and end up sucking the life out of their wives. The reference to Christ is the relationship of Him to His Bride, to whom He says 'come up here,' 'sit with me in high places,' 'become one with me,'—it is not a reference to His lordship, of which He is Lord of ALL—He is woman’s Lord individually every bit as He is man’s Lord individually—she is to obey HIM alone as Lord, but not her husband as Lord. If read properly, these verses speak of the union God desires of 'oneness' between husband and wife, not of one ruling over the other.

Another little thing to note in the Eph 5:24 passage is that the word 'should' is not in the original text and therefore changes the meaning. The literal translation says this: 'Therefore as the church submits to Christ, so do wives to husbands in every way.' Or, if properly translated, 'as the church responds to Christ’s life-giving support, so do wives respond positively to their husbands in every way.' 1 John 4:19 says, 'We love because He first loved us' – it is this same concept that is reflected here. Husbands, love your wives, and in response to that you’ll be loved and respected back. Makes much more sense and fits in with the rest of Jesus’ teachings this way, but it’s a hard one to swallow for self-centered men who want the preeminence (no matter how much they claim to be 'loving, servant-leaders').

The only leadership supported in the Bible between husband and wife is for the man to go first. Be the first one to love. Be the first one to serve. Be the first one to lay down your life. Then the wife responds in kind, with respect because they deserve respect. Masculinity includes being an initiator, and femininity includes being a responder—women will respond to whatever men initiate, whether positive or negative. Husbands can be life-givers, or a source of death, and women will respond, reflecting whatever their 'source' is delivering. There is no hierarchy despite the passages that seem to say so. However, it takes humility and a real desire to know the truth on this to actually 'get it.' So many men and women don’t get it and that’s why there are so many problems with 'Christian' marriages.

Rose

11-22-2011, 05:02 PM

Thanks, Rose...although from your responses I am not sure you understood what I was saying in my post. The teaching on male "headship" and "authority over women" is SO prevalent in the church, sometimes we can't even see that this is not actually what the Bible teaches--which is what I was trying to show. I was saying God did NOT give Adam a position of leadership "over" Eve, despite the popular belief. Same with Paul and "headship."

Eph 5:23-24: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Hi Debz,

I did understand what you were saying, but sad to say I cannot agree...the Bible most definitely DOES teach male headship! I wish it were only that simple as to change the meaning of a few words having to do with male headship to make everything nice and equal, but alas Scripture is filled from beginning to end with male bias against women and there is no getting around it by tweaking a few words. From its first pages the Bible is written through male eyes and their desire to control women, so if one is to believe that it was inspired by 'God' then one must also believe that the 'God' of the Bible is a misogynistic male warrior named Yahweh.

It would have been very easy for Yahweh to have inspired his word in such a manner as to have no ambiguity about female equality if that is what was intended. Women can't have their cake and eat it too! If they want to believe the Bible was inspired by Yahweh then they are going to have to accept that he is a misogynistic god who believes that males are superior to females. I choose to view the Bible as an historical book giving great insight into the mind of Bronze Age man.

The only leadership supported in the Bible between husband and wife is for the man to go first. Be the first one to love. Be the first one to serve. Be the first one to lay down your life. Then the wife responds in kind, with respect because they deserve respect. Masculinity includes being an initiator, and femininity includes being a responder—women will respond to whatever men initiate, whether positive or negative. Husbands can be life-givers, or a source of death, and women will respond, reflecting whatever their 'source' is delivering. There is no hierarchy despite the passages that seem to say so. However, it takes humility and a real desire to know the truth on this to actually 'get it.' So many men and women don’t get it and that’s why there are so many problems with 'Christian' marriages.

I don't know where you got the idea of men being the initiators and women being the responders...I see both qualities manifest in men and women. Male and Females are both perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, take a look at the animal kingdom; the female of the species raises the young, hunts for herself and her young usually without the help of the male. It is a totally male/man imposed idea that women somehow cannot make it without the leadership of a male, but that is not to say that working together as a family unit doesn't benefit both the man and woman greatly. The marriages that work are the ones where both partners equally respect the intelligence and integrity of the other.

All the Best,
Rose

debz

11-22-2011, 06:41 PM

Hi Debz,

I did understand what you were saying, but sad to say I cannot agree...the Bible most definitely DOES teach male headship! I wish it were only that simple as to change the meaning of a few words having to do with male headship to make everything nice and equal, but alas Scripture is filled from beginning to end with male bias against women and there is no getting around it by tweaking a few words. From its first pages the Bible is written through male eyes and their desire to control women, so if one is to believe that it was inspired by 'God' then one must also believe that the 'God' of the Bible is a misogynistic male warrior named Yahweh.

It would have been very easy for Yahweh to have inspired his word in such a manner as to have no ambiguity about female equality if that is what was intended. Women can't have their cake and eat it too! If they want to believe the Bible was inspired by Yahweh then they are going to have to accept that he is a misogynistic god who believes that males are superior to females. I choose to view the Bible as an historical book giving great insight into the mind of Bronze Age man.

I don't know where you got the idea of men being the initiators and women being the responders...I see both qualities manifest in men and women. Male and Females are both perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, take a look at the animal kingdom; the female of the species raises the young, hunts for herself and her young usually without the help of the male. It is a totally male/man imposed idea that women somehow cannot make it without the leadership of a male, but that is not to say that working together as a family unit doesn't benefit both the man and woman greatly. The marriages that work are the ones where both partners equally respect the intelligence and integrity of the other.

All the Best,
Rose

Rose, I do understand how it looks that way--I believed the same thing for the first 30 years of my Christian life, and would adamantly defend that position. When I first heard people teaching this, I thought the same thing: "You can't twist the words to make it be something you want it to be..." It wasn't until about 10 years ago I really started researching it in depth--I mean, I read everything written on both sides of the argument (egalitarian/complementarian), and in between. In the end I reached the conclusion that they were both wrong, and both right in some ways. It's a shame it isn't more clear, but I also believe that is the result of mistranslations from the scribes over the years--and didn't you just post Dr. Ehrman on another post proclaiming the very same thing? Could not this be the result of MALE scribes and kings who believed it should be this way, therefore had a bias in the translations? It really was not what God intended--and there really are some clear things right beneath the mistranslations that anyone with a concordance can discover.

As for the idea that males are initiators, women responders...I didn't make that clear enough. Because yes, obviously there are many instances where sometimes men are more passive and not comfortable initiating. And yes, women are perfectly able of taking care of themselves--I was a single mom with a disabled son for 7 years, ran a business, went to school, led ministries and owned my own home, so I understand that! What I should have said was the Bible instructs them to be initiators, and when they initiate positively, women will respond positively. For example, the "leave and cleave" passage is given to the husband only -- for a reason -- the wife will respond in kind, but the instruction is given only to the husband. Also, only the husband is instructed to agape love in the marriage relationship -- for a reason. Not that the wife won't agape love too, but she is never instructed to specifically "agape" her husband. It is in this sense alone that men are instructed to "lead": in going first, but never as having "authority over." The wife is never instructed to "obey," although that word could have been clearly chosen by Paul, as he used it in other places--"hupotasso" is the word for "submit" and it is used for all Christians in how they should relate to each other. In Eph 5:22, the famous "wives, submit to your husbands..." the word "submit" isn't even in that verse! It only makes sense when it's pulled from Eph 5:21 -- submit to each other: wives, to your husbands...and husbands...lay down your lives for your wives..." (husbands actually have a "stricter" instruction in this!).

Same with "master of the house" -- in the NT the only reference to this describes a WIFE, not a husband!

1 Tim 5:14 says: '14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.' Some translations say 'guide the home.' Either way, they are not being honest in their translation of the word for 'manage their homes.' The word is oikodespoteo, and in the Greek it means (copied from Strong’s): 'from NT:3617; to be the head of (i.e. rule) a family'

NT:3617 is oikodespotes: 'from NT:3624 and NT:1203; the head of a family/master of the house'; NT:3624 = house and NT:1203 = 'despotes': 'an absolute ruler/despot'

However, since the translators could not imagine a wife having such 'power,' they had to water that down to fit their preconceived notions. Again, Paul could have used the Greek word oikonomeo –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house'—which would fit more with the translators ideas, but he didn’t! (There are several other instances of similar 'watered down' translations when it comes to describing women apostles, pastors/leaders, etc.—like Phoebe described as a 'servant' when the same word, applied to men, is interpreted as pastor/teacher/leader of the church.)

But that's OK...you don't have to agree with me. ;) I resisted this plenty myself for years. If ever you might have an inkling to examine this again, I recommend "God's Word to Women" by Katherine C. Bushnell, a medical doctor and advanced Hebrew and Greek scholar in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Amazing woman--did much for mistreated women in her day, including a home that housed 5000 abandoned woman, and exposing Indian government's control of prostitution. She does the most thorough job, IMO, of really showing what the Bible teaches--if translated properly--and shows that God is really not the misogynist He has been portrayed to be. Quite the opposite. He can't be. He is Love.

Rose

11-22-2011, 10:19 PM

Rose, I do understand how it looks that way--I believed the same thing for the first 30 years of my Christian life, and would adamantly defend that position. When I first heard people teaching this, I thought the same thing: "You can't twist the words to make it be something you want it to be..." It wasn't until about 10 years ago I really started researching it in depth--I mean, I read everything written on both sides of the argument (egalitarian/complementarian), and in between. In the end I reached the conclusion that they were both wrong, and both right in some ways. It's a shame it isn't more clear, but I also believe that is the result of mistranslations from the scribes over the years--and didn't you just post Dr. Ehrman on another post proclaiming the very same thing? Could not this be the result of MALE scribes and kings who believed it should be this way, therefore had a bias in the translations? It really was not what God intended--and there really are some clear things right beneath the mistranslations that anyone with a concordance can discover.

Hi Debz,

Up until a couple years ago my solution to the male bias of the Bible was to try and explain it away or simply ignore it, then I became a freethinker and ask myself the question 'why do I believe the Bible is the word of god?'. If the Bible was truly god’s word why wasn’t he able to make his views clear and unambiguous, and why did I have to keep making excuses for Yahweh’s bad morals. Time and time again I would say to myself why does it seem like my morals are better than the god of the Bible? Slowly but surely I began to see that I had no solid reasons for why I believed the Bible was the word of god, it was just that given the culture I grew up in there was no other book to map my innate concept of god onto.

The Bible is so full of errors and flaws that I see no reason that could possible justify a person in this modern day to believe in it except ignorance, and I include myself in that statement. Does it not seem strange that Christians have to continually make excuses for why there are no original translations, or that Scribes may have made mistakes or copy errors. If the Bible truly was the inspired word of the creator of the universe shouldn’t we at least have an original, reliable, unambiguous translation?

All the Best,
Rose

CWH

11-23-2011, 11:04 AM

The Bible is so full of errors and flaws that I see no reason that could possible justify a person in this modern day to believe in it except ignorance, and I include myself in that statement. Does it not seem strange that Christians have to continually make excuses for why there are no original translations, or that Scribes may have made mistakes or copy errors. If the Bible truly was the inspired word of the creator of the universe shouldn’t we at least have an original, reliable, unambiguous translation?

That is what I have been saying a thousand times. It's the same as asking why didn't God gave us a complete book of Physics and Mathematics so that men need not have to waste time to do research and test hypothesis to discover the truth about physics and mathematics. Might as well let God spoon-feed us in everything! The main purpose why the Bible is made ambiguous and the reason why Jesus spoke in parables and symbolically is so that we are forced to do research and study God's words diligently. Forcing us to study to know Him more forces us to continue to keep the faith whilst gaining knowledge about God. Such faith and perseverence in seeking to know more about God helps to prevent us from being ensnare by Satan. Ask yourself, what is the point of study if the teacher were to give the correct answers to every questions instead of letting the students gain more knowledge, insight and understanding through active diligent research and experiential learning.

May God give us the diligence in seeking His wisdom.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

11-23-2011, 11:15 AM

That is what I have been saying a thousand times. It's the same as asking why didn't God gave us a complete book of Physics and Mathematics so that men need not have to waste time to do research and test hypothesis to discover the truth about physics and mathematics. Might as well let God spoon-feed us in everything! The main purpose why the Bible is made ambiguous and the reason why Jesus spoke in parables and symbolically is so that we are forced to do research and study God's words diligently. Forcing us to study to know Him more forces us to continue to keep the faith whilst gaining knowledge about God. Such faith and perseverence in seeking to know more about God helps to prevent us from being ensnare by Satan. Ask yourself, what is the point of study if the teacher were to give the correct answers to every questions instead of letting the students gain more knowledge, insight and understanding through active diligent research and experiential learning.

May God give us the diligence in seeking His wisdom.:pray:
Hey there my friend, :yo:

I gave a similar explanation when I was a Christian. And it may be true. But I think I see a problem. You said "Such faith and perseverence in seeking to know more about God helps to prevent us from being ensnare by Satan." I think exactly the opposite has happened. The Bible is so ambiguous that men have used it to oppress woman, have slaves, go to war, Crusades, Inquistion, burn people at the stake, and ten thousand other horrors. And there are ten thousand different religions all calling themselves "Christian" who fight with each other and often condemn each other as heretics destined for hell. I think God would have done better just to plainly state what he meant.

And there's another problem - your solution denies the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

And one other problem - if your solution is true, then the Bible really is nothing like a guidebook that teaches us God's Ways. It means we are really all on our own as if we had no Word from God. We just gotta figure things out for ourselves.

I would be very interested to know what our other Christian friends on this forum think about your solution.

All the very best,

Richard

CWH

11-23-2011, 08:33 PM

[QUOTE=RAM;37605]Hey there my friend, :yo:
I gave a similar explanation when I was a Christian. And it may be true. But I think I see a problem. You said "Such faith and perseverence in seeking to know more about God helps to prevent us from being ensnare by Satan." I think exactly the opposite has happened. The Bible is so ambiguous that men have used it to oppress woman, have slaves, go to war, Crusades, Inquistion, burn people at the stake, and ten thousand other horrors. And there are ten thousand different religions all calling themselves "Christian" who fight with each other and often condemn each other as heretics destined for hell. I think God would have done better just to plainly state what he meant.
You seems to blame all these atrocities on God. Many such as crusades, inquisition etc, were made by men who misinterpreted the scriptures or were over-zealous and thinking what they were doing were good just like Saul (Paul) persecuting the Christians. There were people making use of religion for their own agendas such as the terrorists. Many passages in the Bible were caused by men unknowingly doing selfish wicked things. I know there are several passages that God ordered atrocities but these are just ways to punish evil people with the plan to forgive their evil doings. Remember God would want everybody to be saved if possible (2Peter 3).

And there's another problem - your solution denies the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

And one other problem - if your solution is true, then the Bible really is nothing like a guidebook that teaches us God's Ways. It means we are really all on our own as if we had no Word from God. We just gotta figure things out for ourselves.
I have given examples before and I guess it fell on deaf ears. If a teacher were to give a difficult and ambiguous exam question and let every student figure it out and answers based on the fundamentals that were taught to the students, those student faithful in their studies and focused and diligent enough would be able to figure it out and give the correct answer. However, those student who are not faithful, focused or diligent enough to study and understand the fundamentals that were taught will most likely misinterpret the question and give the wrong answers. Now who is to blame? ....the teacher who is testing the students' faith, understanding and diligence in searching for the true answers using what was taught or the students who misinterpreted the question based on their lack of faith in understanding the fundamentals that were taught and their lack of focus and diligence in seeking the true answers?

May God grant us the correct answers to His will. Amen. :pray:

Rose

12-06-2011, 10:11 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-06-2011, 11:11 PM

Hey there my friend, :yo:
I gave a similar explanation when I was a Christian. And it may be true. But I think I see a problem. You said "Such faith and perseverence in seeking to know more about God helps to prevent us from being ensnare by Satan." I think exactly the opposite has happened. The Bible is so ambiguous that men have used it to oppress woman, have slaves, go to war, Crusades, Inquistion, burn people at the stake, and ten thousand other horrors. And there are ten thousand different religions all calling themselves "Christian" who fight with each other and often condemn each other as heretics destined for hell. I think God would have done better just to plainly state what he meant.
You seems to blame all these atrocities on God. Many such as crusades, inquisition etc, were made by men who misinterpreted the scriptures or were over-zealous and thinking what they were doing were good just like Saul (Paul) persecuting the Christians. There were people making use of religion for their own agendas such as the terrorists. Many passages in the Bible were caused by men unknowingly doing selfish wicked things. I know there are several passages that God ordered atrocities but these are just ways to punish evil people with the plan to forgive their evil doings. Remember God would want everybody to be saved if possible (2Peter 3).

Hey there Cheow Wee,

I agree that many of the abominations like the Crusades and Inquisition were resulted (in part) from men misinterpreting Scriptures - but my point was that the Scriptures are so ambiguous that it allowed men to do that while claiming their interpretations were based on what the Bible actually states. I don't think your answer addresses this point.

The Bible has many passages that led people to think that slavery and oppression of women was not just OK, but actually commanded by God.

And there's another problem - your solution denies the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

And one other problem - if your solution is true, then the Bible really is nothing like a guidebook that teaches us God's Ways. It means we are really all on our own as if we had no Word from God. We just gotta figure things out for ourselves.
I have given examples before and I guess it fell on deaf ears. If a teacher were to give a difficult and ambiguous exam question and let every student figure it out and answers based on the fundamentals that were taught to the students, those student faithful in their studies and focused and diligent enough would be able to figure it out and give the correct answer. However, those student who are not faithful, focused or diligent enough to study and understand the fundamentals that were taught will most likely misinterpret the question and give the wrong answers. Now who is to blame? ....the teacher who is testing the students' faith, understanding and diligence in searching for the true answers using what was taught or the students who misinterpreted the question based on their lack of faith in understanding the fundamentals that were taught and their lack of focus and diligence in seeking the true answers?

May God grant us the correct answers to His will. Amen. :pray:

I think there is a problem with your answer. Christians do not say that the Bible is a "test" to see if people can "figure out on their own how to do right and wrong." If that were the case, what need is there for a Bible? Folks could just figure out right and wrong without it. Christians teach that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD that teaches us the "right way" but when we read it, we see that we have to figure it out for ourselves. Therefore, what good is the Bible if it doesn't teach us the right path?

heb13-13

12-06-2011, 11:18 PM

Another glaring example of the extreme male bias of the Bible is found in the story of the destruction of Sodom. When Lot offers up his two daughters to be raped by the angry mob of men, who have come for the two angels who are under his roof, Lot is not even slightly reprimanded...

Gen.19:5-8 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

but, when Lot's wife looks back, she is turned into a pillar of salt...:eek: Seems a bit imbalanced to me...:mad:

Gen.19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Rose

Hi Rose,

God does not "reprimand" everyone as soon as they transgress (like Mother Superior). But if you keep reading and watch their lives you will see what happens. Take David for example: He was responsible for Uriah's murder but later he had such turmoil in his family and Absalom turned on him and later was murdered. Many other sorrowful things happened in his family. Sometimes the reprimand that we get is great sorrow in our lives and our family's lives because of our choices. Eli and his two sons come to mind, too. The Bible shows us like no other book, life taking it's course from man's decisions (to love God or not). That is how people's lives are portrayed in many ways in the Bible, warts and all. That is what takes place in everyday, real life, too. God is not following people around, ready to jump on them. He has many ways of teaching us and one of them is "you reap what you sow". Do we reprimand people as soon as they do something bad? I don't, do you? Probably not. God wants us to grow up and mature and have no further need for a wet nurse following us around.

Lot lost his wife. Maybe Lot thought that if he was a godly man and husband in the first place none of their calamites would ever have happened. Maybe he thought that if he would have had an investment of godly fellowship with his wife then she would have been strengthened by his love and interest in her and his own faith in God. I'm sure Lot had many regrets just like all of us have. But he was not a godly man and he was full of fear and lacked faith in God. Otherwise, he would not have been so cowardly and offered his daughters up as he did. And this spirit of fear and lack of faith was in his wife's life, too. This entire family had the same spirit of fear and unbelief and they were tainted by the inhabitants of Sodom. Lot, offering up his daughters is evidence of the influence of unclean and perverted spirits. And his daughters, later displaying fear and lack of faith, slept with their father. More evidence of being affected by unclean and unholy spirits.

There is much to learn from all these lives besides perceived "male bias". We see throughout the Bible how male and female alike respond to God. Neither sex has a corner on the market of righteousness and holiness. We see the heart of men manifested in the Bible like no other book. There is neither male nor female in Jesus Christ and the best thing we can do is strengthen and encourage one another in the Lord, so that none of us end up like some of the men AND women in the Bible.

Rom 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

God bless,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

12-07-2011, 12:04 AM

Rose

12-07-2011, 12:05 AM

Hi Rose,

God does not "reprimand" everyone as soon as they transgress (like Mother Superior). But if you keep reading and watch their lives you will see what happens. Take David for example: He was responsible for Uriah's murder but later he had such turmoil in his family and Absalom turned on him and later was murdered. Many other sorrowful things happened in his family. Sometimes the reprimand that we get is great sorrow in our lives and our family's lives because of our choices. Eli and his two sons come to mind, too. The Bible shows us like no other book, life taking it's course from man's decisions (to love God or not). That is how people's lives are portrayed in many ways in the Bible, warts and all. That is what takes place in everyday, real life, too. God is not following people around, ready to jump on them. He has many ways of teaching us and one of them is "you reap what you sow". Do we reprimand people as soon as they do something bad? I don't, do you? Probably not. God wants us to grow up and mature and have no further need for a wet nurse following us around.

Lot lost his wife. Maybe Lot thought that if he was a godly man and husband in the first place none of their calamites would ever have happened. Maybe he thought that if he would have had an investment of godly fellowship with his wife then she would have been strengthened by his love and interest in her and his own faith in God. I'm sure Lot had many regrets just like all of us have. But he was not a godly man and he was full of fear and lacked faith in God. Otherwise, he would not have been so cowardly and offered his daughters up as he did. And this spirit of fear and lack of faith was in his wife's life, too. This entire family had the same spirit of fear and unbelief and they were tainted by the inhabitants of Sodom. Lot, offering up his daughters is evidence of the influence of unclean and perverted spirits. And his daughters, later displaying fear and lack of faith, slept with their father. More evidence of being affected by unclean and unholy spirits.

There is much to learn from all these lives besides perceived "male bias". We see throughout the Bible how male and female alike respond to God. Neither sex has a corner on the market of righteousness and holiness. We see the heart of men manifested in the Bible like no other book. There is neither male nor female in Jesus Christ and the best thing we can do is strengthen and encourage one another in the Lord, so that none of us end up like some of the men AND women in the Bible.

Rom 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

God bless,
Rick

Hi Rick,

I'm surprised I have to keep reiterating the same point. I'm not saying women are more righteous, or holy than men, rather that the Bible is obviously written from a totally male perspective, so naturally it going to be slanted and skewed towards the male. Everywhere one looks in Scripture women are treated as property and given far fewer rights than men, this is just an undeniable fact, which is in keeping with my premise that the Bible was written by men who formed god in the likeness of their own image.

All the best,
Rose

Timmy

12-07-2011, 05:17 AM

Hi there everyone!:yo:

Repromand...reprimand...repremant???
No matter how it's spelled, knowing to do better
swiftly more than the wind has been taken out of these sails...
and probably will be again:
jap-slapped and set back if i do not right knowing Him.

Then again, even as a tiny tot strong willed child was an understatement.
After mastery tying my shoelaces, i took on the world,
starting with the establishment right under our very roof.

Honestly. . .still
He has shown even greater loving kindness
and more benefits than could ever be expected
when things remain right with Him.

Knowing Abba (Daddy) is watching and guiding and protecting and benefitting every move
makes it all more than worthwhile.

It's now known it's all according to what is needful:

(my prayer, too)
...I know, LORD,
that a man’s way of life is not his own;
no one who walks determines his own steps. al
Discipline me, LORD, but with justice —
not in Your anger, am
or You will reduce me to nothing.
Jer. 10.23-24 HCSB

Somebody up there more than likes me
and i do not deserve it,

Tim TimTimmy Tim
Timmy Tim Tim Tim
Pah rum-pah pum pum
Me and my drum

heb13-13

12-07-2011, 07:09 AM

Hey there Rick,

That makes it sound like God deliberately ruined David's life and family as a form of punishment. Is that what you meant? That's not how I would ever "reprimand" someone. And what about devout people who have rotten kids? They often feel like God is punishing them for some unknown sin.

So your answer brings up a huge question - how can a person know if the bad things that happen to them are because God is punishing them or the Devil is attacking them or that it's just bad luck? Is there any way to know? If not, then God is not effectively "reprimanding" anyone since no one knows if it's God, the Devil, or bad luck.

Richard

Hi Richard,

No, what I meant with David is that what was sowed by his unrighteousness was his "reprimand", just like it is with all of us.

Seems that Absalom lost respect for his father and events just carried on from there.

The book of Proverbs in many ways is a book that describes the sowing and reaping of many things.
And we are counseled over and over to get wisdom, attend to His words, keep our heart with all diligence, etc, etc.

We also see a God of mercy in the OT towards the broken and contrite (He will not despise).

God always knows all the facts of why something happened in someone's life. When we look at the whole counsel of God we begin to understand man's ways and God's ways, too. The contrast is stark.

More later, I'm sure.
Rick

Charisma

12-07-2011, 08:53 AM

Hello Rose,

I've wanted to comment on this topic for a while, but I don't have much to say. Your last reply to Rick gives me a platform to share some thoughts.

I'm speaking as one whom it's taken God years to tame, so please don't imagine I'm a goodie-goodie girly girl. But I desire deeply to become pleasing to God. So, I've had to change! :sos: I'm very fond of the quip, 'I was quite willing to compromise, but God wanted things all His own way'.

I'm not saying women are more righteous, or holy than men, rather that the Bible is obviously written from a totally male perspective,I do not find it so. The feminist perspective you offer boils down to the views of fallen females reflecting upon the (undoubted) flaws of fallen males. But, there is God-ordained order laid out in scripture, which, if the men - who are rightly related to God - carry it through as they should, allow women to blossom to full potential and more, without any hint of condescension or inequality, or, lack of mutual respect.

so naturally it going to be slanted and skewed towards the male.Hmm. A man might not see it that way! He might think God is getting at him, if he reads scripture properly! Men have nothing to thank Adam for. I've even heard a preacher say he is 'embarrassed' to have been so let down by another man. (My paraphrase.) Do you know any men who feel that way?

Everywhere one looks in Scripture women are treated as property and given far fewer rights than men,The married woman is one flesh with her husband. She has rights, privileges and responsibilities, and although the Bible doesn't make a big deal of them when they are not kept (by the man), God notices every single one of his neglects and misdemeanours. When Jesus came, He held men responsible for their attitudes and assumptions.

I don't see a disadvantaged woman in Proverbs 31.

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. {buyeth: Heb. taketh} 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise good: her candle goeth not out by night. {She...: Heb. She tasteth} 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. {She...: Heb. She spreadeth} 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet. {scarlet: or, double garments} 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. {have...: or, have gotten riches}

30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

this is just an undeniable fact, which is in keeping with my premise that the Bible was written by men who formed god in the likeness of their own image.Possibly, just possibly, it is [I]you who have formed God in own imagination, choosing an image you disapprove. Couldn't you just as easily make a God can approve? But in the end, your opinion of Him - whichever way it goes, doesn't change Him. (God might believe He has been yielding enough, in sending Jesus to pay for our sin.)

It is common knowledge that men in particular think God is like their natural father. I suspect women do the same - equally unintentionally. It's not that we don't want relationship with God, it's just that we assume He's like someone bad we already knew, and that triggers a whole waterfall of reactions on our part, before we have honoured God with our undivided attention, and listened for His voice.

My firm opinion is: that man has fallen so far from being 'like God', (Who do you know who is anything 'like' Jesus?) - that we cannot begin to imagine the honour, generosity and freely-given love, which God bestows upon those who find Him. As the old hymn says -

Thy truth unchanged hath ever stood;
Thou savest those that on Thee call;
To them that seek Thee Thou art good,
To them that find Thee all in all.

There isn't a soul on earth - male or female - who hasn't had to revise their views about something, to come into peace with God.

Richard Amiel McGough

12-07-2011, 09:21 AM

Hi Richard,

No, what I meant with David is that what was sowed by his unrighteousness was his "reprimand", just like it is with all of us.

Seems that Absalom lost respect for his father and events just carried on from there.

The book of Proverbs in many ways is a book that describes the sowing and reaping of many things.
And we are counseled over and over to get wisdom, attend to His words, keep our heart with all diligence, etc, etc.

We also see a God of mercy in the OT towards the broken and contrite (He will not despise).

God always knows all the facts of why something happened in someone's life. When we look at the whole counsel of God we begin to understand man's ways and God's ways, too. The contrast is stark.

More later, I'm sure.
Rick
Good morning Rick, :tea:

That's pretty much what I thought you might say, but now we've completely diverged from the idea that there is any kind of "reprimand" coming from God at all. It seems like you are now saying that there is some sort of "natural moral law" wherein sin is "reprimanded" without any intentional or intelligent action from God at all. The problem with this view is that we all know that people often avoid any consequence of sin in this life.

Your initial response to Rose was that "God does not 'reprimand' everyone as soon as they transgress (like Mother Superior)." And then you gave the example of the destruction of David's family life, but now you say it wasn't a "reprimand" from God at all but a natural consequence of David's sin. Do you see the inconsistency here? Does God reprimand people or not? And how do we distinguish between God's chastisement, an attack from the Devil, natural moral consequences, and plain old bad luck?

CWH

12-07-2011, 10:25 AM

Another glaring example of the extreme male bias of the Bible is found in the story of the destruction of Sodom. When Lot offers up his two daughters to be raped by the angry mob of men, who have come for the two angels who are under his roof, Lot is not even slightly reprimanded...

Gen.19:5-8 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

but, when Lot's wife looks back, she is turned into a pillar of salt...:eek: Seems a bit imbalanced to me...:mad:

Gen.19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Rose

Before we could understand the passage that you mentioned, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Why didn't Lot offered his sons or other young men instead to these perverted homosexuals?
2. Why didn't Lot offered his wives and other married daughters to these men for sex?
3, Would offering his virgin daughters to these homosexuals changed their minds knowing they are so perverted?
4. Why were Lot's daughter still virgins in that sex-crazed world of Lot?
5. Why were those men in Lot's time seemed so disinterested at the offer of virgins? This s very strange from the normal men's point of view.
6. Why were those men so keen on having sex with angels?

This is my understanding of the passage which I will answer to the questions I posted :
1 & 2. Lot was a kind and righteous man, offering men and married women and his wives for sex is an abomination to God. Those men were already sinful from their homosexual perversions and offering men, married women and wives will only increased their sins. Better from the righteousness point of view to offer them virgins rather than encouraging them deeper into sin from sex with angels.
3. Perverted homosexual men are not interested in women even if they are virgins; this showed how perverted they were. Lot understood that since he had been living with them for decades knowing that no harm would be done to his virgin daughters even if he offered them.
4. That answers why the men were not interested in Lot's virgin daughters....Advanced perversion! In a normal sex crazed perverted world. those virgins would have already been raped!
5. Advanced homosexual perversion!
6. They believed that sex with angels (homosexual or heterosexual) will give then eternal life or life full of blessings or a sign that they have dominion over God and his angels based on traditional belief.

I would like to ask a hypothetical question:
Will you subject yourself to be raped by men with the promise from your assailants that your children and loved ones will not be killed or harmed? Will others view it as a heroic act of self-sacrifice to save your loved ones? Is this act morally right? If so, was that what Lot was thinking when he offered his virgin daughters? Will God forgive such unselfish act?......

May God blessed us His wisdom! :pray:

Rose

12-07-2011, 04:06 PM

Hello Rose,

I've wanted to comment on this topic for a while, but I don't have much to say. Your last reply to Rick gives me a platform to share some thoughts.

I'm speaking as one whom it's taken God years to tame, so please don't imagine I'm a goodie-goodie girly girl. But I desire deeply to become pleasing to God. So, I've had to change! :sos: I'm very fond of the quip, 'I was quite willing to compromise, but God wanted things all His own way'.

I do not find it so. The feminist perspective you offer boils down to the views of fallen females reflecting upon the (undoubted) flaws of fallen males. But, there is God-ordained order laid out in scripture, which, if the men - who are rightly related to God - carry it through as they should, allow women to blossom to full potential and more, without any hint of condescension or inequality, or, lack of mutual respect.

Hmm. A man might not see it that way! He might think God is getting at him, if he reads scripture properly! Men have nothing to thank Adam for. I've even heard a preacher say he is 'embarrassed' to have been so let down by another man. (My paraphrase.) Do you know any men who feel that way?

The married woman is one flesh with her husband. She has rights, privileges and responsibilities, and although the Bible doesn't make a big deal of them when they are not kept (by the man), God notices every single one of his neglects and misdemeanours. When Jesus came, He held men responsible for their attitudes and assumptions.

I don't see a disadvantaged woman in Proverbs 31.

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. {buyeth: Heb. taketh} 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise good: her candle goeth not out by night. {She...: Heb. She tasteth} 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. {She...: Heb. She spreadeth} 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household [are] clothed with scarlet. {scarlet: or, double garments} 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing [is] silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue [is] the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. {have...: or, have gotten riches}

30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Hi Charisma,

It's nice to be talking with another woman on this thread...:thumb:

First off I will reiterate again that my term "male bias" referrers to the perspective from which the Bible was written. The Bible was written by men, consequently what they wrote down was from a male point of view in much the same way a book that is written by a woman would have a feminine perspective. Men can't think like women and visa/versa.

I was a Christian for 25 years, so I am well aware of trying to deal with the "woman problem" in the Bible. I've tried many creative solutions to get around the male bias, but there are certain problems that there is no getting around if one is to keep the Bible intact as the inspired word of God. The bottom line is, the Bible was written by fallible men who portrayed a god within its pages that thought and acted like a misogynistic man.

Proverbs 31 was of course one of my favorite passages, but it only put "salt in the wound" so to speak, because the rest of the Bible does not support what Proverbs 31 speaks of...women in the Bible did not have a free hand at running their households, because they were considered the property of men.

Possibly, just possibly, it is [I]you who have formed God in own imagination, choosing an image you disapprove. Couldn't you just as easily make a God can approve? But in the end, your opinion of Him - whichever way it goes, doesn't change Him. (God might believe He has been yielding enough, in sending Jesus to pay for our sin.)

It is common knowledge that men in particular think God is like their natural father. I suspect women do the same - equally unintentionally. It's not that we don't want relationship with God, it's just that we assume He's like someone bad we already knew, and that triggers a whole waterfall of reactions on our part, before we have honoured God with our undivided attention, and listened for His voice.

My firm opinion is: that man has fallen so far from being 'like God', (Who do you know who is anything 'like' Jesus?) - that we cannot begin to imagine the honour, generosity and freely-given love, which God bestows upon those who find Him. As the old hymn says -

Thy truth unchanged hath ever stood;
Thou savest those that on Thee call;
To them that seek Thee Thou art good,
To them that find Thee all in all.

There isn't a soul on earth - male or female - who hasn't had to revise their views about something, to come into peace with God.

You are right! I did form God in my image, which meant I was constantly confronted with the dilemma of my morals being better than God's:sCo_hmmthink: Time and time again, if I read Scripture the way it was written I would be stopped in my tracks, because how could I be better than God?

Jesus was indeed unlike any other character in the Bible as far as his views on the equality of women, but the sad thing is that most of the church fathers did not pick up on his teachings in that area. Instead, they focused on the writing's of Paul and the other apostles who promoted subjugation of women. All in all the Bible has not done women any favors in the area of equal rights, instead it has made it harder for women gain rights that the Bible speaks against.

All the best,
Rose

heb13-13

12-07-2011, 04:24 PM

Rose

12-07-2011, 04:36 PM

Hi Rose,

Sorry to butt in on your response to Charisma, (I'm sure she will answer you), but I had a few thoughts that I wanted to pen before I forgot them.

If the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, would they not then be from God's point of view and not man's point of view? That is what Christians believe. Man was the facilitator, the writer of the scriptures but the thoughts came from the Holy Spirit. To say "men wrote the Bible is a true statment, but the thoughts came from God". So now we have a new set of questions to ask, don't we?

Blessings to you
Rick

Hi Rick,

Glad you joined in...:yo:

That's the problem with believing the Bible is the inspired word of God...it makes God sound like an immoral, misogynistic dictator. The solution to that problem is view the Bible as being written by men, who portrayed their own image of God as a male warrior who thought women should be in subjection to men.

All the best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

12-07-2011, 05:00 PM

Hi Rose,

Sorry to butt in on your response to Charisma, (I'm sure she will answer you), but I had a few thoughts that I wanted to pen before I forgot them.

If the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, would they not then be from God's point of view and not man's point of view? That is what Christians believe. Man was the facilitator, the writer of the scriptures but the thoughts came from the Holy Spirit. To say "men wrote the Bible is a true statment, but the thoughts came from God". So now we have a new set of questions to ask, don't we?

Blessings to you
Rick
Hey there Rick,

That is exactly what Rose has been trying to communicate for months, but no one seems to hear her.

She has given reasons to support her contention that the Bible has a male bias. If she is correct, then it implies that the Bible was written by mere men and not inspired by God (at least not in the way that most Christians believe). I have been watching her repeat the same point over and over and over again, only to have it fall on deaf ears. It seems that no one can even see the evidence she presents, let alone answer it.

What do you think about all the evidence she has given that shows a male bias in the Bible?

All the best,

Richard

debz

12-07-2011, 08:17 PM

Hi Charisma,

It's nice to be talking with another woman on this thread...:thumb:

First off I will reiterate again that my term "male bias" referrers to the perspective from which the Bible was written. The Bible was written by men, consequently what they wrote down was from a male point of view in much the same way a book that is written by a woman would have a feminine perspective. Men can't think like women and visa/versa.

I was a Christian for 25 years, so I am well aware of trying to deal with the "woman problem" in the Bible. I've tried many creative solutions to get around the male bias, but there are certain problems that there is no getting around if one is to keep the Bible intact as the inspired word of God. The bottom line is, the Bible was written by fallible men who portrayed a god within its pages that thought and acted like a misogynistic man.

Proverbs 31 was of course one of my favorite passages, but it only put "salt in the wound" so to speak, because the rest of the Bible does not support what Proverbs 31 speaks of...women in the Bible did not have a free hand at running their households, because they were considered the property of men.

You are right! I did form God in my image, which meant I was constantly confronted with the dilemma of my morals being better than God's:sCo_hmmthink: Time and time again, if I read Scripture the way it was written I would be stopped in my tracks, because how could I be better than God?

Jesus was indeed unlike any other character in the Bible as far as his views on the equality of women, but the sad thing is that most of the church fathers did not pick up on his teachings in that area. Instead, they focused on the writing's of Paul and the other apostles who promoted subjugation of women. All in all the Bible has not done women any favors in the area of equal rights, instead it has made it harder for women gain rights that the Bible speaks against.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

As I've mentioned in previous posts, I agree with you that the way it has been translated by MEN has made it appear that these are "God's words" to women. However, I have also tried to start showing you how this HAS been mistranslated, what the original manuscripts were saying, and it is not because I am trying many "creative solutions" to get around this problem. Paul really wasn't the chauvinistic misogynist that he has been portrayed to be because of mistranslations. I have much more to add to this thread in these regards, but let's just start with one of things I brought out earlier that you had no response for:

From earlier thread:

...nowhere in the Bible is the husband instructed to be the 'master of the house'—the wife, on the other hand, is. That is, if the passage is translated correctly and not changed to fit predisposed beliefs!

1 Tim 5:14 says: '14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.' Some translations say 'guide the home.' Either way, they are not being honest in their translation of the word for 'manage their homes.' The word is oikodespoteo, and in the Greek it means (copied from Strong’s): 'from NT:3617; to be the head of (i.e. rule) a family'

NT:3617 is oikodespotes: 'from NT:3624 and NT:1203; the head of a family/master of the house'; NT:3624 = house and NT:1203 = 'despotes': 'an absolute ruler/despot'

However, since the translators could not imagine a wife having such 'power,' they had to water that down to fit their preconceived notions. Again, Paul could have used the Greek word oikonomeo –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house'—which would fit more with the translators ideas, but he didn’t!

(NOTE: This doesn't mean that scripture is instructing women/wives to always rule/dominate either!! If we look at the whole of scripture, which I plan to do through this thread, we see a picture of mutual submission--what Paul REALLY taught, when translated without bias...)

kathryn

12-07-2011, 08:30 PM

Those are good points Deb. Also...Paul was only seeing through a glass darkly at this stage. The "tongues of Fire" were "cloven" tongues...divided ones. (as opposed to the "flame" that is Joseph) They were still seeing through the division...so I imagine that he might have been as torn about it as we have been, seeing the contradictions and not fully understanding why. Also...because the church had just begun the refining process...they werent able to chew the meat of the word (which ironically, is the pure and simple facts about the birds and bees:-).

debz

12-07-2011, 09:09 PM

Hey there Rick,

That is exactly what Rose has been trying to communicate for months, but no one seems to hear her.

She has given reasons to support her contention that the Bible has a male bias. If she is correct, then it implies that the Bible was written by mere men and not inspired by God (at least not in the way that most Christians believe). I have been watching her repeat the same point over and over and over again, only to have it fall on deaf ears. It seems that no one can even see the evidence she presents, let alone answer it.

What do you think about all the evidence she has given that shows a male bias in the Bible?

All the best,

Richard

Richard, as I responded a bit earlier, and as I responded on earlier posts to Rose, I "hear her." However, the bias comes from the mistranslations, not the original intent. I am trying to piece this together little by little....not by "creatively" trying to "overcome" the "obvious bias" -- but to show that it has been mistranslated/misrepresented by the SCRIBES, not the original writers...and in some very obvious ways. Consider my last post--the one that points out the only place in the Bible that gives "Master of the house" title to the WIFE!! How can you say no one can answer the "evidence" Rose is providing? I can see her "evidence" -- I have seen the same for years in the Bible, and I am answering it...little by little....

Let's start with this one verse I presented. Who is the "Master of the House" according to the Bible? Where else in the Bible is this title conferred on the husband? (And don't rabbit-trail me with all the "other" passages right now...I know them all very well, and will get to them one by one...let's start with this one.)

:) ...

Rose

12-07-2011, 09:55 PM

Hi Rose,

As I've mentioned in previous posts, I agree with you that the way it has been translated by MEN has made it appear that these are "God's words" to women. However, I have also tried to start showing you how this HAS been mistranslated, what the original manuscripts were saying, and it is not because I am trying many "creative solutions" to get around this problem. Paul really wasn't the chauvinistic misogynist that he has been portrayed to be because of mistranslations. I have much more to add to this thread in these regards, but let's just start with one of things I brought out earlier that you had no response for:

From earlier thread:

...nowhere in the Bible is the husband instructed to be the 'master of the house'—the wife, on the other hand, is. That is, if the passage is translated correctly and not changed to fit predisposed beliefs!

1 Tim 5:14 says: '14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.' Some translations say 'guide the home.' Either way, they are not being honest in their translation of the word for 'manage their homes.' The word is oikodespoteo, and in the Greek it means (copied from Strong’s): 'from NT:3617; to be the head of (i.e. rule) a family'

NT:3617 is oikodespotes: 'from NT:3624 and NT:1203; the head of a family/master of the house'; NT:3624 = house and NT:1203 = 'despotes': 'an absolute ruler/despot'

However, since the translators could not imagine a wife having such 'power,' they had to water that down to fit their preconceived notions. Again, Paul could have used the Greek word oikonomeo –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house'—which would fit more with the translators ideas, but he didn’t!

(NOTE: This doesn't mean that scripture is instructing women/wives to always rule/dominate either!! If we look at the whole of scripture, which I plan to do through this thread, we see a picture of mutual submission--what Paul REALLY taught, when translated without bias...)

Hi Debz,

Thanks for your input :signthankspin: I thought I had responded to all your posts, but if not I'll do it now...:thumb:

It's hard to know what has been mistranslated since we do not have the original manuscripts, we only have what we have, and the accepted translation is not very favorable to women. The mindset of Jews in Paul's time was exactly in keeping with how his words are translated...here are a few examples.

1Cor.11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God….8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Eph. 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

1Tim.2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Paul may have exhorted young widows to marry and raise their children by managing their own homes, but he's not talking about them ruling over men. If you read the context in which Paul was speaking you will see that the only reason he was telling the young widows to marry and guide their own households was because she would have no other means of support, and Paul was concerned that the young widows would become idle busybodies and turn after Satan. So, in a manner of speaking it was either take care of yourself and your children or starve!

1Tim.5:9-15 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

In Paul's time women were not allowed to get an education like men were, there job was to raise the kids and take care of the home...PERIOD

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-08-2011, 01:19 AM

It's hard to know what has been mistranslated since we do not have the original manuscripts, we only have what we have, and the accepted translation is not very favorable to women.

OOPS...I made a grave error...you are right, not the original manuscripts...I meant to say the earliest manuscripts.... And I don't really care about the "accepted translation" ...what is "accepted" in Christendom is often not the Truth... I believe that is what this whole forum is about? Trying to present different understandings and weigh all of that, so we can hopefully reach unity at some point?

The mindset of Jews in Paul's time was exactly in keeping with how his words are translated...here are a few examples.

1Cor.11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God….8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Eph. 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

1Tim.2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety..

You may have been writing this while I was simultaneously responding to Richard. I requested that we stay "on topic" with each verse, and not go down the "rabbit trails" of the other verses at this time (e.g. the ones you quoted here). I am very familiar with these verses, and all sides of this debate, as I have studied most every complementarian AND egalitarian "expert" for the past 10 years or so. These are the "proof texts" that everyone refers to. The way they have been translated and presented has kept women in bondage and suppressed for centuries. It is an absolute atrocity--you are right to be mad as hell about all this!

However, if you would allow me to show you that maybe, just maybe, that's not what was really being said all along...it is not what lines up with the WHOLE of scripture and the heart of the Father, and, most importantly: The Ultimate Purpose (that is key...). That maybe, just maybe, things have been twisted this way to keep women oppressed because we really do have incredible power and purpose, and if we ever woke up to that, and broke free from the bonds that have ensnared us for centuries, some really incredible things would take place... We do have an enemy, and he fights hardest against the things that will thwart his purposes the most--women and the supernatural are the two things that have been suppressed the most in the church. But it is women and the supernatural that will be given honor and expression in the coming days, and will be keys to ushering in the kingdom.

Paul may have exhorted young widows to marry and raise their children by managing their own homes, but he's not talking about them ruling over men. If you read the context in which Paul was speaking you will see that the only reason he was telling the young widows to marry and guide their own households was because she would have no other means of support, and Paul was concerned that the young widows would become idle busybodies and turn after Satan. So, in a manner of speaking it was either take care of yourself and your children or starve!

1Tim.5:9-15 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.

In Paul's time women were not allowed to get an education like men were, there job was to raise the kids and take care of the home...PERIOD

You're absolutely right... "in Paul's time..." So let's keep that in mind when we look at all the other things Paul said. Very good point on the cultural aspects of his day.

However, your above reference of being "in context" doesn't fit, IMO. Paul is specifically addressing "younger widows" whom he advises to marry...and be "masters of their house" vs. OLDER widows, as you quote above, whom he is advising the church to take care of, as long as they aren't "free-loaders" (which is the gist of the whole paragraph). He is advising the church to be wise in how they discern which women are truly in need of assistance vs. those who aren't! And he doesn't say anything about them marrying "because they would have no other means of support" -- he addresses the fact that they want to marry because their sensual desires have surpassed their dedication to Christ.

1 Tim 5:9-15

9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
NIV

So, back to my original point in this post...in all the N.T., where does it address the husband as the "Master of the House"? Or is it only here, where it refers to the wife? (and again...this is NOT saying that wives are always supposed to rule...I believe the "sum of the word is truth" ...and the "sum of the word" will show a picture of mutual submission, when rightly divided as seen in the earliest manuscripts...). Specifically, I would like you to find one reference in the N.T. using the word oikodespoteo (ruler of the house) that refers to the husband-- and not "head" (which is kephale--and does NOT mean what our English translation infers, like "chief," or "boss," etc...but we will examine that later...) Let's uncover the real meanings of these words, and not just what the translations say...there are many words for "chief," "ruler," "master," "lord," etc. that could have been used in relation to the husband/wife relationship...including "obey" ...but they are NOT USED!!!! They have been MIS-translated, but all readily uncovered, IF one takes the time to honestly look at it and not just infer what they read from the translations of BIASED MEN.

All the best to you, too

Deb

kathryn

12-08-2011, 07:17 AM

]I woke up this morniing (at 505:-) with the word PERIOD in my mind. Realized that it was Rose's last word on her last post. As the dots were connecting, I realized that what is happening to the "Bride" right now...is that she HAS given birth...but the flow of old blood from the womb has to take place.(we have our "PERIOD":-) The focus now, is on shedding the old logos, seeing the process of redemption with the NEW wine...in the witness of the Word made flesh in Creation....the Rhema...the PROCEEDING WORD from the Throne(the VIRGIN subconscious mind)..NOT the logos satan used to tempt the Son in the wilderness. The filly is maturing into the "white horse" and it's time to teach her the "birds and the bees" before she is married. The wedding feast takes place before the consummation .

This I believe, is the ministry of the Bible Wheel...to reverse the whole downward spiral(the VORTEX) spoken of in Romans, where we exchanged the Truth of God for a Lie . The "Ark" has landed on Ararat (the curse has been reversed...the curse of learning of our Beloved, precept on precept. The earth has been declared DRY...and in desperate need of the 2nd FLOOD of Living Water from the Throne. THe downward spiral or vortex has been reversed...and is becoming the "whirlwind"/Vortex that blows away the chaff.

kathryn

12-08-2011, 07:22 AM

heb13-13

12-08-2011, 07:27 AM

Hi All,

I am preparing my response to Rose.

:sCo_hmmthink:

So,

200

Rick

heb13-13

12-08-2011, 07:48 AM

Good morning Rick, :tea:

That's pretty much what I thought you might say, but now we've completely diverged from the idea that there is any kind of "reprimand" coming from God at all. It seems like you are now saying that there is some sort of "natural moral law" wherein sin is "reprimanded" without any intentional or intelligent action from God at all. The problem with this view is that we all know that people often avoid any consequence of sin in this life.

Hey there Richard,

One thing we know is that God corrects and chastens His children (Heb 12). By implication, He does not chasten "bastards". Those who have been adopted into God's family by the new birth. So, I don't believe God chastens unbelievers. Jesus did not come to condemn the world (people). The world is already "sitting" in condemnation (John 3:18).

I do believe that He (Holy Spirit) is reaching out to men, not condemning them. There are natural and spiritual consequences to sin and God is trying to save us from ourselves (sin).

You are right that many avoid any consequences of sin in this life. In this life the rain falls on the just and the unjust, but after death the judgement, which no man can avoid. (Heb 9:27).

David wondered about that. Why do the wicked prosper? Psalm 73. He got his answer.

In the Old Testament we see that Israel's enemies were God's enemies and God fought them. Why? He was preserving Israel in order to bring the Messiah to all of us.

Best to you, today,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

12-08-2011, 08:38 AM

Hi All,

I am preparing my response to Rose.

:sCo_hmmthink:

So,

200

Rick
Nicely done Rick! :thumb:

Using images engages the right brain and helps balance the mind. It's really important to do that, especially on internet forums where we are so limited in our forms of expression, depend too much on the written word which must be read sequentially by the (already dominant) left brain.

heb13-13

12-08-2011, 09:50 AM

Nicely done Rick! :thumb:

Using images engages the right brain and helps balance the mind. It's really important to do that, especially on internet forums where we are so limited in our forms of expression, depend too much on the written word which must be read sequentially by the (already dominant) left brain.

Thanks Richard,

I must be right brain dominant because I'm very visual. I am also extremely kinesthetic. Have to touch something to figure out how it works. What part of the brain is that?

Rose

12-08-2011, 10:05 AM

However, if you would allow me to show you that maybe, just maybe, that's not what was really being said all along...it is not what lines up with the WHOLE of scripture and the heart of the Father, and, most importantly: The Ultimate Purpose (that is key...). That maybe, just maybe, things have been twisted this way to keep women oppressed because we really do have incredible power and purpose, and if we ever woke up to that, and broke free from the bonds that have ensnared us for centuries, some really incredible things would take place... We do have an enemy, and he fights hardest against the things that will thwart his purposes the most--women and the supernatural are the two things that have been suppressed the most in the church. But it is women and the supernatural that will be given honor and expression in the coming days, and will be keys to ushering in the kingdom.

Good Morning Debz :yo:

You are absolutely correct in saying that men have used Scripture to keep women oppressed, but the sad thing is that the Scriptures don't really have to be twisted, because all the ammunition they need is contained in the plain reading. It is the intelligent woman or man that has to dig deeper to try and extract what they innately know to be true...and that is the truth that men and women are equal. Just think of it, half of all power and purpose is contained in the minds of women! Men have been taught over the centuries to somehow fear allowing women to reach their full potential, and the Bible has been one of the culprits that promotes that mindset.

You're absolutely right... "in Paul's time..." So let's keep that in mind when we look at all the other things Paul said. Very good point on the cultural aspects of his day.

However, your above reference of being "in context" doesn't fit, IMO. Paul is specifically addressing "younger widows" whom he advises to marry...and be "masters of their house" vs. OLDER widows, as you quote above, whom he is advising the church to take care of, as long as they aren't "free-loaders" (which is the gist of the whole paragraph). He is advising the church to be wise in how they discern which women are truly in need of assistance vs. those who aren't! And he doesn't say anything about them marrying "because they would have no other means of support" -- he addresses the fact that they want to marry because their sensual desires have surpassed their dedication to Christ.

1 Tim 5:9-15

9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
NIV

So, back to my original point in this post...in all the N.T., where does it address the husband as the "Master of the House"? Or is it only here, where it refers to the wife? (and again...this is NOT saying that wives are always supposed to rule...I believe the "sum of the word is truth" ...and the "sum of the word" will show a picture of mutual submission, when rightly divided as seen in the earliest manuscripts...). Specifically, I would like you to find one reference in the N.T. using the word oikodespoteo (ruler of the house) that refers to the husband-- and not "head" (which is kephale--and does NOT mean what our English translation infers, like "chief," or "boss," etc...but we will examine that later...) Let's uncover the real meanings of these words, and not just what the translations say...there are many words for "chief," "ruler," "master," "lord," etc. that could have been used in relation to the husband/wife relationship...including "obey" ...but they are NOT USED!!!! They have been MIS-translated, but all readily uncovered, IF one takes the time to honestly look at it and not just infer what they read from the translations of BIASED MEN.

All the best to you, too

Deb

My point is not who rules the house ( raising kids, buying and preparing food, ect.), but who rules the woman. Women were considered property, they were sold by their fathers to their husbands. A woman was never allowed to reach her full potential because of the restrictions placed on her by men. It seems self evident that the mindset of the men like Paul, who wrote parts of the Bible transferred their biased view of women into the pages of Scripture. Consequently, that mindset gets viewed as "inspired" by God, and men use it as a weapon to keep women suppressed.

I applaud your effort :clap2:in trying to uncover a un-biased God from the pages of Scripture, but I don't think that's possible...there is just too much garbage to dig through. Biased men wrote the Bible, and they imported their male perspective onto the god they created.

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-08-2011, 10:53 AM

Good Morning Debz :yo:

You are absolutely correct in saying that men have used Scripture to keep women oppressed, but the sad thing is that the Scriptures don't really have to be twisted, because all the ammunition they need is contained in the plain reading. It is the intelligent woman or man that has to dig deeper to try and extract what they innately know to be true...and that is the truth that men and women are equal. Just think of it, half of all power and purpose is contained in the minds of women! Men have been taught over the centuries to somehow fear allowing women to reach their full potential, and the Bible has been one of the culprits that promotes that mindset.

In the "plain reading" of the translations, that is. It is the way it has been translated that has been wrong, NOT what the writers were saying. If you, as one of those intelligent women, had actually dug deeper, you would realize this as well. But instead you just continue on one hand saying "scribes mistranslated the Bible..." and on the other, "the Bible is biased toward women," so it's like you're dissing the scribes on one hand, then supporting them on the other! :huhsign:

My point is not who rules the house ( raising kids, buying and preparing food, ect.), but who rules the woman. Women were considered property, they were sold by their fathers to their husbands. A woman was never allowed to reach her full potential because of the restrictions placed on her by men.

My point is the same, and I will get to those other scriptures as well. But you are missing the point on this particular passage. "oikodespoteo" was the original word used. Very strong, powerful, word -- directing more "power" to the woman than just "raising kids, buying and preparing food, etc." -- if that is what it was supposed to mean, Paul would have used the word "oikonomeo" –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house' in the sense you are talking about here. When cultures continue, to this day, to say things like, "who wears the pants," or the man is the "king of his castle," etc., they all recognize that this doesn't apply just to the fact that he keeps up the house--this term is encompassing the "fact" (in their minds) that he rules his wife and kids, too.

It seems self evident that the mindset of the men like Paul, who wrote parts of the Bible transferred their biased view of women into the pages of Scripture. Consequently, that mindset gets viewed as "inspired" by God, and men use it as a weapon to keep women suppressed.

It does seem "self-evident" BASED ON HOW IT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED. But you are still agreeing with the translators--who can be shown to clearly have a male bias--and you have not taken the time to intelligently uncover the truth. When we uncover what Paul really said, it actually is liberating for women--as Jesus was. They did NOT teach that men/husbands were to rule women...but you won't let me get to that...

I applaud your effort :clap2:in trying to uncover a un-biased God from the pages of Scripture, but I don't think that's possible...there is just too much garbage to dig through. Biased men wrote the Bible, and they imported their male perspective onto the god they created.

It is possible, but you just don't seem to want to really hear about it. If you are angry with how women have been oppressed, stifled, used, and abused, then you and I are on the same team. However, if you are just looking for another way to "disprove" the Bible entirely, then continue to quote the mistranslations, continue to feed that lie, and I will continue to show what Paul and Jesus were really saying (for the sake of others who read this forum).

Sincerely,
Deb

kathryn

12-08-2011, 11:00 AM

I agree with you Deb...we can't toss our baby out with the bathwater. As Bob mentioned in another post...it is the typology ...(as the bones of Joseph) that is the Tree of Life or the KEY that unlocks the written word. Then REAL sinew and muscle and flesh is added by the rhema .

debz

12-08-2011, 11:08 AM

Rose

12-08-2011, 11:25 AM

In the "plain reading" of the translations, that is. It is the way it has been translated that has been wrong, NOT what the writers were saying. If you, as one of those intelligent women, had actually dug deeper, you would realize this as well. But instead you just continue on one hand saying "scribes mistranslated the Bible..." and on the other, "the Bible is biased toward women," so it's like you're dissing the scribes on one hand, then supporting them on the other! :huhsign:

I really don't think you can lump all the male-bias of Scripture under the heading of "miss translation". I am not saying that scribes miss-translated Scripture...what I am saying is that the plain reading of the text shows that the men who wrote the Bible were clearly writing from their own male bias. That is why I have continued to say the Bible could not have been inspired by "God", but rather was penned from how the male minded imagined God to be.

My point is the same, and I will get to those other scriptures as well. But you are missing the point on this particular passage. "oikodespoteo" was the original word used. Very strong, powerful, word -- directing more "power" to the woman than just "raising kids, buying and preparing food, etc." -- if that is what it was supposed to mean, Paul would have used the word "oikonomeo" –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house' in the sense you are talking about here. When cultures continue, to this day, to say things like, "who wears the pants," or the man is the "king of his castle," etc., they all recognize that this doesn't apply just to the fact that he keeps up the house--this term is encompassing the "fact" (in their minds) that he rules his wife and kids, too.

I'm sorry, but as much as I want what you say to be true, it is just not self-evident that women have any kind of real power to take charge of their lives and live up to their full potential. If God truly inspired the Bible he could have made it where there could be NO ambiguity about women's equality. As it is, the best one can do is like you are doing...dig, dig, dig and even if you prove a point it's so ambiguous that no one takes it seriously.

It does seem "self-evident" BASED ON HOW IT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED. But you are still agreeing with the translators--who can be shown to clearly have a male bias--and you have not taken the time to intelligently uncover the truth. When we uncover what Paul really said, it actually is liberating for women--as Jesus was. They did NOT teach that men/husbands were to rule women...but you won't let me get to that...

It is possible, but you just don't seem to want to really hear about it. If you are angry with how women have been oppressed, stifled, used, and abused, then you and I are on the same team. However, if you are just looking for another way to "disprove" the Bible entirely, then continue to quote the mistranslations, continue to feed that lie, and I will continue to show what Paul and Jesus were really saying (for the sake of others who read this forum).

Sincerely,
Deb

I agree :thumb: Jesus was the most liberating character in the Bible for women, but then Paul comes along a undoes much of what Jesus accomplished, so now the words of Paul trump those of Jesus.

To disprove the Bible was not my original intention. Like I have said many times, I was a solid Bible believing Christian for 25 years; the change came when I started asking tough questions and went looking for their answers...what I found "rocked" my world, and eventually led to the conclusions I hold now.

I am still totally open to all the things you have to say, and would love to hear more of what you have discovered in your search for women's equality.

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-08-2011, 12:00 PM

I really don't think you can lump all the male-bias of Scripture under the heading of "miss translation". I am not saying that scribes miss-translated Scripture...what I am saying is that the plain reading of the text shows that the men who wrote the Bible were clearly writing from their own male bias. That is why I have continued to say the Bible could not have been inspired by "God", but rather was penned from how the male minded imagined God to be.

I'm sorry, but as much as I want what you say to be true, it is just not self-evident that women have any kind of real power to take charge of their lives and live up to their full potential. If God truly inspired the Bible he could have made it where there could be NO ambiguity about women's equality. As it is, the best one can do is like you are doing...dig, dig, dig and even if you prove a point it's so ambiguous that no one takes it seriously.

I agree :thumb: Jesus was the most liberating character in the Bible for women, but then Paul comes along a undoes much of what Jesus accomplished, so now the words of Paul trump those of Jesus.

To disprove the Bible was not my original intention. Like I have said many times, I was a solid Bible believing Christian for 25 years; the change came when I started asking tough questions and went looking for their answers...what I found "rocked" my world, and eventually led to the conclusions I hold now.

I am still totally open to all the things you have to say, and would love to hear more of what you have discovered in your search for women's equality.

All the best,
Rose

AWESOME!! And, referring to what Kathryn said earlier that I didn't acknowledge enough--it really is "key" to also understand the big "WHY?" behind all the teachings. When we understand what Jesus and Paul were predominantly teaching, then all the "incidentals" fall into place easier and it makes more sense. For instance, when Jesus was confronted about marriage relationships, He pointed people "back to the beginning..." This is a big key. Will get back to more on this later... Thanks, Rose!!

Richard Amiel McGough

12-08-2011, 06:27 PM

My point is the same, and I will get to those other scriptures as well. But you are missing the point on this particular passage. "oikodespoteo" was the original word used. Very strong, powerful, word -- directing more "power" to the woman than just "raising kids, buying and preparing food, etc." -- if that is what it was supposed to mean, Paul would have used the word "oikonomeo" –which actually means 'to manage a house' or 'to be a steward of the house' in the sense you are talking about here. When cultures continue, to this day, to say things like, "who wears the pants," or the man is the "king of his castle," etc., they all recognize that this doesn't apply just to the fact that he keeps up the house--this term is encompassing the "fact" (in their minds) that he rules his wife and kids, too.

Hi Deb, :tea:

I don't see how your interpretation changes anything. It would help if you could show me how it would change this verse:

1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

The context - telling young women to marry, bear children, and manage their household - seems totally to be the classic sexist view of women. How would you translate it to make it not seem like this?

I see no basis for your argument that Paul meant to imply that woman have some sort of "ruling authority" equal to men merely because he used the word "oikodespoteo" in that one verse. Do you know what it meant in normal Greek culture of that time? If not, how do you justify your assertions about the implications of that word? I looked at a few Greek lexicons and they all agreed that it speaks of "managing a household" - I don't see it as implying anything more than "women's work" implied by the context of getting married and bearing children.

But the meaning of oikodespoteo doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't solve the problem with the overtly sexist verses that you have yet to address. That's where our attention should be focused.

It is possible, but you just don't seem to want to really hear about it. If you are angry with how women have been oppressed, stifled, used, and abused, then you and I are on the same team. However, if you are just looking for another way to "disprove" the Bible entirely, then continue to quote the mistranslations, continue to feed that lie, and I will continue to show what Paul and Jesus were really saying (for the sake of others who read this forum).

Sincerely,
Deb
If it is possible, then why has no one produced a translation that is "correct" and so eliminates the sexism? You know there are plenty of people that have tried - indeed, there is even an "inclusive version" that attempted to remove all the male references to God! This has nothing to do with a desire to "disprove the Bible." On the contrary, these problems were encountered at a time when we very much wanted to believe the Bible. But how can one believe the Bible is from God if it has fundamental moral flaws?

There is a deep irony when humans try to "fix the Bible" to eliminate its moral flaws. It shows that our inate human morality is higher than that of the Bible. And is that not exactly what we would expect from a book written in the time and place as the Bible? That's why this is such an important issue. It demonstrates why it is impossible for a modern person to believe the Bible is "inspired by God" in the traditional Christian sense. If it is from God, something else must be going on. We can't deny our basic moral intuitions.

All the best,

Richard

debz

12-08-2011, 07:29 PM

Hi Deb, :tea:

I don't see how your interpretation changes anything. It would help if you could show me how it would change this verse:

1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

The context - telling young women to marry, bear children, and manage their household - seems totally to be the classic sexist view of women. How would you translate it to make it not seem like this?

Hey Richard -- Hope you're enjoying your conference! And yes, I hear you on this...there was still a cultural influence where women didn't have the opportunities they do now, so in that sense I believe Paul was counseling them to do "the best they could, under the circumstances" but at the same time it wasn't an imperative command for all time...which I WILL show...just having a time crunch here...but I WILL get to it!!

I see no basis for your argument that Paul meant to imply that woman have some sort of "ruling authority" equal to men merely because he used the word "oikodespoteo" in that one verse. Do you know what it meant in normal Greek culture of that time? If not, how do you justify your assertions about the implications of that word? I looked at a few Greek lexicons and they all agreed that it speaks of "managing a household" - I don't see it as implying anything more than "women's work" implied by the context of getting married and bearing children.

Well, I believe it is precisely WHY he chose this word over others that fit that interpretation better...I will provide more, I was just pointing out one little tidbit here--My purpose was to show how words have been mistranslated, and this is just one small example.

But the meaning of oikodespoteo doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't solve the problem with the overtly sexist verses that you have yet to address. That's where our attention should be focused.

It does matter, because it is just one of MANY verses that translators have "dumbed down" or "lessened" the original meaning, but it is only done when referring to women, not men... like I said, more to come... :)

If it is possible, then why has no one produced a translation that is "correct" and so eliminates the sexism? You know there are plenty of people that have tried - indeed, there is even an "inclusive version" that attempted to remove all the male references to God! This has nothing to do with a desire to "disprove the Bible." On the contrary, these problems were encountered at a time when we very much wanted to believe the Bible. But how can one believe the Bible is from God if it has fundamental moral flaws?

I don't think there are "plenty" who have tried. Simply eliminating gender references, as in "he" really means s/he, etc., doesn't address the mistranslations that are very obvious to all those who have really studied the issues. Bottom line is it comes down to people wanting to be "in control" -- in control of others, through abusive church leadership, and men "in control" of women -- they like that, they are (mostly) pre-disposed to that (if still living primarily carnally/self-centeredly, etc.)...in order to keep control, they like to make sure the Bible supports them in that...because then, it is "God's will" and not theirs....

I will get to more of this...just a little busy today with life/family, etc. :) Hopefully later tonight or tomorrow I can post again. Please be patient?!

Thanks!

Deb

Richard Amiel McGough

12-08-2011, 09:41 PM

Hey Richard -- Hope you're enjoying your conference! And yes, I hear you on this...there was still a cultural influence where women didn't have the opportunities they do now, so in that sense I believe Paul was counseling them to do "the best they could, under the circumstances" but at the same time it wasn't an imperative command for all time...which I WILL show...just having a time crunch here...but I WILL get to it!!

Hey Deb,

The conference starts tomorrow, but I met a few folks preparing for it today. They are just plain wonderful people. Lively, open, intelligent, curious, funny, friendly. They are all living testimonies to the power of enthogens (psychedelics) to improve mental health, wellbeing, and general enlightenment (when used responsibly, of course!).

Thanks for letting me know, but don't worry about time. This thread will be here when you find some.

But I personally can't think of Paul as teaching "do the best you can, under the circumstances" not only becaue that's not what it sounds like in context, but more importantly because his teachings have led to two thousand years of suppression of women. In other words, that would make Paul's words just the "words of a man" rather than God, and that was Rose's point from the beginning. So if you go that route it looks like you are conceding her point.

Well, I believe it is precisely WHY he chose this word over others that fit that interpretation better...I will provide more, I was just pointing out one little tidbit here--My purpose was to show how words have been mistranslated, and this is just one small example.

But you still haven't shown how that word was mistranslated, have you? That's why I asked you to translate that verse. How should it have been translated?

It does matter, because it is just one of MANY verses that translators have "dumbed down" or "lessened" the original meaning, but it is only done when referring to women, not men... like I said, more to come... :)

I don't see that as yet. The translation looks perfectly accruate. And you have not yet given me an alternative to consider.

I don't think there are "plenty" who have tried. Simply eliminating gender references, as in "he" really means s/he, etc., doesn't address the mistranslations that are very obvious to all those who have really studied the issues. Bottom line is it comes down to people wanting to be "in control" -- in control of others, through abusive church leadership, and men "in control" of women -- they like that, they are (mostly) pre-disposed to that (if still living primarily carnally/self-centeredly, etc.)...in order to keep control, they like to make sure the Bible supports them in that...because then, it is "God's will" and not theirs....

There are more than "plenty." Gender inequality has been a thorn in the side of modern Christianity for many decades. Countless books and articles in scholastic biblical journals have addressed this topic and have tried every possible means of resolution. A Google search for "Is the Bible sexist" returns 1.6 MILLION pages.

And how is it that you have such confidence that all the Bible translations are wrong? Do you read Greek? Could you translate the New Testament? If not, how are you able to judge the work of whole teams of professionals? Where are you getting this knowledge? It can't be from the scholars or the Greek dictionaries they produced, since then you would have to agree with them.

I will get to more of this...just a little busy today with life/family, etc. :) Hopefully later tonight or tomorrow I can post again. Please be patient?!

Thanks!

Deb
Patience isn't my middle name, but it should be cuz I got plenty of it. Take your time, my friend.

Richard

kathryn

12-09-2011, 12:54 AM

The "mother" has requested of her "son" (the new man within her)at the wedding at Cana... to provide the wine for the wedding guests who have run out of the old wine. Those "6" water pots used for ceremonial washing (the firstfruits who sanctify the rest of the harvest) have been filled to the BRIM with water. It's now time for the water to be turned to wine.
(as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: IF YOU HAD KNOWN(the WORD made FLESH) WHO ASKS YOU FOR A DRINK...you would have ASKED ME(as Mary asked Jesus) at Cana) and I would have given you the Living water...)

I just realized something about this reply to the Samaritan woman today. We are so used to thinking of Jesus as the Word made Flesh..and of course He is...but the Christ in and through all of His Creation and the Earth, as "Asenath"/the Mother/ Bride who is calling out to Jesus Christ, the Father/ Bridegroom who is asking Him for a "drink". "Even the stones will cry out......"

It was the mother of Joseph, Rachael, who REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, crying out for her "children" (from the bosom of the earth) which brought the Messiah. It is the Christ in the Mother who will not be comforted until her children are raised from captivity.

In the story of Elisha, he promises the married woman, who takes him into her house and gives him a room in the "wall" (Jericho..moon..the carnal mind), a son from her barren womb. One day the son is in the field with his father and cries, "my HEAD, my HEAD. (the lifting up of the TWO heads/carnal and divine, one is "taken" in death, one (the Divine Head), remains.

After his death , the woman sets off like a bat out of hell, demanding that no one to try to stop her until she reaches Elisha to bring him BACK to raise her son. (to fulfill the promise he gave her of a son)

He sends Gehazi, his servant with his "rod" to place on the sons face/head...but nothing happens. Gehazi is a type of the Bride in her refining stage...the donkey...the mixture which is often sterile(barren)Gehazi has not been fully refined..and has yet to have his authoriy or dominion over the earth restored. His "rod" has not yet budded.)

His name means: "the valley of my vision" . (the dry BED of the Jordan crossing..the Valley of the SHADOW of death).

The woman clings to Elisha (the double annointing of Ephraim/Joseph) and REFUSING TO BE COMFORTED until Elisha goes himself.

Elisha lies on the son, hand/kaf (11) to hand(11)(22), eye/ayin (16) to eye (16)(32) and mouth/pey(17) to mouth(17)34 total...88 (the double annointing, gematria of Noah etc) .

It a picture of the consummation of the TWO who become One....on the "verdant" bed of the Lovers in the S.O.S. The son becomes "warm" the first time he does this. He goes "two and fro" across the room , (as the raven goes "to and fro" until the Earth is declared DRY). He then does it again (for a total of 3, including Gehazi), and raises the Son, after he has sneezed 7 times.

kathryn

12-09-2011, 06:44 AM

I just realized something about this reply to the Samaritan woman today. We are so used to thinking of Jesus as the Word made Flesh..and of course He is...but the Christ in and through all of His Creation and the Earth, as "Asenath"/the Mother/ Bride who is calling out to Jesus Christ, the Father/ Bridegroom who is asking Him for a "drink". "Even the stones will cry out......"

It was the mother of Joseph, Rachael, who REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, crying out for her "children" which brought the Messiah. It is the Christ in the Mother who will not be comforted until her children are raised from captivity. In the story of Elisha, he promises the married woman, who takes him into her house and gives him a room in the "wall" (Jericho..moon..the carnal mind), a son from her barren womb. One day the son is in the field with his father and cries, "my HEAD, my HEAD. (the lifting up of the TWO heads/carnal and divine, one is "taken" in death, one (the Divine Head), remains.

After his death , the woman sets off like a bat out of hell, telling no one to try to stop her until she reaches Elisha to bring him BACK to raise her son. (to fulfill the promise he gave her of a son)

He sends Gehazi, his servant with his "rod" to place on the sons face/head...but nothing happens. Gehazi is a type of the Bride in her refining stage...the donkey...the mixture which is often sterile(barren)Gehazi has not been fully refined..and has yet to have his authoriy or dominion over the earth restored.)

His name means: "the valley of my vision" . (the dry BED of the Jordan crossing).

The woman clings to Elisha (the double annointing of Ephraim/Joseph) and refusing TO BE COMFORTED until Elisha goes himself.

Elisha lies on the son, hand/kaf (11) to hand(11)(22), eye/ayin (16) to eye (16)(32) and mouth/pey(17) to mouth(17)34 total...88 (the double annointing, gematria of Noah etc) .

It a picture of the consummation of the TWO who become One....on the "verdant" bed of the Lovers in the S.O.S. The son becomes "warm" the first time he does this. He goes "two and fro" across the room , (as the raven goes "to and fro" until the Earth is declared DRY). He then he does it again (for a total of 3, including Gehazi), and raises the Son, after he has sneezed 7 times.

I meant to add that the woman who invites Elisha (welcomes the prophet) into her HOUSE , is a type of Rahab who lived in the WALL (the dividing wall) of Jericho who brings ALL of her HOUSEHOLD...ALL of MANKIND, out of the City via the SCARLET THREAD in the window. Again...this is the "thread" of redemption that brings ALL mankind out of "slavery", fulfilling the LAW OF JUBILEE. This is the fulfillment of the 8th day of Tabernacles...by the "CHRIST TWINS :SISTER//BRIDE/MOTHER AND BROTHER/ BRIDEGROOM/FATHER...the "88" on the 8th...or 888. They are the TWIN TABLETS OF STONE made FLESH.(who were ENGRAVED by the FINGER of God, on BOTH sides (of the Jordan)...the two-sided coin)

kathryn

12-09-2011, 07:08 AM

And...back to the PERIOD or menses; the cycle is according to the PHASES of the MOON. (Jericho/Bride)

No "man" knows the "day and the hour" of consummation...only the Bride knows the time of ovulation MID-WAY through the cycle. (not even the "Bridegroom) WHEN SHE HAS PREPARED HERSELF...she RUNS to meet her Bridegroom to escort Him back (as the woman brought back Elisha) to raise her "son" on the verdant Bed. (The New Jerusalem Mother "marries" her sons)

The TRUMPET cannot be blown, until the first sighting of the NEW moon! (the consummated Bride-BLOOD- RED- MOON)

Our HOUSE (bet) has been divided, northern House from southern House....Heaven and Earth, Spirit and Matter...until the consummation.

kathryn

12-09-2011, 08:16 AM

For years I wondered why the son "sneezed" 7 times. There is no reference, as far as I know, anywhere else in scripture, to sneezing.

When I finally understood that when Jesus walked on the waters of the Galilee, to the MIDWAY point (ovulation in the middle of the moon cycle)..He was performing the "sweeping of the membranes, which a mid-wife does to stimulate labor. It involves running her FINGER around the circumference of the cervix.

Before the water breaks (the 2nd Flood), there is a little MUCOUS plug that has been sitting like a cork in the mouth of the cervix.

In order to fully understand why the nose is emphasized in the typology, we need to look at the description given in the Song of Solomon, of the Beloved's nose:

Sol 7:4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory (elephatinos); thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.

Sol 7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;

The shedding of the "mucous plug" is also referred to as the "bloody show".

kathryn

12-09-2011, 09:38 AM

The nose has TWO nostrils...again, the TWINS. (as the teeth of the Beloved which are described as TWINS coming up from the "washing" (purification process)

When they are ONE...they become the MOUTH...with the SCARLET thread as the Lips of Scarlet. It is now time for the VOICE of God to go forth from the "divide"

The Song of Solomon opens with: LET HIM KISS ME WITH THE KISSES OF HIS MOUTH. (as Elisha lies on the "son"/Bride..mouth to mouth, completing the consummation. (or RAISING of the TWO loaves in the Pentecostal age of refining...the oven...or "Hell's Kitchen".

kathryn

12-09-2011, 09:52 AM

When I was beginning to understand the whole birth process in redemption, this sign of a miracle birth in OZ (Austraila) took place. Remember the Wizard of Oz? :-)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/taronga-zoos-baby-elephant-born-alive-despite-expert-predictions-he-died-in-the-womb/story-e6frf7l6-1225839031581

kathryn

12-09-2011, 09:55 AM

The Baby Elephant was birthing upside down...as the Towla worm (as Christ)..the scarlet (towla)thread.

The Towla worm attaches itself to a TREE, upside down....as I believe the caterpillar does when it's entering the Pupae stage.

kathryn

12-09-2011, 04:37 PM

It is the voice of the Christ/Bride/Mother...the NEW JERUSALEM, who offers the Cup of the New Wine:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

debz

12-09-2011, 06:35 PM

In response to previous posts between Richard, Rose and I….I, too, once thoroughly believed the Traditional View—it was absolutely 'clear' in Scripture. I used to argue against liberal feminists on this very topic. And when pushed to examine 'egalitarian' viewpoints, I set out to prove them wrong. I read everyone I could find–from the heavy-hitter Complementarians (Grudem, Piper, etc.), to those from the Egalitarian side. Both sides had many weak arguments, and both sides had some good things to say (I was holding to what seemed plain in scripture). In the end, when looking at the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek through scholars more learned than me, and the whole counsel of God’s Word, I realized that indeed, the Word had been twisted and translated in ways to support bias against women, but the Lord never intended them to be continually subjugated. As for which 'side' I’m on now: neither. There IS a plumbline. I would call my perspective 'complementarian without hierarchy.'

OK, continuing this wonderful debate, I’m going to break this down into several parts. My belief is that we should interpret the Bible by what the Bible says, not by what men say it says… We have to look at the whole counsel: 'The SUM of your word is truth…' (Ps 119:160) With that in mind, maybe review my post #31 on this thread, because that describes how it was 'in the beginning' (as Jesus pointed to), and is foundational for understanding everything. In the beginning, there was not a hierarchy of man 'over' woman—the two were ONE.

One of the most infamous passages used to silence women is 1 Tim 2:12: 'But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.'

We’ll analyze this specific verse shortly, but keep in mind: If this was a command from God that women are never to teach or have any leadership position 'over' men, then the rest of the Bible would support this as well. In light of this, let’s look at a few prominent examples of women in leadership and teaching other men.

(Note: 'JMT' refers to Jonathan Mitchell Translation – an expert in Koine Greek who has produced the best N.T. I’ve seen yet)

OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETESSES AND LEADERS:

Deborah, a prophetess and Judge, leading all of Israel: Judg 4:4-5 'Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.' NIV

Huldah, prophetess: 2 Kings 22:14 + 2 Chr 34:22

Miriam, prophetess, co-leader of Israel with Moses & Aaron: Exodus (e.g. Ex 15:20) & Numbers, and God said himself that he sent Miriam as a leader: Mic 6:4 'I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.'

Sarai’s name was changed by God, to Sarah—this was a highly significant name-change—it has the same meaning as 'Prince/Ruler of the People in her own right'—both she and Abraham were given this charge at the same time—together they were to be 'the father of many nations' (as the two are ONE, as God stated from the beginning). Later, God even commanded Abraham to OBEY Sarah—only most translations water the word down to say 'listen to' her…(the word is translated 'hearken' or 'obey'--much stronger than just 'listen to'--everywhere else):

Gen 21:12-13 'But God said to Abraham, 'Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.' NKJV

Isa 51:1-2 says: 'Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD : Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth. When I called him he was but one, and I blessed him and made him many.'

The point is that when God changed Abram’s name, he changed Sarai’s at the same time…it’s a calling and commissioning to them both. God points to them as a couple here in Isaiah ('look to Abraham, AND to Sarah…'). Abraham could not have been the Father without the Mother. When God says he blessed him and made him many, he is looking at the two AS ONE, as He declared marriages should be from the beginning. Just because Abraham is mentioned most often just by his own name, doesn’t mean he still wasn’t 'ONE' with Sarah—the two are 'ONE.' It is the same as when God created man, as I pointed out in post #31.

NEW TESTAMENT:

Junia was a woman, noted as an apostle (and an outstanding one at that), by Paul: Rom 16:7: 'Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.' KJV

'Greet Andronicus and Junia (papyrus MS46 and others read: Julia), my relatives (or: fellow-countryment) and fellow-captives, who are ones bearing a distinctive mark (a sign) upon them (or: = that are well-known or famous) among those sent out with a mission (the representatives; the emissaries), ones that were birthed within Christ before me.' JMT

Apostles, by description, both teach and lead. Eph 4:11 does not distinguish the gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, pastor as only men...and they all must teach and lead to function.

See also:

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/rissjunia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

Acts 18:24-26…Priscilla and Aquilla take Apollos aside to 'explain the word of God more adequately to him…' It is a well-known fact that at the time of this writing, whenever a couple was mentioned, the more prominent one (in the line of work or subject matter) was listed first—Priscilla is here listed ahead of Aquilla, which shows she was the more notable teacher. Furthermore, if women weren’t ever to teach men, she would have never been praised here as having done so, or there would have been a disclaimer as to why she did (if it wasn’t generally 'allowed').

Acts 2:17 '…..your sons AND DAUGHTERS will prophesy…'

1 Cor 4:31 '…for you can ALL prophesy….' (not just the men….)

And what is prophecy? Speaking to the church in order that the church can be edified! (1 Cor 14:5; 14:31; 14:39; etc.) You cannot prophesy unless you speak to the church! Paul was not contradicting himself as it appears—he wasn’t telling women forevermore to 'be silent' in the church and not teach, etc., when in other places he encourages women to do so. But unfortunately, many have taken those one or two scriptures and created a doctrine that doesn’t line up with the rest of scripture.

But wait, there’s more! Phoebe in Romans 16:1 is listed as a 'servant of the church in Cenchrea…' The word for 'servant' there is diakonos and everywhere else in the N.T. it is translated as 'minister' or 'deacon' – that is, everywhere else where it refers to a man! (Funny how they translated this as 'servant' only in the case of a woman.) It’s like the translators must have thought, 'this just cannot be…this is a woman, and women cannot be ministers, leaders, deacons in the church….we must make this say something else...' But it doesn’t end there. The verse continues to say, 'for she has been a great help to many…including me.' Other translations read, 'a patron of many…,' or a 'succorer…' ….all of these translations on the kind of 'help' Phoebe was are way off the mark. The word in the original is 'prostatis,' which is the feminine form of prosteimi, which means: 'to stand before in rank, to be over, or to rule.' It is the same word describing how elders of the church are to function. Phoebe was clearly a prominent leader/elder in the church.

JMT says: '…for she also became one who stands before many (or: a leader or presiding officer over many; = a champion, protector or patron of many) – even of me, myself!' Paul recognized her as being this kind of help to even himself, not as if she were an 'assistant' of his!

See also: http://godswordtowomen.org/Fees2.htm

(Continued next post…)

debz

12-09-2011, 06:39 PM

debz

12-09-2011, 06:44 PM

(Continued from Post #87)

1 Tim 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Regarding the 1 Tim 2 verses: There are a couple schools of thought on why Paul would say this at this time. But either way, we know he was not against women teaching merely because of gender—but because of other aspects peculiar to the issue or times at hand.
In this letter to Timothy, up to this point, Paul is addressing men and women (plural), and just in these verses (11-15) switches to singular–he is addressing a SINGLE person–one individual woman–a woman who was teaching heresy (or it could also be a single group of women, but is definitely not 'all women for all time' as will be shown); Paul was commanding her (or them) to learn and not to teach–and to learn in the attitude that all men were accustomed already to learning–in silence and submission to God and the teacher–she was to abstain from teaching for a while to spend the time instead learning. She was silenced not because she was a woman, but because she was teaching false doctrine, a heresy that was causing serious problems for the church (as the entire letter addresses in various manners). It wasn’t a matter of gender, because Paul had also addressed other false teachers throughout this epistle–both men and women–and the men he was particularly harsh to: Hymaneus & Alexander were 'handed over to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme'; in other words, to stop them from speaking untruths about God, Paul silenced them, too.

The ONLY command in this entire passage from Paul--the only wording that is in the imperative form--is LET THE WOMAN LEARN….or, translated right: THE WOMAN MUST LEARN…this was actually a huge, liberating statement for women of that day—especially coming from a devout Jew such as Paul—because women weren’t allowed at all to learn in the Jewish culture! Paul, like Jesus before Him, was elevating the status of women, freeing them from the oppression they lived under from male dominance. The fact that he adds '…in full subjection' simply shows the manner in which they were to learn—as the men were already accustomed to—everyone learns 'in full subjection' to their teacher and to the Lord. It is only our traditional mindsets that would interpret that as meaning 'in subjection to men.'

Then it changes out of the imperative form and the next verse is in simple present tense: 'I am not now permitting a [certain] woman to teach….' Or 'I am not now permitting women at this time to teach…'

It is no longer in the imperative, which would make it a command, and then read: 'I will never permit women to teach….'

Paul showed elsewhere that he wanted reliable persons to teach: 'The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable PERSONS who will also be qualified to teach others'…he could have used the word 'aner' here, which would mean just the males/men; but instead chose 'anthropos' = mankind/persons.

Titus 1:10-11 Paul used the same solution to men there who were spreading false teachings. He said 'For there are many rebellious MEN…who must be silenced.' Yet, we would never generalize these instructions to say that because male false teachers were spreading heresies, then all male teachers must be silenced!

As for the rest of the verse: '…or to usurp authority over the man.' The original word that is here translated as 'authority' is the infinitive, authentein. This is the ONLY place in the Bible this word is used. It is not the normal word for 'authority'—Paul was a smart man—he could have easily used exousia or another word if that is what he meant. As seen in other writings from that time, authentein has extremely negative connotations—meaning to domineer, usurp authority in a hostile manner, and even to murder. If this is the true meaning of authentein, then the whole of the verse, rightly translated, says: 'I do not permit a woman to teach as in a way to domineer or gain authority over a man' It most likely had to do with the prominent feminist teaching of their culture—believing women were superior—Paul is correcting a teaching that women are not superior to men (but nor are men superior to women, as seen in other passages).

Jon Zens wrote a great little book, titled, 'What’s With Paul and Women?' in which he thoroughly examines this particular passage. Here is his summary following a more in-depth teaching on it all:

1 Tim 2:11-15 says nothing about women being or remaining 'silent.'
There is no command [imperative] in 1 Tim 2:12 connected to women not teaching. Paul uses a simple present tense, 'I am not now permitting…'
The infinitive, authentein, does not mean 'to exercise authority over.' The two infinitives, didaskein and authentein, are best correlated together as purpose or goal, thus translated as 'I am not now permitting a woman to teach for the purpose of getting her way with a man.'
Some key elements in1 Tim 2:11-15 are clarified and elucidated by considering the pervasive influence of the Artemis cult in Ephesus: (a) women in Ephesus sought the favor of Artemis by offering prayers as they appeared before her donning expensive clothing, jewels, and fancy locks; Paul indicates that such gaudy attire and presentation are unnecessary for Christian women; (b) the need for a posture of learning on the part of some women because of the influence of false teaching; (c) the female-centeredness of the Artemis religion is suggestive of why a woman could teach with the goal of dominating a man; (d) because it was believed that Artemis came first from Leto and then her male twin Apollos was born, it can be understood why Paul would point out that Adam was formed first; (e) because women were exalted in the Artemis-cult, it can be appreciated why Paul would mention that Eve was deceived into sin; (f) while many women looked to Artemis in connection with fertility and childbirth, Paul directs godly women to Christ as the promised Seed who was promised to Eve in Gen 3:15.

One slightly different interpretation, but still supporting the idea that this was instruction for a specific situation, is as follows:

Don Rousu:

"The translation hinges on the Greek verb, authentein. The problem is that this verb is found nowhere else in the Bible. From years of studying biblical languages, I know that translators learn the meaning of a word by studying it in other Bible passages. Where there are no other Bible passages, they must look in comparative literature of the same time period. Although most translators of I Timothy have interpreted authentein to mean 'to usurp authority' over a man, or 'to have authority' over a man, such a translation violates both the context of Paul's writing and the first century usage of the word in other literature...

"Around the time the New Testament was written, the most common meaning of authentein was 'to be, or claim to be the author or the originator of something.' To underscore the point with a pun, this appears to be the authentic translation of authentein, the crucial verb of I Tim. 2:12.

"Not only have translators overlooked the prevailing meaning of the word authentein at the time the New Testament was written, but they also seem to have missed the cultural context in which Paul wrote his letter to Timothy.

"Timothy was in Ephesus. Ephesus was the world center of paganism governed spiritually by the female deity Artemis, whom the Romans called Diana. The cult of Artemis taught the superiority of the female and advocated female domination of the male. It espoused a doctrine of feminine procreation teaching that this goddess was able to bring forth offspring without male involvement. The cult was characterized by sexual perversion, fertility rites, endless myths, and elaborate genealogies traced through female rather than male bloodlines...

"Also present in Ephesus was a contingent of Jewish Gnostics who represented the first century's equivalent of the New Age movement. The Greek word for 'Gnostic' is gnosis meaning 'knowledge.' Gnostics acknowledged spirit guides and combined the teachings of Artemis with the teachings of the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve.

"In the most prevalent Gnostic version of the story, Eve was the 'illuminator' of mankind because she was the first to receive 'true knowledge' from the Serpent, whom Gnostics saw as the 'savior' and revealer of truth. Gnostics believed that Eve taught this new revelation to Adam, and being the mother of all, was the progenitor of the human race. Adam, they said, was Eve's son rather than her husband. This belief reflected the Gnostic doctrine that a female deity could bring forth children without male involvement.
"In light of the authentic meaning of the word authentein and of the social context within which Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, let me offer what I believe is an appropriate rendering of the text in I Timothy. I believe Paul is saying, 'I am not allowing (present tense for that situation) a woman to teach or to proclaim herself the originator of man authentein.' Do you see how this translation offsets false doctrine?

"The word that is frequently translated 'silence,' hesuchia, also means harmony, peace, conformity or agreement. I therefore suggest Paul goes on to say, 'she must be in agreement,' meaning agreement with the Scriptures and with sound teaching in the Church.
"He continues in this vein saying, 'Adam was formed first, then Eve.' This statement militates against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says, 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!' This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the 'illuminator,' and carrier of new revelation."

Timothy 2:11-12 (Paraphrased and Amplified):

[Now in response to the Gnostic teaching stemming from the worship of Artemis that Eve was the originator of Adam and the goddess of life], let a woman learn (in agreement with sound doctrine) with all submission (to that doctrine). And I do not permit a woman to teach that she is the originator or the illuminator of man, but to be in agreement (with the church). For Adam was first formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [his was direct disobedience], but woman being deceived [thus not being infallible], fell into transgression [proving that she was human.]

David Fees: There is a liberating peace from the Lord about this interpretation. I believe it is THE correct one. It corresponds with the practice of Paul and other Scriptures. Men and women, be set free!

Why does God seemingly wait for centuries to reveal a truth? Just like being saved by faith was not revealed to Martin Luther until the fifteenth century, there is a time and place in the economy of God. I now sense that God is going to open up other Scriptures that will totally release women. There will always be those who will not believe, but that will be a heart problem. There have been many well-meaning believers who did not want to violate the apparent translation of this Scripture, so they would not allow women in certain places of ministry. Now, there is no excuse. It will be a stubbornness of heart, a clinging to the old, a refusal to let go, not correct doctrine.

From: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm

Bottom line is, this is an isolated scripture, and pertains to a peculiar set of circumstances. It does not line up with the rest of scripture. It is focused in on by carnal men/leaders who want to continue suppressing women. But what do they do about passages like: 'I would that all men were as me (celibate)' (1 Cor 7:7)…does this mean that ALL MEN, must be celibate forever? If not, then why not? It seems like plain, straightforward wording. Why not apply these scriptures to the men when they apply obscure scriptures to women that contradict other clear teaching? There are some scriptures that are simply addressing specific situations, like 2 Tim 4:13, 'When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.'

(Continued next post…)

debz

12-09-2011, 06:52 PM

(Continued from Post #88)

'Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.' Eph 5:22

Probably the most well-known verse to Christian husbands ;-) There’s only one problem. Get out your concordance and look up the word for 'submit' in verse 22.

It’s not there.

This verse cannot be properly translated unless it is viewed in context with all the verses that complete the thought Paul was expressing. And that starts with vs 21: 'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.' This is a command to ALL—male and female, and this is the only way verse 22 can be interpreted as 'wives, submit to your husbands'—because it is following the idea presented first in vs 21. However, it doesn’t end there, because vs 21 says 'submit to one another,' vs 22 addresses the wives’ part in that: 'wives, to your husbands…' (I’ll address vs 23--24 later) and then the thought is still carried into the husband’s piece in completing the 'to one another' part in vs. 25: 'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…' The husband is to agape love (love without conditions, without the receiver doing anything to earn it) his wife in the same way Christ did the church: He gave his life up for her. He laid His life completely down for her. He put her ahead of his own desires and DIED for her. This is an even stronger command to the husbands than to the wives to 'make themselves less than' the other!! But it completes the chain of mutual submission that is presented here: 'Submit to one another….wives to your husbands…AND husbands to your wives by laying down your lives….'

This has been so twisted and mistranslated because of the misunderstanding of the words 'submit' and 'head.' Firstly, submit (hupotasso) does NOT mean 'obey'! If the idea was that a wife was to obey her husband, Paul and the other writers of the New Testament would have clearly said obey, but they didn’t. They used 'obey' when speaking of children’s relationship to their parents, and slaves to their masters—but deliberately chose hupotasso instead for the relationship of wife to husband. It is a voluntary act of deferring one’s preferences to another and arranging oneself after someone else who is headed in the right direction, and is used in several places to speak of how Christians are to act toward other Christians—even telling men to submit to other men, etc. It is in keeping with Jesus’ teachings of NOT calling anyone your 'master,' 'teacher,' or 'leader' except God alone—and this includes wives to their husbands! A husband is not to be 'as God' to his wife—although that sin of wanting to be is still very ingrained in a lot of men, and they can find Bible passages to seemingly support that (kind of like how men found passages to support having slaves not so long ago).

Now to look at the 'headship' portion of the Eph 5 passages:

Eph 5:23-24
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Many men have read this to say something like, 'For the husband is the boss of the wife as Christ is the boss of the church.' And that supports their sinful desires to be 'as God to,' to control the relationship, to assure their self-interests will always win out, etc. But it cannot mean that and keep with the rest of the teaching of the Bible. Once again we have to also look at which words were NOT used here—and although there are several Greek words that could have been chosen that have the clear meaning of 'chief' (as in boss), or 'governing authority,' 'leader,' 'lord,' or 'master,' NONE of these words was used. So we have to see which meaning best fits with the concepts being taught, and which are also in agreement with the rest of Scripture.

As for the verses on the husband being the 'head of' the wife….again, Paul was a smart dude…he could have used several words that meant 'authority over' here, but he didn’t. The word for head is kephale…it is a distinct word and is best translated 'source of life' …which also fits with God being the source of life of Christ, and Christ being the source of life of man…and Christ being the source of life to the church. It can be likened to the 'head of a river'—it is not the boss of the river, but it is the river’s 'source.' This also keeps with the Greek culture’s belief at the time this was written of the head of the body being the 'life source,' or having a supportive, life-giving role to the physical body. This is why the verses also affirm Christ’s role to the church—they are not referring to His Lordship (they could have chosen that word, but didn’t)—they are referring to His role as the 'life giving support' of the Church. And as the church submits to Christ (is built upon, arranging herself after and responding to that Life source), so the wife responds to the life-giving efforts of her husband. Husbands can be a source of life or a source of death to their wives—and how he treats her will also be reflected through her attitude in their home, even extending to the children. Sources of life build-up, support, tenderly care and provide for, and help them attain their best and highest. This is why it goes on to show Christ’s role in helping the church become 'without spot or blemish'—He is helping her attain her best and highest. Sources of death expect subordination, want to be served and honored, want to 'lord over' others, criticize, neglect, etc., and end up sucking the life out of their wives.

When marriage is compared to Christ and the church in Eph 5, it is in the context of Christ & the church being as ONE, and as Christ being the nurturing, provisional, support of the church–the bridegroom who says, 'come up here' and the One who wishes that she attain her very best (without spot or wrinkle)…not of one who wants to subjugate her to his rule! They are to rule and reign together and subjugate the enemy and evil!! It is not a reference to His lordship, of which He is Lord of ALL—He is woman’s Lord individually every bit as He is man’s Lord individually—she is to obey HIM alone as Lord, but not her husband as Lord. If read properly, these verses speak of the union God desires of 'oneness' between husband and wife, not of one ruling over the other.

Another little thing to note in the Eph 5:24 passage is that the word 'should' is not in the original text and therefore changes the meaning. The literal translation says this: 'Therefore as the church submits to Christ, so do wives to husbands in every way.' Or, if properly translated, 'as the church responds to Christ’s life-giving support, so do wives respond positively to their husbands in every way.' 1 John 4:19 says, 'We love because He first loved us' – it is the same concept that is reflected here. Husbands, love your wives, and in response to that you’ll be loved and respected back. Makes much more sense and fits in with the rest of Jesus’ teachings this way, but it’s a hard one to swallow for self-centered men who want the preeminence (no matter how much they claim to be 'loving, servant-leaders').

One more comment on Eph 5:33, 'Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.' This has also been mistranslated (other translations say 'the wife should respect her husband,' etc.) Let’s look at the JMT again for a literal translation:

'Moreover, you men also, individually, each one thus (in this way) be continually loving his own wife as (or: as she were) himself, and so the result will be that the wife would continually have deep respect for the husband.' When translated correctly, it fits the whole idea of 'we love because He first loved us.' Wives respond to how their husbands treat them—whether they are sources of life or sources of death.

When you look at the whole of scripture, God’s heart on the matter is to have it be, as Jesus pointed to: 'as it was in the beginning.' In the beginning they were ONE—there wasn’t one 'over' the other in authority. There is to be mutual submission—the wife is instructed to submit to the husband, but the husband is instructed to 'LAY HIS LIFE DOWN' for his wife and to AGAPE love his wife (a much stricter command than submit!). Nowhere in scripture is the wife instructed to agape love the husband (because she will naturally love him if he loves her first, that is the way women are designed). Agape love puts the other’s needs ahead of his own. Agape love is love without conditions—in other words, no matter how the other responds, you are to love. Living that way is inconsistent with living as a 'boss' or one 'in authority over' another.

The only place it truly speaks about a wife or husband having 'authority over' the other is in the context of mutuality: 1 Cor 7:4-5, 'The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.' They both have 'authority over' each other.

Luke 22:24-27
24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Jesus clearly taught his disciples NOT to be 'like the Gentiles,' and He never added anything like, 'Oh, except for husbands—it’s OK for husbands to rule their wives….' He would have had to qualify that if he meant for it to ever be an exception to the rule He taught, but he didn’t!! The Luke 22 verses speak to the issue particularly well if we apply it to unbelieving husbands (my paraphrase): 'The male ‘kings of their castles’ lord it over their wives; those husbands who exercise authority over their wives even call themselves 'servant leaders' (benefactors), trying to make it look like they’re actually doing good for their wives by being the one to lead and make all the final decisions… But you are not to be like that!!'

QUOTE I FOUND SOMEWHERE, DON'T KNOW AUTHOR:

'We may take courage. Up to very recent times a slave class was looked upon as a necessity and slavery as legitimate. Some men were born, it was supposed, to be slaves; others to be their masters; and the world could not go on without the two classes. That misconception was exploded, and the world goes on quite comfortably. So long as slavery existed, men thought they found warrant for it in the Word of God. But the number who thought so came to be a decreasing number. Just so, the number of those who imagine they find, in the Word of God, warrant for the dominion of the male over the female, is an ever-decreasing number.

'The third chapter of Genesis, rightly translated and interpreted, reveals to us the fact that lordship of the husband over the wife, which began when man sinned, was Satanic in origin. Knowing this, and the strong force of a long-indulged habit, it need not surprise us if we discover that men have gone to their Bibles (as they did on the slavery question), to find warrant for what they were already doing, not to find a clue as to what they should do.'

For more good info on these topics, with many scholars contributing, visit:

www.godswordtowomen.org

Rose

12-09-2011, 11:26 PM

debz

12-09-2011, 11:48 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-10-2011, 12:46 AM

Hi Debz, :yo:

Just wanted to let you know that I plan on reading through your posts :aim14: and responding to them. I've ran out of time today, so hopefully I'll get started on them tomorrow...

All the best,
Rose
Hey Deb, :yo:

I'm dittoing Rose here. You produced a wonderfully condensed review of the literature on this subject, but it's still gonna take me a while to read it. Just wanted to say "thanks" and I'll get to it as time permits. Tomorrow is a full day of conference, so it may be a couple days before I can jump in.

Richard

kathryn

12-10-2011, 07:59 AM

Back to vs 34 where it says women aren’t allowed to speak: 'just as the Law also says…' What law is this verse referring to? There is no law in the Old Testament that says women cannot speak. There is no reference to a scripture given here. That’s because it is not referring to an Old Testament law but to a Jewish Rabbinical tradition that the Corinthian church had adopted.

The harshness of the language in verse 35 gives us another clue that this 'Law' is actually a man-made rule invented by the same type of legalistic Judaizers that Paul publicly opposed in the churches of Galatia and Colossae. The phrase, 'It is improper for a woman to speak in church,' can actually be translated, 'It is shameful for a woman to speak.'

Do we honestly believe this verse reflects the heart of God? It cannot be. Paul is quoting those who held to a degrading view of women–and who actually described women in Jewish writings as vile and disgraceful… Examples:

From the Jewish Talmud: 'Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law. It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.'

'Men should not sit and listen to a woman…even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they came from the mouth of a woman.' –Origen

But because Paul opposed this degrading view of women, he responds to the Corinthians in verse 36 with a sharp answer (a very sarcastic answer, similar to Jesus’ response to the Pharisees): 'WHAT?! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?' This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judaizers of Corinth, then we can understand the defiant tone of verse 36. To paraphrase him: 'What??!! (or 'what the $#@%#!') …You are going to silence women when the gospel was first preached by women after they saw Him at the tomb following the resurrection? Do you really think preaching the gospel is only for men??!!'

This passage is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Bible. I believe the only way it can logically be interpreted is to accept the fact that Paul is responding to a quoted statement. This view was repeated by theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer in Christianity Today: 'In 1 Cor 14 we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter from the Corinthians and Paul’s solutions to problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier.'

Thanks for the walk- through in this teaching of Paul, Deb. I have never done a study on this with Paul. I had assumed he was still just "seeing through a glass darkly" and mixing the two.
It didn't occur to me to think that this totally conflicts with Paul as THE NT type of the Voice coming out of the wilderness of the "mixture" or "donkey" stage of the church...as the one who was taken OUT of the church, to the wilderness, to be hand-taught to hear the "proceeding word from the Throne" (God's voice coming through the Virgin womb or subconcious mind) Paul's name means "little" and Peter was the "little" rock...or the "small beginning" where the plummet line begins. So...thank you for unveiling that for me! (that was one type I hadn't put through the "rigorous" testing!:pray: I wonder how many more I've missed!:D Ain't this shedding of vain imaginations great! ? There's another little "poop" to add to the growing pile. :hysterical:

And yes..I can now CLEARLY (whew) see that this was a Law that they had added (or mixed up) with their carnal (VAIN) interpretations of God's Law, where the TRUE plummet is laid and BEGINS in the "mother"/New Jerusalem. They had no idea that a woman wasn't allowed in the Temple..NOT because she was inferior, but because the Temple was the feminine type of the Bride/woman . For a woman to "enter" her...would bring no Life. (they didn't "re-mem-ber" David's Tabernacle where the WHOLE congregation...male and female, could enter the Holy of Holies...with no veil...no sacrifices...and worship freely without restriction. Of course the Tabernacle of Moses was in full use at the same time...which shows the separation of the Saul/Moses church from the Paul/Davidic. (And...Saul merging into "little Paul"...or the "donkey" into the "white horse".)

They also added to the Law of Atonement...where the second goat is taken into the wilderness. Over time, they pushed the second goat over a cliff:eek:....which completely destroys the whole meaning and understanding of the Bride coming out of the wilderness, "leaning on her Lover"....and eliminating the Bride/Woman completely!

Eve has to become ONE with Adam(fully consummated)...as the thread of redemption "weaves" the two together.(at the "place of the skull..the cup or BOWL of the mind)

In order for this to happen...Adam must CONSUME (take within himself) Eve AS the "blood and FLESH" of Christ within the woman.( when Jesus told them that they would have to "drink His Blood and eat His flesh" MANY left Him! This concept of drinking "blood" was an abomination to the Jews and against Levitical law...which they were misinterpreting.) Jesus CAME as the type of Asenath or Eve IN the 2nd Adam!
Asenath's name means: I will be HATED : SHE has stored up! ("I" Jesus/Sceptre...SHE..Asenath/Joseph/Shiloh) "The Sceptre will not leave Judah, nor a law giver between his feet, UNTIL Shiloh BO..COME".

This is that Cup which is first full of GALL (ROSH..HEAD) before it becomes Living water.("MY HEAD, MY HEAD"..the lifting up of the TWO heads, carnal and divine, serpent and Son of God. One is taken, The ONE remains.)

The "Sons of Thunder" must drink this Cup, to "sit on either side " (as Salome, their mother, asked of Jesus, for her sons). And..Jesus assured them that they WOULD MOST CERTAINLY drink it!

It is the Mother bride who calls 3 times in Rev. 22:17....COME COME COME...drink of the Living Waters.
Shiloh is running to meet her Bridegroom for her consummation on the "verdant" Bed....COME COME COME! BO BO BO! (so that her little miracle elephant (DumBO) http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/taronga-zoos-baby-elephant-born-alive-despite-expert-predictions-he-died-in-the-womb/story-e6frf7l6-1225839031581 can be "raised" from the grave...and birthed...the manifestation which ALL of creation has been groaning and waiting for! The donkey's neck must be broken if it can NOT be redeemed by a Lamb)...(carnal head removed)...to become the NECK OF IVORY (elephantinos) .

Exo 34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

PLEASE NOTE...ALL THE FIRSTBORN (INCLUDING THE DONKEY) SHALL BE REDEEMED. NONE (AS IN NONE) shall appear before Him empty! The tares are NOT people...they are MINDSETS!! Did we really believe that God was so powerless, impotent and VAIN...that He couldn't save ALL the World which He LOVES????) I know I did for a long time...! It's time for the GOOD NEWS...of which there is NO BAD news....to go forth. The Earth is DRY DRY DRY and waiting for those waters to break forth in the 2nd and final FLOOD of LIVING WATER. This happens in THREE stages....The "remant" are the FIRST of THREE...not the "chosen few" who were fortunate enough to go through that "narrow" way/passage (as though WE have something to do with our birthing! ) ALL of mankind is being birthed....first the "firstfruits"of
Barley...and then the rest of the Harvest... the wheat and the grapes. The head/neck crowns FIRST...followed by the "shoulders"...government...and then the rest of the Body! We are ONE Body, joined to the ONE HEAD.

debz

12-10-2011, 09:44 AM

Richard: Yeh, well it's still not that "condensed" ... it's a big deception, perpetuated for 2000 years by the ones who are supposed to be freeing and elevating the women... As I mentioned somewhere else: women and the supernatural are the biggest things the enemy comes against and causes the most deception about in the church...there's a reason for that...and it's changing :winking0071:

Charisma

12-10-2011, 09:49 AM

Hi Kathryn,

I have not followed (nor have time to follow in full,) this thread, so I'm not sure if I ought to know how you arrive at the conclusions you have laid around the following statement:
This concept of drinking "blood" was an abomination to the Jews and against Levitical law...which they were misinterpreting.) Please could you say briefly what 'they were misinterpreting' around the prohibition of drinking blood?

And, are you saying that Levitical Jews were mistaken in not 'drinking blood'?

Lastly, how do you know they used to 'push the second goat off a cliff'?

Many thanks.

kathryn

12-10-2011, 09:54 AM

Hi Kathryn,

I have not followed (nor have time to follow in full,) this thread, so I'm not sure if I ought to know how you arrive at the conclusions you have laid around the following statement: Please could you say briefly what 'they were misinterpreting' around the prohibition of drinking blood?

And, are you saying that Levitical Jews were mistaken in not 'drinking blood'?

Lastly, how do you know they used to 'push the second goat off a cliff'?

Many thanks.

Hi Charisma...So happy you're back with us. I missed you on the Matt.17 thread.
Here is the info on the "cliff": http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2009/scapegoat.html

They weren't to consume blood...as the "life" was in the blood. They were seeing the "letter" of the Law/logos...but not understanding the Rhema.

heb13-13

12-10-2011, 11:17 AM

Hi Charisma...So happy you're back with us. I missed you on the Matt.17 thread.
Here is the info on the "cliff": http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2009/scapegoat.html

They weren't to consume blood...as the "life" was in the blood. They were seeing the "letter" of the Law/logos...but not understanding the Rhema.

Hi Kathryn,

So, they WERE supposed to consume blood? In your article I still don't see where the goat gets pushed off the cliff in the Bible. I do see extra-biblical sources (Mormonism), though.

John Pratt's articles contain a lot of "mixture".

Jesus died for our sins, not Satan's sins. We are either condemned by our sins or exonerated by exercising faith towards God in Jesus Christ. In the Bible man is called a sinner not Satan. Both will be judged.

The Gospel is simple and John Pratt's article seems to fail the "simplicity test".

Kindly,
Rick

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/index.html

kathryn

12-10-2011, 11:23 AM

Hi Kathryn,

So, they WERE supposed to consume blood? In your article I still don't see where the goat gets pushed off the cliff in the Bible. I do see extra-biblical sources (Mormonism), though.

John Pratt's articles contain a lot of "mixture".

Jesus died for our sins, not Satan's sins. We are either condemned by our sins or exonerated by exercising faith towards God in Jesus Christ. In the Bible man is called a sinner not Satan. Both will be judged.

The Gospel is simple and John Pratt's article seems to fail the "simplicity test".

Kindly,
Rick

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/index.html

Hi Rick...There was nothing in Levitical Law that told them to push the goat off the cliff. This was ADDED to (we can't add or subtract from the Word)...which was what Deb was referring to about the translators of the Logos. We aren't pulling apart the Word made Flesh (Logos) ...but the written or "letter" of the Logos.

The character and purposes of God were always meant to be seen through His Creation(His Word made FLESH)...It was when we traded the Truth of God for a Lie and began "adding" to it, with our carnal minds, that the whole downward spiral mentioned at the beginning of Roman's , began.

Learning of God....or learning of our "Father/Bridegroom" was NEVER meant to be learned "precept on precept".We were meant to KNOW Him (consummate with Him(CONSUME HIM)..spirit and matter , heaven and earth, northern house with southern house If you look at Isaiah 28...the written word..or the LETTER of the word...was given as a CURSE.

http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=23&cnum=28&vnum=1&InContext=Yes#v1
Do you see what I'm saying now about the blood? I know..this is a huge shift of thinking...but it's one of the last mindsets to come down. I didn't fully see the written Logos as the curse until very recently.

Do you remember Jesus saying : (paraphrase)..."you search the pages of the written word for Life..and don't find it" (It was standing, IN the FLESH, right in front of them)

Christ was "slain before the foundation of the world"....entering Creation...as the Word made Flesh....before Adam was formed. The Christ (male/female) is IN AND THROUGH ALL THINGS. All of creation has alway prophecied of His character and purposes, but we "traded the Truth of God for a Lie". All of typology expresses the "two sided coin" that was in the Fishes mouth....the serpent/Son of God who is lifted UP.(the curse of the serpent has been reversed...the Ark has landed on Ararat (reversal of curse). The serpent (wisdom) is the Christ ...Joseph/Asenath as ONE...The Treasury of the Glorious Rest. (Joseph's NEW name)

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil...was the Tree of Life divided. ALL of creation had to be divided, in order for the VOICE of God to come forth. (the waters were divided, waters above from the waters below, in the CROSS(ing) of the Jordan.

debz

12-10-2011, 03:02 PM

Hi Rick...There was nothing in Levitical Law that told them to push the goat off the cliff. This was ADDED to (we can't add or subtract from the Word)...which was what Deb was referring to about the translators of the Logos. We aren't pulling apart the Word made Flesh (Logos) ...but the written or "letter" of the Logos.

The character and purposes of God were always meant to be seen through His Creation(His Word made FLESH)...It was when we traded the Truth of God for a Lie and began "adding" to it, with our carnal minds, that the whole downward spiral mentioned at the beginning of Roman's , began.

Learning of God....or learning of our "Father/Bridegroom" was NEVER meant to be learned "precept on precept".We were meant to KNOW Him (consummate with Him(CONSUME HIM)..spirit and matter , heaven and earth, northern house with southern house If you look at Isaiah 28...the written word..or the LETTER of the word...was given as a CURSE.

http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=23&cnum=28&vnum=1&InContext=Yes#v1
Do you see what I'm saying now about the blood? I know..this is a huge shift of thinking...but it's one of the last mindsets to come down. I didn't fully see the written Logos as the curse until very recently.

Do you remember Jesus saying : (paraphrase)..."you search the pages of the written word for Life..and don't find it" (It was standing, IN the FLESH, right in front of them)

Christ was "slain before the foundation of the world"....entering Creation...as the Word made Flesh....before Adam was formed. The Christ (male/female) is IN AND THROUGH ALL THINGS. All of creation has alway prophecied of His character and purposes, but we "traded the Truth of God for a Lie". All of typology expresses the "two sided coin" that was in the Fishes mouth....the serpent/Son of God who is lifted UP.(the curse of the serpent has been reversed...the Ark has landed on Ararat (reversal of curse). The serpent (wisdom) is the Christ ...Joseph/Asenath as ONE...The Treasury of the Glorious Rest. (Joseph's NEW name)

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil...was the Tree of Life divided. ALL of creation had to be divided, in order for the VOICE of God to come forth. (the waters were divided, waters above from the waters below, in the CROSS(ing) of the Jordan.

Hi Kathryn,

I agree with most of this, but cannot reconcile what you say about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the Tree of Life divided . I do not see it that way. In the garden, there were BOTH trees. They represent a lineage of two 'family trees' that is portrayed all throughout scripture. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil held the poisonous fruit that represents the 'kingdoms of this world' – it is why the enemy wanted them to eat it, because it held the source of his power. The lineages begin with Cain & Able – Cain was a 'tiller of the ground,' representing carnal/earthly-mindedness – his offering was not accepted (even though it seemed 'good' – it was produced by his own efforts). It is what the religious folk of Jesus’ day were all eating, too – the most 'moral' and 'upright' (doing the 'good' and avoiding the 'evil' – still eating from that tree…) were the ones who couldn’t recognize Jesus as the LIFE (in the flesh, as you mentioned above), and who crucified Him. It is representative of the ultimate conflict between the kingdoms of this world (death) and the kingdom of God, and what is supposed to be swallowed up by LIFE…. I agree with you that the Letter (Old Covenant) killls, and the Spirit (New Covenant) brings LIFE ... and there are many who read the words of the New Covenant with an "Old Covenant" mindset...they just see it as more rules and principles to follow, and miss the message of LIFE entirely... and this is another example of those eating from the Tree of Knowledge instead of pursuing the Tree of Life...

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying? :)

Charisma

12-10-2011, 03:07 PM

Hi Kathryn,

I just didn't go back to the fish thread. I've been posting here and there, but perhaps not as much as others.

At time of writing this, I haven't yet looked at the John Pratt article. I will do. Meantime, you have said some things I want to comment on.

Christ was "slain before the foundation of the world"....entering Creation...as the Word made Flesh....before Adam was formed.Where in the Bible do you find it stated that 'Christ' was "slain before the foundation of the world"?

He was the Logos, before Adam was created. Where in the Bible do you find that He was 'made Flesh before Adam was created'?

They weren't to consume blood...as the "life" was in the blood.Yes. Now, please tell me what changed (or was to change), which enabled Jesus to offer them His blood to drink?

They were seeing the "letter" of the Law/logos...but not understanding the Rhema.In this sentence, please, who is 'they'?

In my earlier post, I asked: "Please could you say briefly what 'they were misinterpreting' around the prohibition of drinking blood?" Please can you answer this?

Lastly, where in the Bible is there support for this your statement:
drinking "blood" was an abomination to the Jews I'm particularly interested in any verse in which God Himself calls 'drinking blood' an 'abomination'.

Very many thanks.

heb13-13

12-10-2011, 04:37 PM

Hi Rick...There was nothing in Levitical Law that told them to push the goat off the cliff. This was ADDED to (we can't add or subtract from the Word)...which was what Deb was referring to about the translators of the Logos. We aren't pulling apart the Word made Flesh (Logos) ...but the written or "letter" of the Logos.

Wait. You are saying the translators added to the scriptures that a goat is supposed to be pushed off the cliff? What translators were these? Not sure if I am following you or not.

The character and purposes of God were always meant to be seen through His Creation(His Word made FLESH)...It was when we traded the Truth of God for a Lie and began "adding" to it, with our carnal minds, that the whole downward spiral mentioned at the beginning of Roman's , began.

Learning of God....or learning of our "Father/Bridegroom" was NEVER meant to be learned "precept on precept".We were meant to KNOW Him (consummate with Him(CONSUME HIM)..spirit and matter , heaven and earth, northern house with southern house If you look at Isaiah 28...the written word..or the LETTER of the word...was given as a CURSE.

What verse are you talking about?

http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=23&cnum=28&vnum=1&InContext=Yes#v1
Do you see what I'm saying now about the blood? I know..this is a huge shift of thinking...but it's one of the last mindsets to come down. I didn't fully see the written Logos as the curse until very recently.

No, I don't see that. I don't see anything about the blood in Isa 28 or the written word as a curse.

Do you remember Jesus saying : (paraphrase)..."you search the pages of the written word for Life..and don't find it" (It was standing, IN the FLESH, right in front of them)

Yes, but it is not the written word that is a curse or at fault, it is the hearts of men that are corrupt. Many people have read the written word and FOUND LIFE. The words that Jesus speaks are spirit and life. His spoken words were written down and the Holy Spirit makes them "life" in every generation, over and over to those who come to God with all their heart.

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil...was the Tree of Life divided. ALL of creation had to be divided, in order for the VOICE of God to come forth. (the waters were divided, waters above from the waters below, in the CROSS(ing) of the Jordan.

I don't see where the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was the Tree of Life.
Gen 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I see two distinct trees here and nothing about division or being divided.

Sorry, I just don't understand some of the things you are saying or seeing.

Best to you,
Rick

Rose

12-10-2011, 05:04 PM

kathryn

12-10-2011, 05:18 PM

Hi Kathryn,

I agree with most of this, but cannot reconcile what you say about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the Tree of Life divided . I do not see it that way. In the garden, there were BOTH trees. They represent a lineage of two 'family trees' that is portrayed all throughout scripture. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil held the poisonous fruit that represents the 'kingdoms of this world' – it is why the enemy wanted them to eat it, because it held the source of his power. The lineages begin with Cain & Able – Cain was a 'tiller of the ground,' representing carnal/earthly-mindedness – his offering was not accepted (even though it seemed 'good' – it was produced by his own efforts). It is what the religious folk of Jesus’ day were all eating, too – the most 'moral' and 'upright' (doing the 'good' and avoiding the 'evil' – still eating from that tree…) were the ones who couldn’t recognize Jesus as the LIFE (in the flesh, as you mentioned above), and who crucified Him. It is representative of the ultimate conflict between the kingdoms of this world (death) and the kingdom of God, and what is supposed to be swallowed up by LIFE…. I agree with you that the Letter (Old Covenant) killls, and the Spirit (New Covenant) brings LIFE ... and there are many who read the words of the New Covenant with an "Old Covenant" mindset...they just see it as more rules and principles to follow, and miss the message of LIFE entirely... and this is another example of those eating from the Tree of Knowledge instead of pursuing the Tree of Life...Hi Deb...I know...it takes awhile to see the two-sided concept. Richard was able to see it through his mathematical mind, as it being "drawn and quartered...not just divided in two. When we view things from the fruit of the tree of Good and Evil, we see in in black and white. The only way I know how to illustrate is how I was taught...by color. If you know the color wheel...the color red is the exact opposite on the wheel...to the color green.
If you were to ask a person, who only saw it through the tree of good and evil...what color is grass, they would reply "green". A painter however, if he is a good one, knows that if you add red into the "shadow" of the grass, it will make the painting vibrate with life. (there are many other examples of this in nature)

God's Kingdom...and God Himself, is a fully integrated. His image and nature is both male/female.
Adam and Eve, were in the early stage of formation. When they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil...(which was NOT poisonous as God said that they had become like Him/Her when they ate of it) It was only poisonous to them, because they weren't able to interpret it through the fully integrated mind. In order to have the Mind of God...they had to have a conscious mind..or a soul ....(and this overlaps the "heart") This was the division of the male spirit (heart/Adam) and the (soul/Eve). I hope this helps. I'm sure Richard will be able to explain the "drawing and quartering" aspect when he's back on-line. Everything had to be divided, in order for true Oneness . Remember...all types , like Cain and Able, represent two-sides of one process. They aren't separate, but simply expressing the division of the Tree of G and E..

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying? :)

kathryn

12-10-2011, 07:00 PM

Wait. You are saying the translators added to the scriptures that a goat is supposed to be pushed off the cliff? What translators were these? Not sure if I am following you or not.

What verse are you talking about? I don't know if it's in the Talmud or not Rick..but it is recorded in early Jewish writings. I am not talking in this case, of something that was added to scripture. I'm speaking of something that was added by the carnal interpretation of scripture. Deb, on the other hand, was giving evidence of where scripture itself had been misinterpreted by the translators

No, I don't see that. I don't see anything about the blood in Isa 28 or the written word as a curse. It doesn't say it those words...but God says He will teach them with a "stammering tongue" etc...and the learning of Him "precept upon precept" is part of that curse. God's character and purposes were always meant to be understood by the Word made Flesh in His Creation. Christ is "in and through" ALL things. God created Evil too. This is a very hard concept to grasp, until we understand the process we must walk through and why.

This isn't my favorite translation..but it's all I have beside me right now:

Romans 1:18 : The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is PLAIN to them because God made it plain to them. FOR SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, GOD'S INVISIBLE QUALITIES..HIS ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE SO THAT MEN ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. FOR ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW GOD, THEY NEITHER GLORIFIED HIM AS GOD NOR GAVE THANKS TO HIM, BUT THEIR FOOLISH (VAIN) THINKING BECAME FUTILE AND THEIR FOOLISH HEARTS WERE DARKENED. ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED TO BE WISE, THEY BECOME FOOLS.......THEY EXCHANGED THE TRUTH FOR A LIE" Now...read Isaiah 28 again...and maybe it will become clearer.

Yes, but it is not the written word that is a curse or at fault,not according to scripture Rick. Not only Isaiah 28 and Romans chapter 1 describes this "curse", but ALL of typology expresses this, in one way or another, and on many different levels. it is the hearts of men that are corrupt.Yes..but it God who "gave them over" to the corruption of their hearts. (their hearts weren't corrupted before this. They believed God and understood His character through His creation..the first and intended witness) It was all part of the process.

God "dug the pit" for Adam to fall into in the garden and they became "subject to the vanity of their mind". But...He also bound Himself in His Law's of liability, as owner of the earth, to redeem them, because in the Law, it is the owner who has to redeem or pay recompense for not protecting the "oxen" from falling in the pit. He bound Himself to that Law (and many other Laws of redemption) by sending his only begotten Son to redeem them from the "pit" they fell into. Many people have read the written word and FOUND LIFE.

Of course they have! God desires above all else, the we know Him. But but that doesn't meant it wasn't given as a curse! .Paul's thorn (given by a messenger of satan was sent by God as God sent the Evil spirit to Saul)It is given to all of us, to "buffet" the carnal mind, and bring us into the full Mind of Christ.

It is the leaven(condition of iniquity) in the two Pentecostal loaves that causes them them to "rise". I've heard people interpret this as "good" leaven...but in the Law of Moses (where the plummet line is laid and which Jesus fulfilled...leaven ALWAYS was a type of sin.
The OLD cells of the caterpillar, when it is forming into a butterfly, liquefy and are used to bring about the transformation. Creation is full of witnesses to this concept. The decaying, dead body of a tree provides the nutrients for new trees to grow. etc.

When we see things from the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil...we see the "serpent" as all evil..not realizing that it is used as part of the process...a tool to perfect our hearing so we can learn to discern between the carnal and divine...death and Life. It is first used to "test"/tempt us, as it too was cursed..but on the other side of the coin...it is a type of the Wisdom of God. God doesn't remove that "thorn" until we have had our minds consummated by the circumcised heart. The carnal heart has been the Uncircumcised "High Priest" which has been sitting on the Throne of our conscious mind/soul/will/emotions.

The words that Jesus speaks are spirit and life. His spoken words were written down yes...but in many instances, incorrectly. Granted...He still leads us through them, but again, this does not mean that the written word wasn't given as a curse. It simply means that by leading us through the maze, He is restoring us to our inheritance. He transforms the written word by Rhema...but He doesn't need the written word to give us Rhema. and the Holy Spirit makes them "life" in every generation, over and over to those who come to God with all their heart. Yes..this is absolutely true...but as Deb pointed out...the written word has been "added to and subtracted from". Yes, the heart of man (an aspect of the mind/soul/will) certainly plays a part in how we interpret it...but again..this is no virture of ours. God hardens the hearts of some, and softens the hearts of others. This sounds terrible until we understand that His purposes in this are ALL GOOD. I blamed my husband for years, for being apathetic towards the things of God...until I realized that he was "blinded" or hardened for a season, to perfect MY hearing. Who will receive the greatest honor in this? Not me! And in the end, as Paul says, the trials we go through in life will be NOTHING compared to the "Joy that He has put before us, and Glory of what we are walking into.

Christ also said that we must become as a "child" to enter the Kingdom (and knowledge of Him) A child reasons inductively, from the subconscious, virgin mind. Infants are not born sinful. We sin because we have been subjected to the vanity of our mind, which has caused death. The carnal heart/mind of man is desperately wicked...NOT the virgin subconscious mind. Christ is "in and through" ALL things..ALL men. No one...in the core (subconscious) of their being, would choose death over Life, knowing that when Life enters the picture ALL that is NOT of Life, is made desolate. God knows that Life is the inner desire of ALL men...and gives us the desires of our Hearts. ( our TRUE Heart, which has always , at our very core, been His Heart that He has placed within us.)

I don't see where the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was the Tree of Life.
Gen 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I see two distinct trees here and nothing about division or being divided. Yes...I realize this isn't immediately apparent in the reading of the account...but it does become very clear, as you see the concept of division, which is explained and enlarged upon all through scripture, beginning with the account in Genesis, of the dividing of the firmament, etc. However...the "two" always become an integrated ONE in the fulfillment of redemption.

Sorry, I just don't understand some of the things you are saying or seeing.That's ok Rick. I know your heart and mind is open and it will come.

Best to you,and you:-)
Rick

kathryn

12-10-2011, 07:43 PM

Hi Debz, :yo:

I finally found a few minutes to jump in :D All my free time today has been spent so far on the Morality Thread.

I don’t want to discourage your efforts by any means, because I think you have made many valid points, and I applaud you for your diligence.:clap2: I too have found many things in the Bible that speak positively of women; I even have a category on my blog called Women of Faith (http://godandbutterfly.net/category/women-of-faith/), but that in no way diminishes the extreme male-bias that runs through the whole of Scripture. It is a shame that women have to dig so deep to find a few morsels of equality sprinkled throughout its pages.It is a shame Rose...but until we come into the full knowledge of God, it is this that has made us strong, wouldn't you agree? We have been given a great honor as women, to usher in the 3rd and final move of redemption. It is the FULL knowledge of Christ in the woman, that releases all mankind from captivity and into the consummation. Without the knowledge of God in and through the Woman...there could be no consummation. It is the beauty that comes from the ashes.

You rarely respond to my posts. How are you feeling about what I have been speaking of?Has any of it contradicted scripture ? Or any of your own sense of goodness and harmony? If so...please show me where I have done this. You are free to continue feeling the way you do of course...but if you really want to discuss this seriously with the intent of discovering Truth...it is necessary to take the biblical method of determining truth, and show us where you are finding the contradiction. Otherwise...we tend to lose our credibility as it sounds like a repetitive complaint, without substance. It was in my digging that I woke up to the fact that the Bible is completely a male book, there isn't one sentence in the whole Bible that was written by a woman! No...because it was necessary to keep Christ in the woman hidden until the appointed time. Iniquity must ripen. All of scripture is based on a ripening principle.

Again...we can't focus on the collective suffering of women over the ages; it has taken place individually in one woman's lifetime...one generation at a time. And I am not diminishing the hell many women have had to endure in that one life-time...but I wouldn't trade my sufferings as a woman, for anything because it was the suffering that drove me to find my Bridegroom and "refuse to be comforted" until I knew enough of Him, to know that He WILL restore what the "canker worm" has destroyed. Granted...many women have been driven to reject God all together for this suffering...but they will be comforted and fully restored. I don't think we'll fully know until we have the Mind of Christ and the carnal mind removed, why the process has taken so long. All I know is that God knows how to give good gifts to His children, and we will look back and say as Paul, that it was nothing compared to the Glory that awaits us.

If the Bible were truly inspired by 'God' why did he make it so easy for men to dominate women with it, and so hard for women to find equality in it? How many men do you think would go to the effort that you have done to try and show the un-biased nature of the Bible towards women? I think the answer is probably pretty close to none. You have poured your heart out to try and salvage women from the garbage dump where biblical writers have placed them (with God's approval). Men wrote the Bible, men translated the Bible, and men have re-translated the Bible, and may I ask...where is the woman in all of this?I think that's been answered pretty clearly over the past few weeks. I think God should know that women make up half of the human race, and they have a feminine perspective that men don't have, so why have we been instructed how to live through the male-perspective of the Bible? Yahweh is presented in an entirely masculine way...father, warrior, husband, and I thought God was supposed to be gender neutral, after all he is a divine being, not a male or female.

These are things that most women don't think about,I think all women have thought and labored with this...and their collective suffering over the centuries has begun to open the veil of understanding. but where is the divine being that we can connect our feminine identity too? Men have Yahweh, a great masculine warrior, father, and husband, Christian women only have the masculine side which leaves things pretty imbalanced.Again...have you been reading any of my posts on this? I don't know how I could have stated things more clearly.

All the best to you, and thank you for taking the time to share your work.

Rose

kathryn

12-10-2011, 08:07 PM

Rose...sorry...forgot to mention one thing. You spoke of God being gender neutral. Integration is quite different from neutrality. Integration or consummation...is the Power of the DOUBLE witness that raised Christ from the dead. It is typified by the "molten core" of the Sun in nature.

kathryn

12-10-2011, 09:01 PM

Hi Deb....If you look at Rev. 22 you will see the Tree of Life described: as "On EACH SIDE of the river stood the tree of Life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding fruit every month. " Note that the River of the water of Life flows between them...in the MIDST of them.

Before the CROSSing could take place to the Promised Land...the waters of the Jordan had to be divided, the upper waters, from the waters below. (the upper waters flowed back to a town named Adam)

Then the priests took the Ark into the MIDST(of the division) across the dry bed of the Jordan. Until the Israelites crossed over,(finished the refining/purification process...and THEN, the 12 went back into the midst (the garden and ark) and brought the stones out on their shoulders ...the waters did not flow back into ONE river. This is a picture of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, the divided Tree of Life...which, when consummated, stands on BOTH SIDES of the River that flows from the Throne through the City.

PS...the all hails back to the "cutting of the covenant" in which ONE animal had to be divided.

Rose

12-10-2011, 09:01 PM

kathryn

12-10-2011, 09:41 PM

Hi Kathyrn, :yo:

First off, I just wanted to mention that when you answer inside quotes it makes it difficult to quote your post. I have to copy and paste the whole quote that you posted with your answers inside, instead of being able to click on the 'reply with quote' button...

You asked how I was feeling about the things you are speaking of…well, to be very honest with you it is so clear to me now that the God contained within the pages of the Bible is not the creator of the universe like I once thought, that many times I find it tedious to go over details that I have already spent so much time looking at and thinking about. :sCo_hmmthink:

I know the time it takes and appreciate your effort to share with me your many insights, but the greatest witness I have at this moment is myself, I know how I felt when I was a Christian and I know how I feel now, and there is no comparison. My freedom of thought and state of mind is beyond anything I experience in my Christian walk. It is a place I could never have known existed while in the confines of a narrow belief system. While I was locked in my 'God box' I couldn’t begin to imagine what life was like outside of that box. Unexpectedly having my eyes opened to the male-bias of the Bible, was the catalyst that broke the spell and allowed me to truly be free.

I know this is something I can’t explain to you while you are still in the confines of your faith…no confinement here Rose.:winking0071:I couldn’t have seen it either until I was at the right place in my journey. I am so thankful Richard and I arrived at that place together, or things might have been difficult for us. To be able to have shared our experience together is priceless, and we continue to grow together on our magnificent journey of discovery...:sCh_supersmilie: Fair enough..but you do see how , if you want to discuss these things in a serious and scholarly manner...you need to really consider whether or not to stay in discussion with those of us who can explain their understanding in the biblical method of determining truth. And not only do this, but demonstrate that it is not of private interpretation...and as easily demonstated as a mathematical formula, and with equal credibility. It's not fair to our scholarship in the subject to repeatedly state your opinion without an equal dedication to it, on your part; it makes for a very one-sided and after awhile, extremely tedious discussion. In fact it isn't even a conversation.

I'm not just giving evidence from scripture, I'm showing how Creation itself backs it up. I'm not a scientist or mathematician...but I can demonstrate everything I do know about creation , in typology and how the two confirm, compliment and enlarge each other.

So...personally...I think your pursuit of Truth is not as avid as you think it is and you've simply decided to look somewhere else. And...that's cool too....but if you and Richard both feel the same way about this...my personal feeling is that if you if continue to enter discussions about the written Logos, you need to be able to back up your assumptions and feelings, with an equal degree of scholarship. .

Thank you for your friendship and participation on our forum, it is truly appreciated...:signthankspin: Your friendship is valuable to me as well Rose..and if you hadn't started this process with the written Logos, I wouldn't have been motivated to search much deeper into scripture . Challenge does this to me...as it should all true seekers of truth.

However, you haven't added anything past the point dis-assembly of the written Logos and you seem to have no interest in the possibility that there could be things you have misinterpreted or missed . This is not the mind of a true seeker as yet. If this were the case, we would never have entered the realm of Quantum Physics..or any realm for that matter, but what we understand at one moment in time. I have no doubt, because Christ IS in and through all things, that you will find the Truth, regardless of whether you discard the written Logos.

All I'm saying is: I think you need to stop asking all the questions about it unless you're really open and interested to keep examining it. Both Deb and I have provided you with solid scriptural evidence that it isn't all the way you've been describing it, but your response is always the same....opinions, feelings and assumptions based on them. You began with scripture, pointing out the inconsistency...and there you've remained. As a scientist or mathematician...you wouldn't have gone far with this attitude or level of passion for Truth.

All the best,
Rose

kathryn

12-10-2011, 10:52 PM

Rick: John Pratt's articles contain a lot of "mixture".

Jesus died for our sins, not Satan's sins. We are either condemned by our sins or exonerated by exercising faith towards God in Jesus Christ. In the Bible man is called a sinner not Satan. Both will be judged.

The Gospel is simple and John Pratt's article seems to fail the "simplicity test".

Kindly,
Rick

Rick...I wasn't endorsing John Pratt...I didn't even read the rest of the article. I simply googled the subject on the goat being pushed over the cliff...and sent the first one that came up. Sorry, I should have clarified that. It is a well known fact, taken from early Jewish writings.

kathryn

12-10-2011, 11:04 PM

me again Rick:)...I realized too...that when I answered within the quote of your post, it left out part of your question. (I still don't know how to take separate quotes...and it's easier to do it this way...but obviously it causes more problems than it's worth)

I wrote: The character and purposes of God were always meant to be seen through His Creation(His Word made FLESH)...It was when we traded the Truth of God for a Lie and began "adding" to it, with our carnal minds, that the whole downward spiral mentioned at the beginning of Roman's , began.

Learning of God....or learning of our "Father/Bridegroom" was NEVER meant to be learned "precept on precept".We were meant to KNOW Him (consummate with Him(CONSUME HIM)..spirit and matter , heaven and earth, northern house with southern house If you look at Isaiah 28...the written word..or the LETTER of the word...was given as a CURSE.

You asked: What verse are you talking about?

[/I]

Now..not sure what your question is here...If it is about the written Logos or the "letter" of the Logos given as a curse, I gave two witnesses to this in the whole chapter of Isaiah 28, and the 1st chapter of Romans.

If it is the consummation of the "northern house" and "southern house"...that has to be studied through typology, and can't be answered quickly. It begins with the whole theme of division, beginning in Genesis chapter one...and moves from there. "North" in scripture, is a type of Heaven..."south", the earth. It of course moves into the division of everything ...male/female ...spirit/soul...divine/carnal...it is literally everywhere from beginning to end, in scripture.

Rose

12-10-2011, 11:35 PM

If you want to discuss these things in a serious and scholarly manner...you need to really consider whether or not to stay in discussion with those of us who can explain their understanding in the biblical method of determining truth. And not only do this, but demonstrate that it is not of private interpretation...and as easily demonstated as a mathematical formula, and with equal credibility. It's not fair to our scholarship in the subject to repeatedly state your opinion without an equal dedication to it, on your part; it makes for a very one-sided and after awhile, extremely tedious discussion. In fact it isn't even a conversation.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are the one being unfair. The case I presented with my opening post has in no-way been challenged or invalidated. I quoted verse after verse from Scripture with my commentaries on them that still remain intact and have interacted with people who have responded to them.

I'm not just giving evidence from scripture, I'm showing how Creation itself backs it up. I'm not a scientist or mathematician...but I can demonstrate everything I do know about creation , in typology and how the two confirm, compliment and enlarge each other.

That is one of the big problems I see…creation does not back up Scripture! In fact the more science discovers the farther away from Scripture it goes. No matter how many typological confirmations you have that compliment each other it still does not invalidate scientific evidence. That is why so many scientists don’t believe in the Bible; the more they learn the more they see that many things the Bible says are flat out wrong.

So...personally...I think your pursuit of Truth is not as avid as you think it is and you've simply decided to look somewhere else. And...that's cool too....but if you and Richard both feel the same way about this...my personal feeling is that if you if continue to enter discussions about the written Logos, you need to be able to back up your assumptions and feelings, with an equal degree of scholarship. .

However, you haven't added anything past the point dis-assembly of the written Logos and you seem to have no interest in the possibility that there could be things you have misinterpreted or missed . This is not the mind of a true seeker as yet. If this were the case, we would never have entered the realm of Quantum Physics..or any realm for that matter, but what we understand at one moment in time. I have no doubt, because Christ IS in and through all things, that you will find the Truth, regardless of whether you discard the written Logos.

Again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are wrong. You have no grounds to say my pursuit of the Truth is not avid and that I’ve decided to look elsewhere. It is a faulty conclusion that you have jumped to because I have not responded to your posts in the manner you think I should. It is the written logos I have been discussing, that is how I came to the conclusion that the Bible is biased toward the male, not by my assumptions or feelings.

All I'm saying is: I think you need to stop asking all the questions about it unless you're really open and interested to keep examining it. Both Deb and I have provided you with solid scriptural evidence that it isn't all the way you've been describing it, but your response is always the same....opinions, feelings and assumptions based on them. You began with scripture, pointing out the inconsistency...and there you've remained. As a scientist or mathematician...you wouldn't have gone far with this attitude or level of passion for Truth.

I have not seen any solid evidence from either you or Deb that has invalidated my claim that the Bible is written from a male perspective and is biased toward the male. Even Richard with his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek confirms all the points I have made regarding my interpretation of various Scriptural passages, so my claims are not based on my personal opinions or feelings. It is my passion for truth that has gotten me to the place where I am now and you have no bases for saying anything different.

All the best,
Rose

kathryn

12-10-2011, 11:36 PM

Rick...(me yet again:D)....It isn't complicated though and doesn't take that long...so if that's what you were asking (about the division) ...I'm ready and willing to start. I assumed you'd been following along..but this discussion has been primarily on the Matt. 17:27 (coin in the fishes mouth) thread, where most of the foundation was laid. :winking0071:

kathryn

12-11-2011, 01:40 AM

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are the one being unfair. The case I presented with my opening post has in no-way been challenged or invalidated. I quoted verse after verse from Scripture with my commentaries on them that still remain intact and have interacted with people who have responded to them.Rose..I'm sorry but I don't know how to break up the quotes...so I have to respond this way until I do:confused: I have challenged or rather offered an answer to your first post....months ago, when you first asked it...but you didn't respond at all. You ignored it completely and continued speaking with the others on the thread.

That is one of the big problems I see…creation does not back up Scripture! In fact the more science discovers the farther away from Scripture it goes.actually, it's quite the opposite. The discoveries they are making in Quantum physics are resembling the Spiritual Laws more and more clearly as they are learning more. The possible holographic nature of the universe, as one example. No matter how many typological confirmations you have that compliment each other it still does not invalidate scientific evidence. That is why so many scientists don’t believe in the Bible; the more they learn the more they see that many things the Bible says are flat out wrong. no...it doesn't invalidate scientific evidence...and you haven't , not once, given me an opportunity to demonstrate this...or that typology is not of private interpretation. I realize you see that creation does not back up scripture...but I have started with the simple examples scripture has given...such as "the mystery of Christ explained by the PHYSICAL relationship between and man and woman...intercourse. This is directly related to the type of the Temple/tabernacle and goes into much depth on HOW physical intercourse is a type of the consummation of not just the Bride...but Creation itself. It also describes how the birth of the New man (in the flesh..or matter) takes place as well as the elimination of the condition of iniquity...in the type of the "furniture" or elements withing the Temple/Tabernacle.

I've also taken the example in Corinthians, as the church being one Body, given the example of creation..matter..the physical body...with the different parts, both comely and UNcomely, and shown how the laver/molten sea...is both the cervix and anus of the body. Richard has referred the Temple/Tabernacle as the obvious and primary type of the Heavenly pattern on earth .

So...we have to begin somewhere in this...but you haven't responded to any of it, with or without scripture.

Again, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think you are wrong. You have no grounds to say my pursuit of the Truth is not avid and that I’ve decided to look elsewhere. It is a faulty conclusion that you have jumped to because I have not responded to your posts in the manner you think I should.Rose..you haven't responded to anything I've written on typology. It is the written logos I have been discussing, that is how I came to the conclusion that the Bible is biased toward the male, not by my assumptions or feelings.yes...I know that, and as I said, this has been a wonderful "buffet" to my carnal mindsets that needed to come down! I fully realize that it wasn't based on assumption or feelings! If it was, it wouldn't have been any sort of challenge for me! My point is...you dis-assembled it all...and then you stopped there.

I have not seen any solid evidence from either you or Deb that has invalidated my claim that the Bible is written from a male perspective and is biased toward the male.I say this with respect and love Rose...but if you haven't seen it, it certainly isn't because it wasn't given and I might add, according the Biblical method of determining Truth. In fact it has gone far beyond it. I've not only provided the two or three witnesses from the Logos, I've demonstrated them through all 3 phases of redemption...as well as the corresponding witness in creation. Even Richard with his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek confirms all the points I have made regarding my interpretation of various Scriptural passages,well...he has yet to confirm them using this criteria, with what I have presented. so my claims are not based on my personal opinions or feelings. It is my passion for truth that has gotten me to the place where I am nowAgain Rose...I wasn't speaking of your passion up to this point in time. In fact, way back several months ago, when you were being abused verbally for your studies and conclusions...I remarked on the forum on your bravery.

(I was also sent some very vicious emails saying I had a" serpent tongue" for defending you..and just wanting to "suck up to Richard and Rose"...which was far from the truth. It was an honest, heartfelt observation.

It was evident to me, that after being given the revelation of the Bible Wheel, both you and Richard had absolutely nothing to gain by going public with the conclusions you had come to. (and..the foundation of which I heartily agreed with, if you recall AND in great excitement, posted how I had found 3 biblical witnesses in the Word...of the the formation of the Bible wheel itself...also through all 3 phases in example. I realize that you probably didnt understand what I was saying...but a simple response of:..."that's interesting!" Or WHY or HOW did you come to that conclusion?"would have indicated some interest or mild curiosity)

It was evident to me...and I'm sure many others, the courage it took to go public with this...and that kind of courage TAKES a passion that is willing to give up ALL, for the pursuit of Truth.

And, unlike most, you had the seeming contradiction of the Bible wheel staring you in the face...which you had thrown your life's blood into for years, and STILL refused to stop your pursuit of Truth.

What I am saying tonight, is that judging by your lack of response and the way in which you have responded when you have, you've lost your passion and curiosity...and that it seems to be time to either just drop the written Logos in discussion, or explore it scripture with scripture, interpretation with interpretation , using the criteria given to determine truth.

Both you and Richard have held us all to a high standard on this forum. That's what attracted me to it, and what has kept me here. Each of us has been given a unique gifting in the pursuit of truth, and we need one another to grow in our understanding. We can only do that, if we're willing to really open up to each other, and try to make an attempt at understanding what we are each seeing. You've made no attempt to understand mine...never asked a question such as "where do you see that in the word?" Or..."I see it this way because this and this scripture says otherwise". I've even given a dream in which I was given a mathematical formula (PI) describing a concept in scripture...a very detailed one...that took it out of the realm of typology completely...and no response.

Aren't you a least a little curious as to how I can make such bold claims about typology...? Or are have you remained silent, simply because you haven't heard it put this way before...and you only answer posts that aren't challenging your understanding? What other conclusion could I come to? Please explain..because I don't want to misjudge ANYONE...let alone you! The whole thing has baffled me! and you have no bases for saying anything different.

All the best,
Rose

kathryn

12-11-2011, 01:45 AM

I just checked back and I actually responded twice. Both posts were ignored.

debz

12-11-2011, 10:37 AM

Hi Debz, :yo:

I finally found a few minutes to jump in :D All my free time today has been spent so far on the Morality Thread.

I don’t want to discourage your efforts by any means, because I think you have made many valid points, and I applaud you for your diligence.:clap2:

Really? This is your response?? "Many valid points" -- ?? In Post #73 you wrote: 'I really don't think you can lump all the male-bias of Scripture under the heading of "miss translation". I am not saying that scribes miss-translated Scripture...what I am saying is that the plain reading of the text shows that the men who wrote the Bible were clearly writing from their own male bias. That is why I have continued to say the Bible could not have been inspired by "God", but rather was penned from how the male minded imagined God to be.' AND, you continued: 'I agree Jesus was the most liberating character in the Bible for women, but then Paul comes along a undoes much of what Jesus accomplished, so now the words of Paul trump those of Jesus.' And I just spent quite a bit of time refuting that and showing that Paul wasn't really saying what traditionalists have been teaching, that his words ARE in agreement with Jesus. And all you have to say is "many valid points." :huhsign:

It is a shame that women have to dig so deep to find a few morsels of equality sprinkled throughout its pages.

It is a shame that it has been presented and taught in ways that obscure the true meaning of what was originally stated.

It was in my digging that I woke up to the fact that the Bible is completely a male book, there isn't one sentence in the whole Bible that was written by a woman!

Actually, there are a growing number of scholars who think the book of Hebrews was actually written by a woman.

If the Bible were truly inspired by 'God' why did he make it so easy for men to dominate women with it, and so hard for women to find equality in it? How many men do you think would go to the effort that you have done to try and show the un-biased nature of the Bible towards women? I think the answer is probably pretty close to none.

Actually, quite a few. I learned most of this from male scholars who did the research.

You have poured your heart out to try and salvage women from the garbage dump where biblical writers have placed them (with God's approval). Men wrote the Bible, men translated the Bible, and men have re-translated the Bible, and may I ask...where is the woman in all of this?

Not with God's approval.

I think God should know that women make up half of the human race, and they have a feminine perspective that men don't have, so why have we been instructed how to live through the male-perspective of the Bible? Yahweh is presented in an entirely masculine way...father, warrior, husband, and I thought God was supposed to be gender neutral, after all he is a divine being, not a male or female.

Of course He knows...I explained all that in Post #31, if you really paid attention to what I was writing, you may have understood. "adam" (MANKIND) was created in HIS IMAGE (ELohim - a plural image) ... when male/female was separated, HIS IMAGE wasn't subtracted from, it was just split into the masculine and feminine, which were BOTH from the IMAGE OF GOD. It is why the next verse immediately says, "FOR THIS REASON (because they were ONE, now they are split...), the man must leave and be joined and become ONE again..." God sees them as ONE.

These are things that most women don't think about, but where is the divine being that we can connect our feminine identity too? Men have Yahweh, a great masculine warrior, father, and husband, Christian women only have the masculine side which leaves things pretty imbalanced.

"El Shaddai" -- The MANY BREASTED ONE....

All the best to you, and thank you for taking the time to share your work.

Rose

Again, Really???? A pat on the back for my "efforts" -- I gave solid answers to your claims, of which you have no response. I guess if you don't "want" to see, there's really nothing we can say that will change that.

All the best to you, too.

Deb

debz

12-11-2011, 10:50 AM

kathryn

12-11-2011, 11:50 AM

Good morning Rose....I had a continual prodding to send this this morning. I'm sure you've seen it before. It was the picture formed in the sand, by the seismic vibrations from the earthquake on 2/28, 2001. ..in your state of WASHington. (remember the twinned teeth of the Beloved in the S.O.S, are described as coming UP from the WASHing)

Not long after I joined the forum, I had a strong sense in my spirit, that both you and Richard were going to play a very important role in the bringing down of carnal mindsets in the Body of Christ. I just didn't realize "how". Richard, I believe I was shown...was symbolic of the "Richard the Lion Hearted"...and you were the "Earthquake Rose".

If you look at the picture in the sand...not only is it the "Rose of Sharon" blooming in the desert (sands of Abraham)...it is also the "head" of the "man-child"...crowning through the birth canal.

http://www.earthquakerose.com/

We're ALL in this process of transition Rose...and it's painful for both the mother and the "child"...The transition stage is that time when the woman tends to vomit on her husband's feet....and might bite him a time or too(as I did..har!) if he tries to "help". Just wanted to know that we love and respect you both and honor you. We couldn't have come to this stage without you....and it's ALL GOOD!

Rose

12-11-2011, 12:11 PM

Hi Kathyrn,

This post is in response to your question of how to do quotes. There are two ways that I do them. The first way is to click on the "reply to quote" button found in the lower right-hand side of the post. Then when the post comes up in the message box I copy and paste the beginning and end "quote tags" around the specific section I want to quote like this...

... blah blah blah... ... then I write whatever I want to say and quote the next section... ... blah blah blah... note: I purposely left the "e" off of quote so it wouldn't quote itself in my example.

The second way is to quote the whole post highlighting the parts you wish to respond to, and then type your response after the end "quote tag" which looks like this [/quote]. Then your answer will show up below the quoted post instead of inside the quoted post.

Hope that helps,
Rose

debz

12-11-2011, 12:12 PM

Rose

12-11-2011, 12:22 PM

Rose

12-11-2011, 01:12 PM

What I am saying tonight, is that judging by your lack of response and the way in which you have responded when you have, you've lost your passion and curiosity...and that it seems to be time to either just drop the written Logos in discussion, or explore it scripture with scripture, interpretation with interpretation , using the criteria given to determine truth.

My lack of response as you call it is using my limited time to focus my attention on the direction I feel led to go in. The written logos, was and is the basis for the conclusions I have drawn in my opening article the Male Bias of the Bible.

Both you and Richard have held us all to a high standard on this forum. That's what attracted me to it, and what has kept me here. Each of us has been given a unique gifting in the pursuit of truth, and we need one another to grow in our understanding. We can only do that, if we're willing to really open up to each other, and try to make an attempt at understanding what we are each seeing. You've made no attempt to understand mine...never asked a question such as "where do you see that in the word?" Or..."I see it this way because this and this scripture says otherwise". I've even given a dream in which I was given a mathematical formula (PI) describing a concept in scripture...a very detailed one...that took it out of the realm of typology completely...and no response.

We each have our own path to follow, and right now I am not into the area of typology that you are, so I have chosen to devote my time to the things I feel are most appropriate. Instead of getting into a discussion with you about things that are in a different direction then I am going at the moment, I have remained silent and let others respond if they wish to.

Aren't you a least a little curious as to how I can make such bold claims about typology...? Or are have you remained silent, simply because you haven't heard it put this way before...and you only answer posts that aren't challenging your understanding? What other conclusion could I come to? Please explain..because I don't want to misjudge ANYONE...let alone you! The whole thing has baffled me!

To be totally honest with you at this moment I am not curious, if I had been I surely would have been asking questions. As I said earlier, my path is taking me in a different direction right now, and I am viewing the Bible as an expression of how ancient man perceived 'God', not as typologies pointing to 'God'.

All the best,
Rose

Rose

12-11-2011, 01:24 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with what Kathryn wrote here. Yes, even the part about honoring you, even though we are still "debating" :winking0071: :catfight:

I, too, believe the Bible Wheel, and both of you, are KEY to revealing a whole lot about what we are transitioning into.

What hit me about this picture, in addition to the Rose, is how many see it as an "eye" -- it is the "singular eye" we've also been discussing on some other posts (Bob May, etc.).

Love,
Deb

Hi Deb, :yo:

The Bible Wheel most definitely has been the "Key" that has led Richard and I on this journey of transition we are walking on right now. It is what has kept me from completely discarding the Bible, while keeping me in the pursuit of truth. The journey we are on is getting more exiting every day.

Let me also say that even if I don't respond to everyone's post, I still am very appreciate of the participation of all the wonderful people on this Forum...without you all it would just be me and Richard talking to ourselves...:lol:

All the best,
Rose

kathryn

12-11-2011, 01:36 PM

Rose:

My lack of response as you call it is using my limited time to focus my attention on the direction I feel led to go in. The written logos, was and is the basis for the conclusions I have drawn in my opening article the Male Bias of the Bible.

Fair enough Rose! I understand that focus thing:thumb: I hope you can see Deb's perspective though:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

12-14-2011, 12:57 PM

(Continued from Post #86)

Another scripture used to silence women is 1 Cor 14:34-36:

34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

So which Law exactly says that women are to keep silent and it’s improper for them to speak in the church (or synagogue)? It’s not in the Mosaic Law. Go ahead and do a thorough search. You won’t find it, it’s not there…. So we see that there are seeming 'contradictions' again–so what could the real interpretation be?

Most scholars of the New Testament who are familiar with the technicalities of the Greek language insist that parts of this letter to the Corinthians are actually quotes taken from another source–a letter written to Paul by the leaders of the church in Corinth (referred to by Paul in Chapter 7:1 when he mentions, 'the things about which you wrote.') Most of the specific issues that Paul addresses in 1 Cor, in fact, are topics that were included in that letter.

Paul’s seemingly restrictive words about women in chapter 14 take on a different light when we consider that he was very likely quoting a letter from church leaders who were imposing on the young congregation a harsh, anti-woman position that was rooted in their rabbinical Jewish traditions.

There are several reasons why scholars believe that verses 34 + 35 are quotes from their letter. The most important clue is that the Greek symbol n (with a grave accent) is used at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the preceding statement is quoted. Because Greek does not have what we know as quotation marks, this device is used instead. This would explain why these verses SEEM TO contradict everything that Paul has said up to this point about the full participation of all believers in New Testament worship. The apostle has spent several chapters telling the Corinthians that all can prophesy 'one by one.' He even stated in 1 Cor 11:5 that women can pray and prophesy publicly. So why would he contradict himself here by saying that women can’t speak in church??

Back to vs 34 where it says women aren’t allowed to speak: 'just as the Law also says…' What law is this verse referring to? There is no law in the Old Testament that says women cannot speak. There is no reference to a scripture given here. That’s because it is not referring to an Old Testament law but to a Jewish Rabbinical tradition that the Corinthian church had adopted.

The harshness of the language in verse 35 gives us another clue that this 'Law' is actually a man-made rule invented by the same type of legalistic Judaizers that Paul publicly opposed in the churches of Galatia and Colossae. The phrase, 'It is improper for a woman to speak in church,' can actually be translated, 'It is shameful for a woman to speak.'

Hey there Deb, :yo:

I'm familiar with this proposed solution and agree that this is a pretty good possibility. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways to me. Unfortunately, there are two problems with it. First, it is a speculative solution. There is no way for us to know whether or not Paul was quoting the letter from the Corinthians on this point. Second, if it is correct it reveals an equally serious problem - how can we trust Scripture if God was so careless as to let Paul quote a letter without attribution, thereby allowing his words to be misinterpreted for 2000 years to oppress women, thereby causing untold suffering to countless people in the name of Holy Scripture? So which is it? Is God mysoginist or is God incompetent?

Do we honestly believe this verse reflects the heart of God? It cannot be. Paul is quoting those who held to a degrading view of women–and who actually described women in Jewish writings as vile and disgraceful… Examples:

From the Jewish Talmud: 'Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law. It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.'

'Men should not sit and listen to a woman…even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they came from the mouth of a woman.' –Origen

You are now setting Scripture against Scripture. The Book of Revelation explicitly states that the mere sexual act with a woman defiles a man:
Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Now it matters not if the "women" in this passage are meant as "wicked women" or as symbols of unfaithfulness or whatever because any symbolic meaning is based upon the premise that "sex with women defiles men." We know this because the text contrasts male virginity (no sexual contact with any kind of women). Virtuous sex within marriage cannot be a possibility here because then they would not be called "virgins." Furthermore, we see the same thing in the Old Testament:
Exodus 19:14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives.".
And this echos Paul's statement that is it is "good for a man not to touch a woman." And on top of these biblical witnesses we know that women were seen as causing "defilement" in the Ancient Near East culture in which the Bible was written. Given all these convergent witnesses, it seems impossible to deny the male bias in the Bible. And I still do not see how "explaining them away" helps, since that only shows that God was incompetent and failed to produces Scriptures that could be trusted or properly understood by his own people even though they were supposed to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

And where did the ideas in the Talmud come from? The same culture that produced the Bible. The male bias in the Talmud confirms the fact of male bias in the culture that produced the Bible.

But because Paul opposed this degrading view of women, he responds to the Corinthians in verse 36 with a sharp answer (a very sarcastic answer, similar to Jesus’ response to the Pharisees): 'WHAT?! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?' This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judaizers of Corinth, then we can understand the defiant tone of verse 36. To paraphrase him: 'What??!! (or 'what the $#@%#!') …You are going to silence women when the gospel was first preached by women after they saw Him at the tomb following the resurrection? Do you really think preaching the gospel is only for men??!!'

This passage is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Bible. I believe the only way it can logically be interpreted is to accept the fact that Paul is responding to a quoted statement. This view was repeated by theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer in Christianity Today: 'In 1 Cor 14 we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter from the Corinthians and Paul’s solutions to problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier.'

(Continued next post...)
You have presented the argument very well, but unfortunately it is inconclusive because much of it is speculative. And even if it is correct, it only shows that God did not give us trustworthy Scriptures so the Bible remains either in the frying pan or the fire.

debz

12-14-2011, 04:21 PM

Hiya Richard!

I'm familiar with this proposed solution and agree that this is a pretty good possibility. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways to me. Unfortunately, there are two problems with it. First, it is a speculative solution. There is no way for us to know whether or not Paul was quoting the letter from the Corinthians on this point.

My argument is in response mostly to Rose's (and your) claims that Paul was sexist, didn't allow women to teach, etc. So let's stick with that for now. My point was that if he allowed it in other places, then something must be amiss with the couple of verses that seem to contradict that. This is one of those verses, and this seems the only logical conclusion to the whole picture. Particularly because he is quoting a statement that is not found in The Law -- there is no O.T. Law saying women can't speak in the church/synagogue, so he therefore MUST have been quoting the Judaizers quoted statements--THEIR horrible beliefs about women. He was not condoning it.

Second, if it is correct it reveals an equally serious problem - how can we trust Scripture if God was so careless as to let Paul quote a letter without attribution, thereby allowing his words to be misinterpreted for 2000 years to oppress women, thereby causing untold suffering to countless people in the name of Holy Scripture? So which is it? Is God mysoginist or is God incompetent?

Neither mysoginist nor incompetent. Remember, I do agree with you that things have been mis-translated and mis-interpreted to present a male bias, but that was not God's original intent. If you'll view my Post #31, it all hinges on how He set it up "in the beginning" -- that's what Jesus pointed to, that's what Jesus came to redeem us from. In the beginning there was not a hierarchy, no matter how men have tried to teach that there is. At that time God's delegated authority was also transferred to the serpent (from Adam/Eve, who had it first). It is the serpent who has twisted this and oppressed women in the name of religion, and still continues to do so.... remember that part of having enmity between the serpent and the woman? Still going on.

You are now setting Scripture against Scripture. The Book of Revelation explicitly states that the mere sexual act with a woman defiles a man:
Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Now it matters not if the "women" in this passage are meant as "wicked women" or as symbols of unfaithfulness or whatever because any symbolic meaning is based upon the premise that "sex with women defiles men." We know this because the text contrasts male virginity (no sexual contact with any kind of women). Virtuous sex within marriage cannot be a possibility here because then they would not be called "virgins."

The book of Revelation of Jesus = "the book of the unveiling/revealing of the Christ." It is predominantly allegorical. This verse is not literal--if it was, they would have to literally be following a sheep that goes "baaa" out in a field, or whatever. This is in reference to the "remnant" -- the number has hidden meaning (discussed on other posts), and the remnant are not just Jewish men! This is all in TYPOLOGY that must be UNVEILED to understand. Same with your next quote:

Furthermore, we see the same thing in the Old Testament:
Exodus 19:14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives.".

This is all disclosing typology for the THIRD DAY...that's why this ties in so well with the Revelation verse on the remnant...but as you weren't understanding this Third Day revelation yet, based on many comments on other posts, let's just leave this topic for a bit and stick with the issue at hand: Was Paul a sexist, did he say women can't teach or speak in churches, did he "come along and undo all of Jesus' liberating words?

And this echos Paul's statement that is it is "good for a man not to touch a woman."

The beginning of that verse says, "Now, about the things you wrote..." It's likely he is quoting them again, and I say this because of keeping the "big picture" in mind.

And on top of these biblical witnesses we know that women were seen as causing "defilement" in the Ancient Near East culture in which the Bible was written. Given all these convergent witnesses, it seems impossible to deny the male bias in the Bible. And I still do not see how "explaining them away" helps, since that only shows that God was incompetent and failed to produces Scriptures that could be trusted or properly understood by his own people even though they were supposed to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

I believe they were understood for what they were originally saying--before men (and the enemy's influence on them, coming as an angel of light...) messed it up.

And where did the ideas in the Talmud come from? The same culture that produced the Bible. The male bias in the Talmud confirms the fact of male bias in the culture that produced the Bible.

That is not relevant to this discussion. We know that cultures everywhere treat women with disdain, contempt, oppressing, abusing, etc. But that was not God's intention, nor His command, at any time.

You have presented the argument very well, but unfortunately it is inconclusive because much of it is speculative. And even if it is correct, it only shows that God did not give us trustworthy Scriptures so the Bible remains either in the frying pan or the fire.

If we are looking at one piece at a time, it very well could be inconclusive. But I am looking at the WHOLE -- it is the "SUM of His Word that brings Truth." Moreover, women have a very critical role in the "Third Day" -- no wonder the enemy has been trying to take them out and silence them. But one day, soon, these prophecies will be fulfilled:

'The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim the tidings are a great host.' Ps 68:11 NASU

'O you (fem.) who bring good tidings to Zion, get up to the high mountain. O you (fem.) who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your (fem.) voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord God will come with might, and His arm will rule for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.' Isa 40:9-10 AMP

This last verse sounds very much like wording from Revelations too, no?? "His reward is with Him..." This is prophesying about the voice of women in this Third Day/Tabernacles age...

~Deb

Rose

12-14-2011, 05:40 PM

Hiya Richard!

My argument is in response mostly to Rose's (and your) claims that Paul was sexist, didn't allow women to teach, etc. So let's stick with that for now. My point was that if he allowed it in other places, then something must be amiss with the couple of verses that seem to contradict that. This is one of those verses, and this seems the only logical conclusion to the whole picture. Particularly because he is quoting a statement that is not found in The Law -- there is no O.T. Law saying women can't speak in the church/synagogue, so he therefore MUST have been quoting the Judaizers quoted statements--THEIR horrible beliefs about women. He was not condoning it.
Hi Debz,

I think Richard's main point was that no matter who Paul was quoting, God allowed a very ambiguous passage to find its way into the Bible, that has been interpreted by men for hundreds of years to suppress women. If God inspired Scripture to begin with, why were these verses allowed to become part of "his word"? Why does it appear that Paul has undone what Jesus taught?

Neither mysoginist nor incompetent. Remember, I do agree with you that things have been mis-translated and mis-interpreted to present a male bias, but that was not God's original intent. If you'll view my Post #31, it all hinges on how He set it up "in the beginning" -- that's what Jesus pointed to, that's what Jesus came to redeem us from. In the beginning there was not a hierarchy, no matter how men have tried to teach that there is. At that time God's delegated authority was also transferred to the serpent (from Adam/Eve, who had it first). It is the serpent who has twisted this and oppressed women in the name of religion, and still continues to do so.... remember that part of having enmity between the serpent and the woman? Still going on.

If it was not God's intent for women to be ruled over by men then why didn't he do a better job of using men to write "his word", so it couldn't be mis-interpreted so easily? You seem to think you know what God's intent was, but so do the men who you say mis-translated and mis-interpreted Scripture. Remember you are talking about the creator of the universe, it shouldn't be too hard for him to say what he wants to say in plain language in his own book...:winking0071:

The book of Revelation of Jesus = "the book of the unveiling/revealing of the Christ." It is predominantly allegorical. This verse is not literal--if it was, they would have to literally be following a sheep that goes "baaa" out in a field, or whatever. This is in reference to the "remnant" -- the number has hidden meaning (discussed on other posts), and the remnant are not just Jewish men! This is all in TYPOLOGY that must be UNVEILED to understand. Same with your next quote:

Once again, the plain reading of Revelation says men are defiled by women, and that is preciously how it's been interpreted, and if God truly knows the beginning from the end he surely would have known how these verses would be interpreted.

This is all disclosing typology for the THIRD DAY...that's why this ties in so well with the Revelation verse on the remnant...but as you weren't understanding this Third Day revelation yet, based on many comments on other posts, let's just leave this topic for a bit and stick with the issue at hand: Was Paul a sexist, did he say women can't teach or speak in churches, did he "come along and undo all of Jesus' liberating words?

From the plain reading of the text Paul did say that women can't teach or speak in churches. It matters not if his intent was different because practically nobody interprets it that way.

That is not relevant to this discussion. We know that cultures everywhere treat women with disdain, contempt, oppressing, abusing, etc. But that was not God's intention, nor His command, at any time.

If we are looking at one piece at a time, it very well could be inconclusive. But I am looking at the WHOLE -- it is the "SUM of His Word that brings Truth." Moreover, women have a very critical role in the "Third Day" -- no wonder the enemy has been trying to take them out and silence them. But one day, soon, these prophecies will be fulfilled:

~Deb

Apparently no one really knows God's intent because he chose to have his word written in such an ambiguous way that no one knows for sure what it means, but since men have been in control of how Scripture is interpreted, their word rules!

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-14-2011, 06:35 PM

Hi Debz,

I think Richard's main point was that no matter who Paul was quoting, God allowed a very ambiguous passage to find its way into the Bible, that has been interpreted by men for hundreds of years to suppress women. If God inspired Scripture to begin with, why were these verses allowed to become part of "his word"? Why does it appear that Paul has undone what Jesus taught?

If it was not God's intent for women to be ruled over by men then why didn't he do a better job of using men to write "his word", so it couldn't be mis-interpreted so easily? You seem to think you know what God's intent was, but so do the men who you say mis-translated and mis-interpreted Scripture. Remember you are talking about the creator of the universe, it shouldn't be too hard for him to say what he wants to say in plain language in his own book...:winking0071:

Once again, the plain reading of Revelation says men are defiled by women, and that is preciously how it's been interpreted, and if God truly knows the beginning from the end he surely would have known how these verses would be interpreted.

From the plain reading of the text Paul did say that women can't teach or speak in churches. It matters not if his intent was different because practically nobody interprets it that way.

Apparently no one really knows God's intent because he chose to have his word written in such an ambiguous way that no one knows for sure what it means, but since men have been in control of how Scripture is interpreted, their word rules!

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

Yes, I see what you're saying. And the obvious "vagueness" and questions as to why He didn't just make it more plain and straightforward are also summed up in Christ:

Why did Jesus come speaking in parables? HIDDEN language. VAGUE language. He did not speak straightforward plain talk. For a reason. A very good reason.

It's all the same reason.

~ Deb

Rose

12-14-2011, 07:50 PM

Hi Rose,

Yes, I see what you're saying. And the obvious "vagueness" and questions as to why He didn't just make it more plain and straightforward are also summed up in Christ:

Why did Jesus come speaking in parables? HIDDEN language. VAGUE language. He did not speak straightforward plain talk. For a reason. A very good reason.

It's all the same reason.

~ Deb

Hi Deb,

If Jesus had a good reason, why has he chosen to keep that reason HIDDEN for two millennia? Jesus told his disciples that when he sent the Holy Spirit all things would be brought to their remembrance...well, we're still waiting...

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-14-2011, 10:13 PM

Hi Deb,

If Jesus had a good reason, why has he chosen to keep that reason HIDDEN for two millennia? Jesus told his disciples that when he sent the Holy Spirit all things would be brought to their remembrance...well, we're still waiting...

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

He hasn’t kept it hidden for 2 millennia. It has been available to be seen by any—but not all do see.

He also added, in John 16:12-13
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.'

Jesus didn’t say, 'I’m going away so that a book can be written about Me to guide you into all truth…' He said He had many more things to say…but they couldn’t bear them now. He said it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all the truth…that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be speaking on His own initiative, but would be speaking only what He hears…and He would disclose to us what is to come. It is the Holy Spirit who discloses to us what is to come… it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us the 'many more things' Jesus had to say, that aren’t written in 'plain language' in the Bible, when we are able to bear it.

When I look around this forum and Christendom in general, everybody has an 'interpretation' on 'what is to come' (their eschatological views, etc.), but Jesus Himself said it was the Holy Spirit who would disclose this, NOT the logos ('plain language') of the Bible. Everyone is trying to deduce events based on the logos of the Bible, but without the Holy Spirit, this is impossible. This does NOT mean that I discount the Bible in ANY way. I believe the logos fully backs up the revealed, proceeding Word of God, when seen through the eyes of revelation. Until then, it is still 'hidden' from 'plain view'—even from professing Christians! Jesus said, "man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that PROCEEDS from the mouth of God" -- this is what is proceeding NOW, by the Holy Spirit--not was HAS proceeded in the past...(although, again, this does not discount the past Word/written Word--it will still confirm the proceeding Word if rightly divided...)

Matt 13:13-15
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Mostly this is taught in a way to mean that people will be ever hearing the gospel of salvation, but not understanding that…then they think that because they’re 'saved,' this doesn’t apply to them any longer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most professing Christians still don’t have eyes to see and ears to hear…but most think they do, and that is the big deception. Jesus didn't preach the gospel of salvation--He preached the gospel of the KINGDOM. The gospel of salvation says "you can go to heaven one day"; the gospel of the Kingdom says, "you can bring heaven to earth, if you understand the ways of the Kingdom." That's why we're taught to pray, "thy Kingdom come ON EARTH, as it is in heaven..."

I wrote a bit more on this in Post #59 of the Higgs Boson God Particle Thread:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2688-News-on-Higgs-Boson..God-Particle...Tuesday-night/page6

That may give you more to ponder :)

Deb

Rose

12-14-2011, 11:28 PM

Hi Rose,

He hasn’t kept it hidden for 2 millennia. It has been available to be seen by any—but not all do see.

He also added, in John 16:12-13
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.'

Jesus didn’t say, 'I’m going away so that a book can be written about Me to guide you into all truth…' He said He had many more things to say…but they couldn’t bear them now. He said it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all the truth…that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be speaking on His own initiative, but would be speaking only what He hears…and He would disclose to us what is to come. It is the Holy Spirit who discloses to us what is to come… it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us the 'many more things' Jesus had to say, that aren’t written in 'plain language' in the Bible, when we are able to bear it.

Hi Deb,

If a book hadn't been written there would be no Christianity, and no one would know about the Holy Spirit that is supposed to guide them in all truth. It is because of the written word that the words of Jesus and Paul are available to be interpreted. The problem I see with what people call revelation from the Holy Spirit is that everyone has a different interpretation and understanding.

When I look around this forum and Christendom in general, everybody has an 'interpretation' on 'what is to come' (their eschatological views, etc.), but Jesus Himself said it was the Holy Spirit who would disclose this, NOT the logos ('plain language') of the Bible. Everyone is trying to deduce events based on the logos of the Bible, but without the Holy Spirit, this is impossible. This does NOT mean that I discount the Bible in ANY way. I believe the logos fully backs up the revealed, proceeding Word of God, when seen through the eyes of revelation. Until then, it is still 'hidden' from 'plain view'—even from professing Christians! Jesus said, "man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that PROCEEDS from the mouth of God" -- this is what is proceeding NOW, by the Holy Spirit--not was HAS proceeded in the past...(although, again, this does not discount the past Word/written Word--it will still confirm the proceeding Word if rightly divided...)

Without the logos of the Bible there would be no teaching for the Holy Spirit to guide people in, but even so huge problems arise because of all the conflicting words that people feel the Holy Spirit is telling them. After two thousand years no one is any closer to understanding the Bible. The only thing that happens is more and more divisions and more and more doctrines.

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-15-2011, 12:14 AM

Hi Deb,

If a book hadn't been written there would be no Christianity, and no one would know about the Holy Spirit that is supposed to guide them in all truth. It is because of the written word that the words of Jesus and Paul are available to be interpreted. The problem I see with what people call revelation from the Holy Spirit is that everyone has a different interpretation and understanding.

Without the logos of the Bible there would be no teaching for the Holy Spirit to guide people in, but even so huge problems arise because of all the conflicting words that people feel the Holy Spirit is telling them. After two thousand years no one is any closer to understanding the Bible. The only thing that happens is more and more divisions and more and more doctrines.

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I do believe the Bible to be the Word of God and source of Truth. I LOVE the Word...have devoured the Word for years...I am NOT discounting the Bible in any way!! What I was saying is that Jesus Himself said that it would be the Holy Spirit who would lead us into Truth, and it would be the Holy Spirit who would tell us "what is to come."

How does the Holy Spirit do this? As Peter affirmed when the Holy Spirit was first poured out--he quoted the prophet Joel:

Joel 2:28-30
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
30 I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
NIV

This is just part of the whole prophecy...and only part of it was fulfilled in Acts...the rest is being fulfilled now (another thread, I know...). Anyway...how does the Spirit speak according to this, and according to Peter's words? "Your sons and daughters will PROPHESY. Your old men will DREAM DREAMS. Your young men will see VISIONS...on my servants BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.... THIS is how the Holy Spirit primarily communicates: prophecy, dreams and visions--signs and wonders in the heavens and on earth!! He communicates through the supernatural and revelation (part of prophecy).

Yes, I am fully aware of how many in the church interpret things differently, and how that has led to all the different denominations, etc. Actually, I believe most denominations were formed because someone got a true revelation of a piece of the Truth that God wanted to reveal at that time, but then they "camped out" around that truth--they made THAT truth be the ONLY truth they were going to give themselves to... Then someone else gets a different piece of the whole and "camps out" around that truth...and so on, and so on... As for individuals, I think you and I discussed this on another thread...most of what people call the "leading of the Holy Spirit" is simply their conscience leading. That doesn't discount the need for being led by conscience, but nor does it invalidate a TRUE leading of the Holy Spirit--it's just that MOST don't know the true leading of the Holy Spirit, although they fully believe that they do!! They fully believe they are being "led by the Spirit," although they are all seeing things so differently. That is why we can point to all of these "differences" and say, "aha--it must all be wrong, because they all think they're right, but they are all hearing things differently..." The problem does not lie in the Holy Spirit's ability to communicate to us, the problem lies in most Christians thinking they are actually being led by the Spirit when they are in fact, not. That is also why Jesus spoke in parables--to the crowds, the majority, even the religious majority, He still spoke in parables...but it was only those who would take the time, spend the time, give their heart fully to knowing Him and being known by Him that He would then reveal His secrets, and explain the parables...and eventually call them friends (He doesn't call everyone friends...and this is not an elitist thing, it is OUR choice...we can ALL get that close to Him, but until we do, He is not going to reveal His secrets haphazardly to just the "crowd." Most of Christendom is still "the crowd."

What I DO know is everyone who IS receiving actual revelation from the Holy Spirit (not just what they claim to be revelation, which is actually intuition, suspicion, or what have you...)....but those who really receive true revelation are all saying the SAME thing--yet they may have been shown it in a different manner. When it's true, there are numerous witnesses to the Truth...it's an amazing thing. And, contrary to your claim, after 2000 years there is a growing number who really do understand what the Bible is revealing...as the Holy Spirit is telling them what is to come, but it is yet a remnant. It won't be mainstream. Mainstream is always wrong.

~Deb

Rose

12-15-2011, 10:56 AM

Hi Rose,

I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I do believe the Bible to be the Word of God and source of Truth. I LOVE the Word...have devoured the Word for years...I am NOT discounting the Bible in any way!! What I was saying is that Jesus Himself said that it would be the Holy Spirit who would lead us into Truth, and it would be the Holy Spirit who would tell us "what is to come."

How does the Holy Spirit do this? As Peter affirmed when the Holy Spirit was first poured out--he quoted the prophet Joel:

Joel 2:28-30
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
30 I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
NIV

This is just part of the whole prophecy...and only part of it was fulfilled in Acts...the rest is being fulfilled now (another thread, I know...). Anyway...how does the Spirit speak according to this, and according to Peter's words? "Your sons and daughters will PROPHESY. Your old men will DREAM DREAMS. Your young men will see VISIONS...on my servants BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.... THIS is how the Holy Spirit primarily communicates: prophecy, dreams and visions--signs and wonders in the heavens and on earth!! He communicates through the supernatural and revelation (part of prophecy).

Hi Deb,
When I was a Christian I fully believed that the whole prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled in the 1st century, culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem. All through Old Testament times and up to now people have received dreams, visions, and revelations, nothing has changed. I remember one of the first churches I went to after I became a Christian, where the pastor was trying to encourage people to step out in their prophetic gifts, and he would tell the congregation to just stand up and speak whatever words came to mind...and I thought to myself those words that are coming to mind are just my own thoughts.

One of my best friends would get prophetic messages and words of knowledge by the notebook full. Most of what she received were words of encouragement and exhortation, but what was so noticeable to me was that all her messages had the same poetic "Old English" style to them, which is not the way we speak today, so it seemed very obvious to me that she mapped the style of language she was familiar with from the Bible she read. I have found this prophetic style to be common among many Christians.

Yes, I am fully aware of how many in the church interpret things differently, and how that has led to all the different denominations, etc. Actually, I believe most denominations were formed because someone got a true revelation of a piece of the Truth that God wanted to reveal at that time, but then they "camped out" around that truth--they made THAT truth be the ONLY truth they were going to give themselves to... Then someone else gets a different piece of the whole and "camps out" around that truth...and so on, and so on... As for individuals, I think you and I discussed this on another thread...most of what people call the "leading of the Holy Spirit" is simply their conscience leading. That doesn't discount the need for being led by conscience, but nor does it invalidate a TRUE leading of the Holy Spirit--it's just that MOST don't know the true leading of the Holy Spirit, although they fully believe that they do!! They fully believe they are being "led by the Spirit," although they are all seeing things so differently. That is why we can point to all of these "differences" and say, "aha--it must all be wrong, because they all think they're right, but they are all hearing things differently..." The problem does not lie in the Holy Spirit's ability to communicate to us, the problem lies in most Christians thinking they are actually being led by the Spirit when they are in fact, not. That is also why Jesus spoke in parables--to the crowds, the majority, even the religious majority, He still spoke in parables...but it was only those who would take the time, spend the time, give their heart fully to knowing Him and being known by Him that He would then reveal His secrets, and explain the parables...and eventually call them friends (He doesn't call everyone friends...and this is not an elitist thing, it is OUR choice...we can ALL get that close to Him, but until we do, He is not going to reveal His secrets haphazardly to just the "crowd." Most of Christendom is still "the crowd."

I would go so far as to say that the only way any of us are lead is by our conscience. The more in-tune we are with ourselves and the deeper we look into subconscious the more we are connected to and guided by the collective whole of the living universe.

Throughout my whole life I have had countless intuitions, and insights which have given me great understanding into many things. The colored stain-glass Bible Wheel came from a magnificent insight I received...at the time I thought it was a revelation from God, but now I feel it was a deep connection with the archetypes of the collective whole, which we can "tap into" by becoming aware of the treasure trove of wisdom that lies in our subconscious.

What I DO know is everyone who IS receiving actual revelation from the Holy Spirit (not just what they claim to be revelation, which is actually intuition, suspicion, or what have you...)....but those who really receive true revelation are all saying the SAME thing--yet they may have been shown it in a different manner. When it's true, there are numerous witnesses to the Truth...it's an amazing thing. And, contrary to your claim, after 2000 years there is a growing number who really do understand what the Bible is revealing...as the Holy Spirit is telling them what is to come, but it is yet a remnant. It won't be mainstream. Mainstream is always wrong.

~Deb

I feel that anything that is a true revelation of our part in the universe is available to anyone, and the way we all can receive that truth is through our intuitions, and insights. The deeper we look into ourselves, and become tuned-in to the whole, the more will be revealed...not just to a remnant, but to everyone.

All the best,
Rose

debz

12-15-2011, 01:28 PM

Hi Rose,

Hi Deb,
When I was a Christian I fully believed that the whole prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled in the 1st century, culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem. All through Old Testament times and up to now people have received dreams, visions, and revelations, nothing has changed.

I understand you were a Preterist then, and IMO that affected your ability to see what is coming--which is why you keep saying "nothing has changed." It's kindof like the passage:

2 Peter 3:4-7
"They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire..."

Bob May quoted on the Dumbo thread today:

(BOB MAY): The baptism of fire comes down from above and turns and rises…This fire has already been kindled in the earth by Jesus words. It brings division because we come to see that some people will Bump their heads on the cross paths. And some will choose to go through. And we also see that at the feast of Tabernacles, this division.

Joh 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
Joh 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Joh 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him.
Joh 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.

Each man's house is his Doctrine. That which he surrounds himself with.

He mentioned "Tabernacles" -- this is what is being revealed, by revelation, to the remnant. This is what I have been talking about on almost every post/thread I've written on. What Bob wrote partially explains why not everyone will "see" this. I am not a "futurist" in the understanding that most who hold to that theory are. When Jesus came the first time, most didn't recognize Him or understand what His coming was about--even those who diligently studied the scriptures and prophecies for centuries--only a very few "got it" and recognized Him at His coming (a remnant). It is the same with His "second coming" -- only a remnant are "getting it" -- but that does NOT mean they are "better than" others; it does NOT mean they are the only ones who will "be saved" -- or anything like that. Peter, James and John were the "remnant" in Jesus' circle...they were shown things the others weren't--specifically, a prelude to Tabernacles, in the transfiguration scene.

I remember one of the first churches I went to after I became a Christian, where the pastor was trying to encourage people to step out in their prophetic gifts, and he would tell the congregation to just stand up and speak whatever words came to mind...and I thought to myself those words that are coming to mind are just my own thoughts.

One of my best friends would get prophetic messages and words of knowledge by the notebook full. Most of what she received were words of encouragement and exhortation, but what was so noticeable to me was that all her messages had the same poetic "Old English" style to them, which is not the way we speak today, so it seemed very obvious to me that she mapped the style of language she was familiar with from the Bible she read. I have found this prophetic style to be common among many Christians.

Yes, well, it sounds like the pastor was trying to teach some baby-steps in learning to prophesy. Sometimes that does result in people just speaking their own thoughts--particularly if they haven't learned to tap into the Spirit and hear from God. And, yes, often people will prophesy in a similar "style" to others--these are still learning and growing in the prophetic, so that would be common. Kindof like how little children "mimic" their parents' style in things. This is just reflective of very young, beginning phases of the prophetic gift...we don't expect our toddlers to be able to function as adults, right? Same with those young in the prophetic.

However, when you have someone seasoned and more mature in prophecy, it's another story. I've had a number of very accurate prophetic words, where the prophet prophesied in detail on very specific things that only God would know. Here's one small example: this past January a prophet prophesied to my husband and I that "someone had robbed from us, they had ripped us off and betrayed us" ... he also said, "God's going to give you a new business where you will have a new understanding of finances and you will make more than you ever dreamed possible." OK, this is just two of MANY things he prophesied (that were all true), but I will just explain how these two played out. After the prophecy, I was thinking, "well, nobody has really 'robbed from us' that much...so maybe this is part of the prophecy that I am to judge as not valid....and my husband already has an understanding of finances that far exceeds most people, and we already make a lot of money...so that part about a 'new business/new understanding of finances' seems really 'out there...' might have to toss that one, too...."

That was in January. In March, we discovered that our bookkeeper of 19 years, whom we totally trusted, had been stealing from us the past couple years--to the tune of $200K cash and much more damage overall. Ripped off. Robbed. Betrayed.

In February, we discovered a "new business idea" that indeed has given my husband even MORE (far more) understanding of finances than he ever had before...we are beginning now to tap into that place of "making more than we ever even dreamed..." (and trust me, we made a LOT before...this far exceeds even that).

It's all a matter of maturity. We are supposed to "grow up" in spiritual gifts. I'm sorry that your experience has only been with very immature prophetic people...that would tend to dampen enthusiasm for it all.

I would go so far as to say that the only way any of us are lead is by our conscience. The more in-tune we are with ourselves and the deeper we look into subconscious the more we are connected to and guided by the collective whole of the living universe.

Throughout my whole life I have had countless intuitions, and insights which have given me great understanding into many things. The colored stain-glass Bible Wheel came from a magnificent insight I received...at the time I thought it was a revelation from God, but now I feel it was a deep connection with the archetypes of the collective whole, which we can "tap into" by becoming aware of the treasure trove of wisdom that lies in our subconscious.

I feel that anything that is a true revelation of our part in the universe is available to anyone, and the way we all can receive that truth is through our intuitions, and insights. The deeper we look into ourselves, and become tuned-in to the whole, the more will be revealed...not just to a remnant, but to everyone.

All the best,
Rose

Yes, as Bob pointed out, "Joh 7:53 And every man went unto his own house." ... Each man's house is his Doctrine. That which he surrounds himself with.

You certainly have that prerogative!

This is the "Male Bias" thread...and the time of "Tabernacles" holds great honor and responsibility for WOMEN, if they understand what it's about...which is why I'm trying to show you some of these things. In the Feast of Tabernacles, the "Great Light" that lit up all of Jerusalem originated in the Court of Women....

All the best to you, too!

Deb

Rose

12-15-2011, 03:19 PM

Hi Rose,

Yes, well, it sounds like the pastor was trying to teach some baby-steps in learning to prophesy. Sometimes that does result in people just speaking their own thoughts--particularly if they haven't learned to tap into the Spirit and hear from God. And, yes, often people will prophesy in a similar "style" to others--these are still learning and growing in the prophetic, so that would be common. Kindof like how little children "mimic" their parents' style in things. This is just reflective of very young, beginning phases of the prophetic gift...we don't expect our toddlers to be able to function as adults, right? Same with those young in the prophetic.

However, when you have someone seasoned and more mature in prophecy, it's another story. I've had a number of very accurate prophetic words, where the prophet prophesied in detail on very specific things that only God would know. Here's one small example: this past January a prophet prophesied to my husband and I that "someone had robbed from us, they had ripped us off and betrayed us" ... he also said, "God's going to give you a new business where you will have a new understanding of finances and you will make more than you ever dreamed possible." OK, this is just two of MANY things he prophesied (that were all true), but I will just explain how these two played out. After the prophecy, I was thinking, "well, nobody has really 'robbed from us' that much...so maybe this is part of the prophecy that I am to judge as not valid....and my husband already has an understanding of finances that far exceeds most people, and we already make a lot of money...so that part about a 'new business/new understanding of finances' seems really 'out there...' might have to toss that one, too...."

That was in January. In March, we discovered that our bookkeeper of 19 years, whom we totally trusted, had been stealing from us the past couple years--to the tune of $200K cash and much more damage overall. Ripped off. Robbed. Betrayed.

In February, we discovered a "new business idea" that indeed has given my husband even MORE (far more) understanding of finances than he ever had before...we are beginning now to tap into that place of "making more than we ever even dreamed..." (and trust me, we made a LOT before...this far exceeds even that).

It's all a matter of maturity. We are supposed to "grow up" in spiritual gifts. I'm sorry that your experience has only been with very immature prophetic people...that would tend to dampen enthusiasm for it all.

All the best to you, too!

Deb

Hi Deb, :yo:

I too believe in prophetic Dreams, Visions, Intuitions, and Insights...I just don't believe the source of our prophetic thoughts are from the anthropomorphic god of the Bible, Yahweh, or a Holy Spirit sent from him. As I said in my last post, I think everyone has the ability to receive revelations if they are in-touch with their inner selves which in turn is connected to the whole living universe.

Nice chatting with you :D
Rose

kathryn

12-15-2011, 05:02 PM

Hi Deb, :yo:

I too believe in prophetic Dreams, Visions, Intuitions, and Insights...I just don't believe the source of our prophetic thoughts are from the anthropomorphic god of the Bible, Yahweh, or a Holy Spirit sent from him. As I said in my last post, I think everyone has the ability to receive revelations if they are in-touch with their inner selves which in turn is connected to the whole living universe.

Nice chatting with you :D
Rose

Hi Rose...I think the foundation of what we believe is the same. We are all birthing into one collective Mind and Body...as One. You see , as I do, that the inner subconscious (our inner selves) is where we tap into the core of Harmony in the Universe, that is Goodness and Mercy, Joy, Humor, Beauty (etc) in ALL of Creation. It is the doctrines of man that has taken us away from our "inner child" who knew these things intuitively from the womb...and which we've both been dis-assembling(doctrines) in order to find that Core which is in and through all things.

This foundation is as solid as a rock and a great percentage of the Church still don't know the character of this foundation they are standing on...and therefore they are still judging others without "rightly dividing" their doctrines with this foundational Truth of the unconditional Love of the Heart of the Universe.

If we take this all out of the realm of Christian lingo...(which we need to do in order to get back to understanding the Word made Flesh in Creation) and into the unbiased realm of mathematics, which is also a valid witness in the understanding of Creation, and we both reached the same conclusion via two different approaches, there would be no question that each formula was correct, just a different method of arriving at the same conclusion.

I have come to this same conclusion as you and I believe Deb has as well. All we're doing, is demonstrating how we've discovered it in the basic bone structure of the written Logos, through which our dreams, visions, intuitions and insights (rhema) will add muscle and sinew. So...I think if we can keep discussing this with an open mind...we're already much farther ahead than most. :thumb:

Rose

12-15-2011, 06:47 PM

Hi Rose...I think the foundation of what we believe is the same. We are all birthing into one collective Mind and Body...as One. You see , as I do, that the inner subconscious (our inner selves) is where we tap into the core of Harmony in the Universe, that is Goodness and Mercy, Joy, Humor, Beauty (etc) in ALL of Creation. It is the doctrines of man that has taken us away from our "inner child" who knew these things intuitively from the womb...and which we've both been dis-assembling(doctrines) in order to find that Core which is in and through all things.
Hi Kathyrn, :yo:

Beautifully said...:thumb: Our inner-selves are all reaching for the same thing, and what a joy it is when we find it in ourselves and others around us. Looking at the living universe through the lens of love is what makes all the difference. I love what you said about our inner child intuitively knowing from the womb the connectivity of all creation.

This foundation is as solid as a rock and a great percentage of the Church still don't know the character of this foundation they are standing on...and therefore they are still judging others without "rightly dividing" their doctrines with this foundational Truth of the unconditional Love of the Heart of the Universe.

If we take this all out of the realm of Christian lingo...(which we need to do in order to get back to understanding the Word made Flesh in Creation) and into the unbiased realm of mathematics, which is also a valid witness in the understanding of Creation, and we both reached the same conclusion via two different approaches, there would be no question that each formula was correct, just a different method of arriving at the same conclusion.

I have come to this same conclusion as you and I believe Deb has as well. All we're doing, is demonstrating how we've discovered it in the basic bone structure of the written Logos, through which our dreams, visions, intuitions and insights (rhema) will add muscle and sinew. So...I think if we can keep discussing this with an open mind...we're already much farther ahead than most. :thumb:

I love your attitude, :hug: and I totally agree about keeping our minds open...that's why Richard and I are where we're at today.

All the best to you my friend,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

12-15-2011, 11:07 PM

Hi Rose...I think the foundation of what we believe is the same. Weare all birthing into one collective Mind and Body...as One. You see , as I do, that the inner subconscious (our inner selves) is where we tap into the core of Harmony in the Universe, that is Goodness and Mercy, Joy, Humor, Beauty (etc) in ALL of Creation. It is the doctrines of man that has taken us away from our "inner child" who knew these things intuitively from the womb...and which we've both been dis-assembling(doctrines) in order to find that Core which is in and through all things.

This foundation is as solid as a rock and a great percentage of the Church still don't know the character of this foundation they are standing on...and therefore they are still judging others without "rightly dividing" their doctrines with this foundational Truth of the unconditional Love of the Heart of the Universe.

If we take this all out of the realm of Christian lingo...(which we need to do in order to get back to understanding the Word made Flesh in Creation) and into the unbiased realm of mathematics, which is also a valid witness in the understanding of Creation, and we both reached the same conclusion via two different approaches, there would be no question that each formula was correct, just a different method of arriving at the same conclusion.

I have come to this same conclusion as you and I believe Deb has as well. All we're doing, is demonstrating how we've discovered it in the basic bone structure of the written Logos, through which our dreams, visions, intuitions and insights (rhema) will add muscle and sinew. So...I think if we can keep discussing this with an open mind...we're already much farther ahead than most. :thumb:
Those are some great words Kathryn. And I very much agree that it would help to drop the "Chrsitian lingo" - that's what I had to do until I cleared away all the dross of false doctrines. Now I can use the old lanugage again because it has been cleansed and transfigured.

kathryn

12-16-2011, 12:02 AM

Those are some great words Kathryn. And I very much agree that it would help to drop the "Chrsitian lingo" - that's what I had to do until I cleared away all the dross of false doctrines. Now I can use the old lanugage again because it has been cleansed and transfigured.

That's a great way to put it Richard. We can make the written word say anything we want it to say, if we don't approach it with the cleansed and transfigured (and proceeding word that is continuously speaking to us as the Word made Flesh...in and through all Creation.

We can't however, make the Creator's first and intended witness to His/Her character and purposes, the Creation... say anything we want it to say! It has infinite diversity ...but it is from ONE Key in Harmony....LOVE UNCONDITIONAL, LOVE EXTRAVAGANT, MERCIFUL, BEAUTIFUL, GLORIOUS, FULL OF LAUGHTER AND JOY.

This was the ONE command in which all other commands/Laws were summed up. Until we KNOW this fully, we will have no agreement or Harmony with our Core...and we will remain impotent and powerless to effect restoration on earth.

CWH

12-16-2011, 01:15 AM

Hey there Deb, :yo:

You are now setting Scripture against Scripture. The Book of Revelation explicitly states that the mere sexual act with a woman defiles a man:
Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
Now it matters not if the "women" in this passage are meant as "wicked women" or as symbols of unfaithfulness or whatever because any symbolic meaning is based upon the premise that "sex with women defiles men." We know this because the text contrasts male virginity (no sexual contact with any kind of women). Virtuous sex within marriage cannot be a possibility here because then they would not be called "virgins." .

I would like to add my understanding of the passage raised by RAM of Revelation 14:4:
The key word "defiled by womEn" suggests having sex with many women i.e. fornication. The other key word is virgin which can be interpreted as pure. Even married men (not just singles) can still be considered as virgins if they don't go sleeping around with women and are pure in their spirits. It has nothing suggesting women are "dirty" or men biased against women. Touching women does not defile a man, Jesus and His apostles were touching men and women curing them of their illnesses, raising the dead and casting out demons. Were they defiled also? And most of Jesus apostles were married!

This is how Paul defines virgins as pure:

2 Corinthians 11
1 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Fornicators:

1 Corinthians 6:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

God Bless everyone.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

12-16-2011, 03:14 PM

I would like to add my understanding of the passage raised by RAM of Revelation 14:4:
The key word "defiled by womEn" suggests having sex with many women i.e. fornication. The other key word is virgin which can be interpreted as pure. Even married men (not just singles) can still be considered as virgins if they don't go sleeping around with women and are pure in their spirits. It has nothing suggesting women are "dirty" or men biased against women. Touching women does not defile a man, Jesus and His apostles were touching men and women curing them of their illnesses, raising the dead and casting out demons. Were they defiled also? And most of Jesus apostles were married!

This is how Paul defines virgins as pure:

2 Corinthians 11
1 I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me! 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Fornicators:

1 Corinthians 6:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

God Bless everyone.:pray:
Yes, the idea of "virgin" is used as a symbol for "pure." I have not problem with that. But I don't see how you could say that a married person would be called a virgin. That's never done anywhere in the Bible. And the plural "womEn" does not imply that as the reason for the impurity. The plural was used because it was talking about the group of 144,000 (plural) not being defiled by women (plural). It had nothing to do with each individual having many partners. The passage shows that sexual contact with women was considered unclean.

Rose

08-29-2012, 12:53 PM

CWH

08-30-2012, 10:57 AM

I am continuing to add to my article titled The Male Bias of the Bible, you can find the updated version here on my blog God and Butterfly (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/). A short excerpt is presented below.

My premise for stating that I do not believe the Bible can be the “Word of God”, is based on the fact that Scripture is totally skewed and arbitrarily biased toward the male, and the idea that no gender-neutral god who is purported to be the creator of the universe would author a book so obviously unbalanced against the woman. The reasons given in the Bible for its lopsided view of women’s rights are pathetic, beginning in Genesis with the supposed transgression of Eve. The biblical account tells us that because Eve acted upon her desire for knowledge, and ate of the forbidden fruit offered her by the Snake, the female gender was to be forever cursed with the punishment of being ruled over by the male. From that point on, continuing through the entire Bible one finds an arbitrary bias against women for no reason other than gender.

In the following pages I will set forth my case of male bias based solely upon verses presented in the Bible that are purported to be the words of “God”. As one reads through these verses it will become obvious that male hands are all over Scripture, giving us an account of “God” as seen through their masculine eyes. Over, and over again you will see that the rules set forth as being given from “God” are based solely on gender and are strikingly similar to the customs and traditions prevalent in male dominated societies at the time. This male bent towards the unequal treatment of women is not the only bias one finds in the pages of Scripture; the very description of “God” himself is portrayed as a masculine warrior god named Yahweh, who is given all the standard male attributes…even down to his title as “Father”.

It is totally obvious that the perspective from which the Bible is written is male; everything that is written in it is done so from a masculine point of view, right down to the way women are described and treated. The words of Scripture are composed as a man would write when speaking of and describing the actions of women, when it should be written in a totally neutral way if it were truly from a god who is neither male nor female.

Here are six anti-woman claims that the Bible promotes:

Women were considered the property of the man.
Women were ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
Women do not share equal rights with men.
Women are considered inferior to men.
Progeny is carried through the loins of the male.
The “God” of the Bible is portrayed with “male” attributes.

Being born female at any point in history has always been an extreme disadvantage, but especially so during biblical times when the Hebrew god of the Bible declared woman to be created from and for man, endowing her with the status of "Property". This title was forever engraved in stone in the 10th Commandment, where a man’s wife is numbered second among the possessions of ones neighbor that should not be coveted. If you will notice, the husband is not listed among the possessions that should not be coveted.

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (PROPERTY), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (PROPERTY), nor his manservant (PROPERTY), nor his maidservant (PROPERTY), nor his ox (PROPERTY), nor his ass (PROPERTY), nor any thing (PROPERTY) that is thy neighbour's.

My first presentation in the verses below give glaring examples of how the laws of Yahweh given to Moses are arbitrarily biased in favor of the male, showing an inequality in the treatment of women based solely on the fact of being female. From the starting point of birth, the Bible imposes upon the female baby a label of inequality which then continues throughout her life, giving clear evidence to the male-bias of that book. Continued here (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/)...

Rose and her usual routine again. I know she will jump to the sky with my response :winking0071: Aren't there better things to fight than to fight for male and female equality? How about fighting against sin, war, starvation, diseases, sufferings, poverty, injustice, immorality, greed, smoking, abortion, gambling, drug dependance, pornography, pedophilia, sexual perversion, lust, cruelty, rapes, alcoholism, unsafe practices? When all these are solved, equality between male and female will automatically fall into place.

To say that there are no female bias in the Bible is biased. Why must men in the Bible be......
1. Why must men take up the leadership to protect the women, children and family?
2. Why must men fight and sacrifice their lives and limbs in wars and animal attacks to protect the womenfolk and his family?
3. Why must men observe religius rites and become priests?
4. Why must be the men that disciplined the children?
5. Why must men built houses, farm the land, tend the animals, carry firewood, make fire, hunt animals, kill the animals, made household equipments?
6. Why must men work and earn a living to support the family
7. Why must men take up leadership roles in the family and community?
8. Why must men made policies, laws for the community?
9. Why must men control the finances?
10. Why must men pay and provide for the female upon marriage and divorce?
11. Why must men take up most of the jobs such as scribe, carpenter, plumber, tax collectors, servants, soldiers, farmers, priests, builders, laborers, masons, engineers barbers, medicine men, magicians etc.?

Women in the Bible:
Women were considered the property of the man so that men need to protect and be responsible for them.
Women were ruled over by men solely based on their gender because women were the weaker sex and needs male protection.
Women do not share equal rights with men because somehow someone must need to take care of the family of which women have the natural abilities. Both Men and Women worked together using their own natural attributes to achieve the best for the family and society.
Women are considered inferior to men because of the perception of their natural attributes such as smaller size, lesser strength, gentleness, virtues etc. Women obviously can be superior over men with their natural attributes such as the caring for the family, children and households etc. Yin and Yang work together to ensure harmony in nature and society.
Progeny is carried through the loins of the male because only men carry both X(female) and Y(male) chromosomes in their loins.
The “God” of the Bible is portrayed with “male” attributes because males were seen as the leader, protector and provider of the family and the community.

[INDENT]Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (Man's responsibility and protection), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his manservant (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his maidservant (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his ox (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his ass (Man's responsibility and protection), nor any thing (Man's responsibility and protection) that is thy neighbour's.

God Bless both males and females.:pray:

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 11:27 AM

Rose and her usual routine again. I know she will jump to the sky with my response :winking0071: Aren't there better things to fight than to fight for male and female equality? How about fighting against sin, war, starvation, diseases, sufferings, poverty, injustice, immorality, greed, smoking, abortion, gambling, drug dependance, pornography, pedophilia, sexual perversion, lust, cruelty, rapes, alcoholism, unsafe practices? When all these are solved, equality between male and female will automatically fall into place.

To say that there are no female bias in the Bible is biased. Why must men in the Bible be......
1. Why must men take up the leadership to protect the women, children and family?
2. Why must men fight and sacrifice their lives and limbs in wars and animal attacks to protect the womenfolk and his family?
3. Why must men observe religius rites and become priests?
4. Why must be the men that disciplined the children?
5. Why must men built houses, farm the land, tend the animals, carry firewood, make fire, hunt animals, kill the animals, made household equipments?
6. Why must men work and earn a living to support the family
7. Why must men take up leadership roles in the family and community?
8. Why must men made policies, laws for the community?
9. Why must men control the finances?
10. Why must men pay and provide for the female upon marriage and divorce?
11. Why must men take up most of the jobs such as scribe, carpenter, plumber, tax collectors, servants, soldiers, farmers, priests, builders, laborers, masons, engineers barbers, medicine men, magicians etc.?

Women in the Bible:
Women were considered the property of the man so that men need to protect and be responsible for them.
Women were ruled over by men solely based on their gender because women were the weaker sex and needs male protection.
Women do not share equal rights with men because somehow someone must need to take care of the family of which women have the natural abilities. Both Men and Women worked together using their own natural attributes to achieve the best for the family and society.
Women are considered inferior to men because of the perception of their natural attributes such as smaller size, lesser strength, gentleness, virtues etc. Women obviously can be superior over men with their natural attributes such as the caring for the family, children and households etc. Yin and Yang work together to ensure harmony in nature and society.
Progeny is carried through the loins of the male because only men carry both X(female) and Y(male) chromosomes in their loins.
The “God” of the Bible is portrayed with “male” attributes because males were seen as the leader, protector and provider of the family and the community.

[INDENT]Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (Man's responsibility and protection), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his manservant (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his maidservant (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his ox (Man's responsibility and protection), nor his ass (Man's responsibility and protection), nor any thing (Man's responsibility and protection) that is thy neighbour's.

God Bless both males and females.:pray:

Hi Cheow,

I don't think you'll have to wait to long for a rebuttal from Rose :lol:

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 11:33 AM

Hi Cheow,

I don't think you'll have to wait to long for a rebuttal from Rose :lol:

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

So you think that the sexism in the Bible reveals the heart of God?

Richard

CWH

08-30-2012, 11:40 AM

Hi Cheow,

I don't think you'll have to wait to long for a rebuttal from Rose :lol:

God bless---Twospirits

Hi Henry,

I am waiting for her rebuttal in fact. Sometimes, it's nice to see her turn into a fit and frenzy :lol:

Gid Blessings to you.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 11:48 AM

Hi Henry,

I am waiting for her rebuttal in fact. Sometimes, it's nice to see her turn into a fit and frenzy :lol:

Gid Blessings to you.:pray:

Yeah ... religious robots who have no sense of true morality or the equality of all people do tend to throw Rose into a "fit and frenzy."

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 11:52 AM

Hi Henry,

I am waiting for her rebuttal in fact. Sometimes, it's nice to see her turn into a fit and frenzy :lol:

Gid Blessings to you.:pray:

Well, though I disagree with her teachings, I'm sure she takes these thing quite seriously, I only said it in humor. I mean provoking a person is not a good thing to do. Nice talking to you again,

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 11:54 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 11:56 AM

Well, though I disagree with her teachings, I'm sure she takes these thing quite seriously, I only said it in humor. I mean provoking a person is not a good thing to do. Nice talking to you again,

God bless---Twospirits

Thanks for the reasoned response. :thumb:

It would be interesting to know how you really feel about the male bias in the Bible. Can you see why Rose (and I) take it so seriously? Women have been oppressed by men throughout most of human history, and Christianity made it worse, not better. Do you understand this? Can you imagine what it would be like to be a woman?

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 12:04 PM

Hey there Henry,

So you think that the sexism in the Bible reveals the heart of God?

Richard

Hi Richard,

Been a while, I think what the Bible reveals is the "dominion order" in which God created man. This order reveals God's Laws so that a society could function properly together (male and female) beginning in the garden of Eden and then expanding throughout the world. But man, not God blew it, and because God loved his creation, by grace he has put up with us until now. That's about the short of it.

God bless---Twospirits

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 12:18 PM

Hi Richard,

Been a while, I think what the Bible reveals is the "dominion order" in which God created man. This order reveals God's Laws so that a society could function properly together (male and female) beginning in the garden of Eden and then expanding throughout the world. But man, not God blew it, and because God loved his creation, by grace he has put up with us until now. That's about the short of it.

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry, :yo:

Glad you stopped by for a visit.

Why should I believe that the Biblical laws (which are heavily biased towards the male exactly as we would expect if they were written by biased men), actually come from a God who loves equality and justice for all?

Richard

CWH

08-30-2012, 12:20 PM

It doesn't matter how many times you explain yourself Rose. Folks who believe the Bible have chosen to BLIND themselves to what the Bible says. Yet they claim to believe it! How ironic is that?

CWH has never actually addressed the point you are trying to make. I don't even know if he is capable of understanding what you are saying.

QUESTION FOR CWH: Do you understand Rose's point? If so, do you think it is valid? If not, why not? Do you deny that the Bible is biased against the women? I'm not asking you to make up excuses but to deal with reality for a change.

The way I see it, the Bible is filled with both male and female bias. Why just focus on male bias without focusing on female bias which I have highlighted? Do you think many males like to take up leadership position? to be a leader and be responsible and accountable for everything for the family? Do you think every man like to fight and die or maimed to protect his family, property and country? Do you think every man like to be responsible to observe religious rite and become a priest or to discipline his children? Do you think every man like to pay for his marriage and divorce maintenance? Do you think every man like to toil under the sun, till the land, tend the animals, fight wild beasts, go hunting? Do ypu think every man like to be a soldier, a farmer, a laborer, a plumber etc? Sometimes, it is a disadvantages to be a male. Can you imagine how is it like to be a man?

hi Henry, it may not be good to provoke someone but sometimes it may be good to provoke someone so that we can see the true colors just like a judge tactfully provoke a criminal to truly confess his criminal motive.

God Bless. :pray:

Rose

08-30-2012, 12:24 PM

Hi Richard,

Been a while, I think what the Bible reveals is the "dominion order" in which God created man. This order reveals God's Laws so that a society could function properly together (male and female) beginning in the garden of Eden and then expanding throughout the world. But man, not God blew it, and because God loved his creation, by grace he has put up with us until now. That's about the short of it.

God bless---Twospirits

Hi Twospirits,

I don't think history has proved that to be true. Male dominated societies have never functioned properly; when there is an imbalance in the way civilizations are ruled it ends up leading to loss of human rights. Partnership societies always work better, because one gender is not trying to dominate and rule the other. The Bible is an excellent historical example of what happens when one gender dominates the other...women become the property of men and are denied equal human rights, or control over their own bodies. That my friend is wrong!

Take care,
Rose

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 12:41 PM

Hey there Henry, :yo:

Glad you stopped by for a visit.

Why should I believe that the Biblical laws (which are heavily biased towards the male exactly as we would expect if they were written by biased men), actually come from a God who loves equality and justice for all?

Richard

Because if you believe the Bible, the Bible says these laws came from God. God made man (and female) in his image and to have dominion over all earthly things (Gen. 1:26-28). Gen. 2:7 tells us man was made first, and he planted a garden (Eden) and put man there (v.8), to till it and keep it (v.15). But God saw that it was not good for man to do it and be alone, so he made a helper for him (Gen. 2:18). Therefore man shall be joined to his wife (female) and they shall be as one (Gen. 2:24). As one, equal to each other, not one dominating the other. This is God's laws and commandments when he created them to have dominion over all earthly things. God was not bias, it is man who caused this problem as scripture clearly reveals--that is only if you believe the scriptures-otherwise you will blame God rather than man- and no amount of discussion will change your position. That is just the way it is.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

08-30-2012, 12:50 PM

Rose and her usual routine again. I know she will jump to the sky with my response :winking0071: Aren't there better things to fight than to fight for male and female equality? How about fighting against sin, war, starvation, diseases, sufferings, poverty, injustice, immorality, greed, smoking, abortion, gambling, drug dependance, pornography, pedophilia, sexual perversion, lust, cruelty, rapes, alcoholism, unsafe practices? When all these are solved, equality between male and female will automatically fall into place.

Well Cheow, since you are a man who has full human rights which many women do not have, you are disqualified. You are unable to see the problem from an unbiased point of view, so your opinion has no value.

To say that there are no female bias in the Bible is biased. Why must men in the Bible be......
1. Why must men take up the leadership to protect the women, children and family? There are no biblical requirements for men to protect the family.
2. Why must men fight and sacrifice their lives and limbs in wars and animal attacks to protect the womenfolk and his family? Most of the wars in the Bible were ordered by God because of pagan practices, not for the purpose of protecting women and children.
3. Why must men observe religius rites and become priests? Women practice religious rites also, and it was your biblegod who said that women couldn't be priests. In many pagan cultures women were allowed to be priests.
4. Why must be the men that disciplined the children? Women discipline children too.
5. Why must men built houses, farm the land, tend the animals, carry firewood, make fire, hunt animals, kill the animals, made household equipments? Women build houses, farm land, tend animals, carry firewood, make fires, hunt animals, kill the animals, and make household equipment and clothes. How do you not know these things? Look at some statistics, women do most of the farming and raising of animals in the world.
6. Why must men work and earn a living to support the family Women have always did more than their share of supporting the family. The only reason some jobs were off limits to them was because of men not allowing women to get an education or hold certain jobs.
7. Why must men take up leadership roles in the family and community? In countries that allow women to become leaders they do an equally good or better job than men.
8. Why must men made policies, laws for the community? Once again, when women are allowed to become law makers they do an equally good or better job than men.
9. Why must men control the finances? Women are usually better at finances than men.
10. Why must men pay and provide for the female upon marriage and divorce? The only reason in the past that men bought women was because they were considered property.
11. Why must men take up most of the jobs such as scribe, carpenter, plumber, tax collectors, servants, soldiers, farmers, priests, builders, laborers, masons, engineers barbers, medicine men, magicians etc.? What are you talking about? Women can do all the jobs you listed equally well or better than men, it's just that men denied women the right to hold many jobs.

God Bless both males and females.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 12:50 PM

The way I see it, the Bible is filled with both male and female bias. Why just focus on male bias without focusing on female bias which I have highlighted? Do you think many males like to take up leadership position? to be a leader and be responsible and accountable for everything for the family? Do you think every man like to fight and die or maimed to protect his family, property and country? Do you think every man like to be responsible to observe religious rite and become a priest or to discipline his children? Do you think every man like to pay for his marriage and divorce maintenance? Do you think every man like to toil under the sun, till the land, tend the animals, fight wild beasts, go hunting? Do ypu think every man like to be a soldier, a farmer, a laborer, a plumber etc? Sometimes, it is a disadvantages to be a male. Can you imagine how is it like to be a man?

Yes, when men have no choice they may be forced into roles they don't particularly like, but that's NOTHING like the WICKED OPPRESSION women have suffered throughout history. The Bible should have allowed both men and women to choose their own roles. But it did not do that because it was written by primitive men, not God.

The "way you see things" makes no sense to me at all, and it looks like you are just making excuses to save the Bible from the truth.

In general, men LOVE being in the leadership position. Sometimes they even kill each other to try to take it. The LOVE the leadership position because they love POWER and MONEY. Your comments are totally disconnected from reality.

Women are TOTALLY OPPRESSED and never allowed to lead or make decisions. They are treated like slaves and property. And you can't see this? You try to cover up the truth with many words? I consider that a gross perversion caused by your religion.

Please think about this. I am speaking the truth. You excuses for your religion only makes your religion look WORSE than it already does. Can't you understand the irony? Your religion is primitive and it teaches primitive morality. When a 21st century man twists his logic to defend primitive religion, it only proves yet again how evil the primitive religion really is.

Please try to understand. Most modern Christians try to find ways to reject the primitive parts of the Bible and keep the good parts like "God is love." When you try to defend the bad parts of the Bible, all you do is convince people that the Bible is WORSE than they thought.

Can you imagine how is it like to be a man?

Get real Cheow. I am a man. I don't need to "imagine" what it would be like.

You really should stop with you childish mimicry. It makes it look like you refuse to understand the point being made, and that makes you look stupid because the point had been explained over and over and over again, but you just don't get it. You don't even respond to the point but choose rather to flip the words in stupid mimicry. Why do you do that?

hi Henry, it may not be good to provoke someone but sometimes it may be good to provoke someone so that we can see the true colors just like a judge tactfully provoke a criminal to truly confess his criminal motive.

Rose's "true colors" have been shining for years in this forum. You don't need to "provoke her" to see them. She has amazing patience as she puts up with your stubbornly ridiculous responses. She continues to write calm and reasonable posts which you falsely characterize as "fit and frenzy." You should try to be more reasonable.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 12:53 PM

Because if you believe the Bible, the Bible says these laws came from God. God made man (and female) in his image and to have dominion over all earthly things (Gen. 1:26-28). Gen. 2:7 tells us man was made first, and he planted a garden (Eden) and put man there (v.8), to till it and keep it (v.15). But God saw that it was not good for man to do it and be alone, so he made a helper for him (Gen. 2:18). Therefore man shall be joined to his wife (female) and they shall be as one (Gen. 2:24). As one, equal to each other, not one dominating the other. This is God's laws and commandments when he created them to have dominion over all earthly things. God was not bias, it is man who caused this problem as scripture clearly reveals--that is only if you believe the scriptures-otherwise you will blame God rather than man- and no amount of discussion will change your position. That is just the way it is.

God bless---Twospirits

Yes, you can interpret the Genesis story that way if you like. But it won't fix the problem because we are talking about the sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Rose has documented much of it. It cannot be denied and it was sanctioned and ordained by God himself. How do you understand that?

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 01:14 PM

Yes, you can interpret the Genesis story that way if you like. But it won't fix the problem because we are talking about the sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Rose has documented much of it. It cannot be denied and it was sanctioned and ordained by God himself. How do you understand that?

As I said in my earlier post, the Bible reveals the "dominion order" in which God created man. This order reveals God's Laws so that a society could function properly together (male and female) beginning in the garden of Eden and then expanding throughout the world. But man blew it, NOT GOD and because God loved his creation, by grace he has put up with us until now. Scripture makes clear that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Scripture also reveals he does not allow it, nor condone it, he punishes those who do these evils by using other nations as his instruments. This is clearly seen throughout scripture. He has and will put up with it in this way until his salvation plan for mankind is complete. This is what the Bible reveals in all its clarity whether it is believed or disbelieved-today few believe it.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

08-30-2012, 02:03 PM

As I said in my earlier post, the Bible reveals the "dominion order" in which God created man. This order reveals God's Laws so that a society could function properly together (male and female) beginning in the garden of Eden and then expanding throughout the world. But man blew it, NOT GOD and because God loved his creation, by grace he has put up with us until now. Scripture makes clear that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Scripture also reveals he does not allow it, nor condone it, he punishes those who do these evils by using other nations as his instruments. This is clearly seen throughout scripture. He has and will put up with it in this way until his salvation plan for mankind is complete. This is what the Bible reveals in all its clarity whether it is believed or disbelieved-today few believe it.

God bless---Twospirits

You say that the Bible reveals the "dominion order"...if that is the case then how do you interpret Gen. 1:27?

Gen. 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

From my reading of the passage there does not seem to be a so called "dominion order" that you speak of, it says that God gave THEM dominion over everything that creeps on the earth.

Rose

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Yes, you can interpret the Genesis story that way if you like. But it won't fix the problem because we are talking about the sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Rose has documented much of it. It cannot be denied and it was sanctioned and ordained by God himself. How do you understand that?

Genesis 3 explains this "problem." It was a punishment, a curse put upon Adam and Eve by God because of their rebellion against him. He did not condone or approve of it in the way you and Rose make it out to be; it was a curse/punishment, big difference here.

Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity (ebah;to mean opposition, division, hostility,etc.) between thee (serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed (seed of the adversary) and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here the serpent is to become an adversary against the woman and man (Christ).

The punishment of the woman is given in Gen. 3:16, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire (shall be) to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Not that God commanded the man to rule over her but this would happen because of this curse/punishment being put on them-enmity, division, hostility. Man would rule over the woman in that adversarial sense.

The punishment of Adam because he listened to his wife "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." And there the "sexism" problem began between man and woman. It was man who brought upon the punishment of the woman-not God- he just told them what would happen to them because of what they done. It was Adam AND Eve's fault NOT GOD"S.

God bless---Twospirits

Twospirits

08-30-2012, 02:18 PM

You say that the Bible reveals the "dominion order"...if that is the case then how do you interpret Gen. 1:27?

Gen. 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

From my reading of the passage there does not seem to be a so called "dominion order" that you speak of, it says that God gave THEM dominion over everything that creeps on the earth.

Rose

Yes, and that's what I said in post #155, here's part of it:

Therefore man shall be joined to his wife (female) and they shall be as one (Gen. 2:24). As one, equal to each other, not one dominating the other. This is God's laws and commandments when he created them to have dominion over all earthly things. God was not bias, it is man who caused this problem as scripture clearly reveals--

See also my last post to Richard on the curse of Adam and Eve.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

08-30-2012, 02:59 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 03:40 PM

Genesis 3 explains this "problem." It was a punishment, a curse put upon Adam and Eve by God because of their rebellion against him. He did not condone or approve of it in the way you and Rose make it out to be; it was a curse/punishment, big difference here.

Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity (ebah;to mean opposition, division, hostility,etc.) between thee (serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed (seed of the adversary) and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here the serpent is to become an adversary against the woman and man (Christ).

The punishment of the woman is given in Gen. 3:16, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire (shall be) to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Not that God commanded the man to rule over her but this would happen because of this curse/punishment being put on them-enmity, division, hostility. Man would rule over the woman in that adversarial sense.

The punishment of Adam because he listened to his wife "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." And there the "sexism" problem began between man and woman. It was man who brought upon the punishment of the woman-not God- he just told them what would happen to them because of what they done. It was Adam AND Eve's fault NOT GOD"S.

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

I see three problems with your explanation.

1) God chose the punishment. He didn't have to institute perpetual oppression of women that has marred all human history! And if you are correct, why is it that modern people have "reversed" the curse and now allow women so much freedom? To me, this makes your explanation absurd because it shows that modern humans are so much better than the God of the Bible.

2) God instituted gratuitous sexism that was not required as any kind of "punishment" for the sins of Adam and Eve. God set up a system that is rejected as primitive male domination by almost all modern people.

3) Are we supposed to assume that all the sexist laws in the Bible were a form of punishment? Is that the intent of God's law? To write immoral laws to punish us? I thought his law was supposed to guide us to morality that is worthy of God himself!

Basically, any attempt to justify the sexism in the Bible will make God look like a primitive human being. I don't see how anyone can overcome this fact.

I'm very glad you are working with me on this. It helps to clarify our understanding.

Richard

CWH

08-30-2012, 07:57 PM

This is my response to Rose in red:

Originally Posted by CWH
Rose and her usual routine again. I know she will jump to the sky with my response Aren't there better things to fight than to fight for male and female equality? How about fighting against sin, war, starvation, diseases, sufferings, poverty, injustice, immorality, greed, smoking, abortion, gambling, drug dependance, pornography, pedophilia, sexual perversion, lust, cruelty, rapes, alcoholism, unsafe practices? When all these are solved, equality between male and female will automatically fall into place.

[QUOTE]Well Cheow, since you are a man who has full human rights which many women do not have, you are disqualified. You are unable to see the problem from an unbiased point of view, so your opinion has no value.
So can women have full human rights but is equal full human rights always good? Can human rights between women and men be still equal with each other doing unequal rights for the betterment of mankind e.g. I worked the farms, you look after the children; I hunt for food, you cook the food; I repair the house, you maintain the house, I protect and discipline the children, you feed them etc.

Originally Posted by CWH
To say that there are no female bias in the Bible is biased. Why must men in the Bible be......
1. Why must men take up the leadership to protect the women, children and family? There are no biblical requirements for men to protect the family. It has been the role of men since stone age time to protect women, children and the family.
2. Why must men fight and sacrifice their lives and limbs in wars and animal attacks to protect the womenfolk and his family? Most of the wars in the Bible were ordered by God because of pagan practices, not for the purpose of protecting women and children. Most wars were not ordered by God but human to human conflicts; were the Roman, Greek wars, ww1 and 2, Korean war, vietnam war etc, ordered by God?
3. Why must men observe religius rites and become priests? Women practice religious rites also, and it was your biblegod who said that women couldn't be priests. In many pagan cultures women were allowed to be priests. The Bible never stop women to be priests but look how many women are willing to be priests? In Hebrew times, men were given the responsibility to observe religious rites.
4. Why must be the men that disciplined the children? Women discipline children too. In Hebrew times, disciplining the children is the role of the men. Even today, most judges are men.
5. Why must men built houses, farm the land, tend the animals, carry firewood, make fire, hunt animals, kill the animals, made household equipments? Women build houses, farm land, tend animals, carry firewood, make fires, hunt animals, kill the animals, and make household equipment and clothes. How do you not know these things? Look at some statistics, women do most of the farming and raising of animals in the world. Show me the statistics, most men do the laborious farm and animal raising work.
6. Why must men work and earn a living to support the family Women have always did more than their share of supporting the family. The only reason some jobs were off limits to them was because of men not allowing women to get an education or hold certain jobs. The reason why some jobs were off limit to women are because they are not suitable such as soldering and women are just not interested such as pumbling.
7. Why must men take up leadership roles in the family and community? In countries that allow women to become leaders they do an equally good or better job than men. Show me statistics; was Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir better leaders than their male counterparts?
8. Why must men made policies, laws for the community? Once again, when women are allowed to become law makers they do an equally good or better job than men. .Show me the statistics.
9. Why must men control the finances? Women are usually better at finances than men. Most bankers and economists are men. I believe both sexes are equal in financing.
10. Why must men pay and provide for the female upon marriage and divorce? The only reason in the past that men bought women was because they were considered property. What are you talking? Let me rephrase the question, should females pay for their marriage and divorce and maintenance? the answer is no, then why must men pays.
11. Why must men take up most of the jobs such as scribe, carpenter, plumber, tax collectors, servants, soldiers, farmers, priests, builders, laborers, masons, engineers barbers, medicine men, magicians etc.? What are you talking about? Women can do all the jobs you listed equally well or better than men, it's just that men denied women the right to hold many jobs. Show me the statistics. Those jobs are not suitable for women or the women are simply not interested. Somehow, someone have to do the jobs.

God Bless both males and females equally.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

08-30-2012, 08:25 PM

God Bless both males and females equally.:pray:

If God had done that in the Bible we wouldn't be having this conversation.

CWH

08-30-2012, 08:28 PM

Yes, when men have no choice they may be forced into roles they don't particularly like, but that's NOTHING like the WICKED OPPRESSION women have suffered throughout history. The Bible should have allowed both men and women to choose their own roles. But it did not do that because it was written by primitive men, not God.
The wicked oppression happened to men as well, prisoners of war, slaves, etc. What roles you want the Bible to allow men and women to choose? Women to be soldiers? men to be housewives?

The "way you see things" makes no sense to me at all, and it looks like you are just making excuses to save the Bible from the truth.
Same as you are making excuses to prove your atheist's dogma.

In general, men LOVE being in the leadership position. Sometimes they even kill each other to try to take it. The LOVE the leadership position because they love POWER and MONEY. Your comments are totally disconnected from reality.
There are women leaders who love POWER and MONEY also, are they necessary better than men? Were Margaret Thatcher, Gold Meir, Indira Gandhi better than their male counterparts?

Women are TOTALLY OPPRESSED and never allowed to lead or make decisions. They are treated like slaves and property. And you can't see this? You try to cover up the truth with many words? I consider that a gross perversion caused by your religion.
They were also men treated like slaves and property, it doesn't just applied to women. They were not treated like slaves but was put under the responsibility and protection of men. Of course, some men abused the powers and responsibility given to them.

Please think about this. I am speaking the truth. You excuses for your religion only makes your religion look WORSE than it already does. Can't you understand the irony? Your religion is primitive and it teaches primitive morality. When a 21st century man twists his logic to defend primitive religion, it only proves yet again how evil the primitive religion really is.
Look here, that is your perception, it is for the readers to decide if religion is worse. Most people see the evil done by modern men as no better than those done in the 1st century..... see the atrocities done by people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, Osama etc.

Please try to understand. Most modern Christians try to find ways to reject the primitive parts of the Bible and keep the good parts like "God is love." When you try to defend the bad parts of the Bible, all you do is convince people that the Bible is WORSE than they thought.
Anything wrong like keeping the good part that God is love and to love God with all your heart, soul and might and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Get real Cheow. I am a man. I don't need to "imagine" what it would be like.
So am I a man. You are living in your ivory tower and do not experienced how men in poverty lives and struggles.

You really should stop with you childish mimicry. It makes it look like you refuse to understand the point being made, and that makes you look stupid because the point had been explained over and over and over again, but you just don't get it. You don't even respond to the point but choose rather to flip the words in stupid mimicry. Why do you do that?
It is not for you to comment, it is for the readers to decide; this is a democratic society.

Rose's "true colors" have been shining for years in this forum. You don't need to "provoke her" to see them. She has amazing patience as she puts up with your stubbornly ridiculous responses. She continues to write calm and reasonable posts which you falsely characterize as "fit and frenzy." You should try to be more reasonable.
I believe Rose to be a bitter women, perhaps provocation will get rid of her n]bitterness. There may be hidden agenda which explains why she is so keen in fighting for male and female equality when there are more urgent priorities to solve. Why don't you and Rose fight against sin, war, starvation, diseases, sufferings, poverty, injustice, immorality, greed, smoking, abortion, gambling, drug dependance, pornography, pedophilia, sexual perversion, lust, cruelty, rapes, alcoholism, unsafe practices? When all these are solved, equality between male and female will automatically fall into place. It makes you and Rose look hypocrite.

God Bless us all regardless of gender.:pray:

Rose

08-30-2012, 09:00 PM

The wicked oppression happened to men as well, prisoners of war, slaves, etc. What roles you want the Bible to allow men and women to choose? Women to be soldiers? men to be housewives?

They were also men treated like slaves and property, it doesn't just applied to women. They were not treated like slaves but was put under the responsibility and protection of men. Of course, some men abused the powers and responsibility given to them.

God Bless us all regardless of gender.:pray:

Of course oppression, and slavery happened to men, but it has always been at the hands of other men. Women have never owned men, nor kept them as slaves. Throughout history men have not been content with controlling their own bodies and lives, but feel the need to control the lives and bodies of women (and other men too), just like the biblegod they created.

Rose

sylvius

08-30-2012, 10:27 PM

There was some commotion in the Netherlands last week about a Christian politician, anti-abortionist, contending that when a woman is raped there is little chance that she will get pregnant.

IOW as a rule women only conceive when they want to conceive.

(I understood this argument originates in U.S.-christianity)

Compare this to what Rashi wrote on Genesis 1:28,

and subdue it: The“vav” וְכִבְשֻׁהָ[/SIZE] is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, the masculine singular imperative] to teach you that the male subdues the female that she should not be a gadabout (Gen. Rabbah 8:12), and it is also meant to teach you that the man, whose way it is to subdue, is commanded to propagate, but not the woman (Yev. Yev. 65b).

Of which Richard said "just another sexist rabbi".

This same notion might be in John 1:12-13,

[I]But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

"will of man"= θελήματος ἀνδρὸς

He doesn't say "will of woman" ...

Twospirits

08-31-2012, 06:05 AM

First you say it was punishment for Adam and Eve's sin, and then you say it's NOT Gods fault. It can't be both, if God is the one who gave the punishment then it most certainly is God's fault!

It sure seems like a screwy way to met out punishment...one man and one woman sin and so the rest of humankind become cursed forever. How insane is that?

Rose

Its God's fault because Adam and Eve sinned?? So you fault God for punishing them, and not Adam and Eve for DISOBEYING God's law where they were clearly warned they WOULD be punished for breaking that command. The righteous warning judgment of God was given, they failed to listen, they were punished because of what they had done.

In looking to scripture we can see why the punishment was severe because God knew what would happen if they chose not to listen to him. Adam and Eve would open up the door to violence, death and destruction, beginning with Cain and Abel, and you think God's punishment was unjust?

God bless---Twospirits

Twospirits

08-31-2012, 06:48 AM

Hey there Henry,

I see three problems with your explanation.

1) God chose the punishment. He didn't have to institute perpetual oppression of women that has marred all human history! And if you are correct, why is it that modern people have "reversed" the curse and now allow women so much freedom? To me, this makes your explanation absurd because it shows that modern humans are so much better than the God of the Bible.

2) God instituted gratuitous sexism that was not required as any kind of "punishment" for the sins of Adam and Eve. God set up a system that is rejected as primitive male domination by almost all modern people.

3) Are we supposed to assume that all the sexist laws in the Bible were a form of punishment? Is that the intent of God's law? To write immoral laws to punish us? I thought his law was supposed to guide us to morality that is worthy of God himself!

Basically, any attempt to justify the sexism in the Bible will make God look like a primitive human being. I don't see how anyone can overcome this fact.

I'm very glad you are working with me on this. It helps to clarify our understanding.

Richard

1) Adam and Eve's sin was "disobedience" of God's word of truth. Now we know that disobedience brings "division" between people, in this case Adam and Eve, male and female. The male and female's "disobedience" to God's word caused this sexism NOT GOD! This is what God is saying will occur to mankind because of this transgression. It opened the door to division, violence, death and destruction as is clearly seen beginning with Cain and Able.

2) It was NOT GOD who instituted sexism,it was because of Adam and Eve's disobedience. This would be the "effect" (punishment) it would have on mankind because of their transgression. It is Adam and Eve's disobedience that "set up that system" NOT GOD.

3) The laws of God were to "right" in time through the Jewish nation the immoral things done by man that set up that system of sexism, slavery, etc. instituted since Adam and Eve if they (Israel) would have obeyed him.

The sexism you and Rose see in the Bible was instituted by man NOT GOD. A good study of the Bible shows its as simple and straightforward as that.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

08-31-2012, 10:00 AM

Its God's fault because Adam and Eve sinned?? So you fault God for punishing them, and not Adam and Eve for DISOBEYING God's law where they were clearly warned they WOULD be punished for breaking that command. The righteous warning judgment of God was given, they failed to listen, they were punished because of what they had done.

In looking to scripture we can see why the punishment was severe because God knew what would happen if they chose not to listen to him. Adam and Eve would open up the door to violence, death and destruction, beginning with Cain and Abel, and you think God's punishment was unjust?

God bless---Twospirits

According to the Bible, God was the one who introduced the idea of "sexism" by the form of punishment he chose. For the crime of disobedience to God, the sexist punishment of cursing the woman with rulership of the man (who also disobeyed) was the curse that was chosen. How insane is that? It's like telling your daughter that because she disobeyed your instructions, her brother who also disobeyed was going to rule over her...that creates more problems than it solves!

Not only was God's punishment biased against the woman "sexist", but many of the laws that the biblegod gave to the Hebrews were also extremely biased against women...like women being considered the property of the male, or that men could divorce their wives, but women could not divorce their husbands, men could have more than one wife, but women could not...and that's just for starters. The Bible is filled with sexism from cover to cover.

The bottom line is that sexism, and male bias in the Bible originated with commands from its god who arbitrarily introduced enmity between the male and female, by using gender differences as a form of punishment for disobedience. Not only did sexism begin with the biblegod in Genesis, but it was carried through the entire Bible by the introduction of laws, favoring the man and subjugating the woman to the status of property for the use of the man. Remember what Paul said: 1Cor.11:9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Rose

sylvius

08-31-2012, 11:11 AM

According to the Bible, God was the one who introduced the idea of "sexism" by the form of punishment he chose. For the crime of disobedience to God, the sexist punishment of cursing the woman with rulership of the man (who also disobeyed) was the curse that was chosen. How insane is that? It's like telling your daughter that because she disobeyed your instructions, her brother who also disobeyed was going to rule over her...that creates more problems than it solves!

Not only was God's punishment biased against the woman "sexist", but many of the laws that the biblegod gave to the Hebrews were also extremely biased against women...like women being considered the property of the male, or that men could divorce their wives, but women could not divorce their husbands, men could have more than one wife, but women could not...and that's just for starters. The Bible is filled with sexism from cover to cover.

The bottom line is that sexism, and male bias in the Bible originated with commands from its god who arbitrarily introduced enmity between the male and female, by using gender differences as a form of punishment for disobedience. Not only did sexism begin with the biblegod in Genesis, but it was carried through the entire Bible by the introduction of laws, favoring the man and subjugating the woman to the status of property for the use of the man. Remember what Paul said: 1Cor.11:9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Rose

The Bible starts with "male and female He created them",

Wasn't that already a sexist enterprise?

Male Hebrew "zachar" denotes the male organ "zachrut"
Female Hebrew "n'keivah" denotes the female organ (from root "nakav", to pierce)

And stunning: "zachar un'keivah" has gematria 390, like of "shamayim" ,
like to say when copulated it menas ultimate joy.

Genesis 1:26 has "Let us make man" , i.e. God first proposed to the angels, knowing that they would be jealous for not being able to enjoy sex.

Greek has ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς.

θῆλυ related to θηλάζω,v \{thay-lad'-zo}
1) to give the breast, give suck, to suckle 2) to suck

Matthew 11:25,

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to the sucklings.

Twospirits

08-31-2012, 02:01 PM

David M

09-01-2012, 12:05 AM

Genesis 1:26 has "Let us make man" , i.e. God first proposed to the angels, knowing that they would be jealous for not being able to enjoy sex.

Thank you Sylvius for your Hebrew language contributions.

I am curious to know how you know God's Angels would have been jealous. We know God is jealous, and that is shown when men and women worship idols instead of the One and only true Creator. (EXo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

There is no verse in the Bible that I can find that indicates God's Angels get jealous. It is not a sin to be jealous; only disobeying God is a sin and God's Angels do His will. The only record we have of "angels" sinning applies to humans who were God's messengers (angels).

It is speculation to think that God's Angels would have resented God making man in his image and making them male and female and to let male and female have sex in order to procreate; even the animals were created male and female to do the same. God's Angels are sexless and IMO would not know of or miss the feeling associated with sex. God is sexless and yet He created male and female so that they could procreate and that is a marvelous part of God's creation that we struggle to understand the complexity of. The fact that there is any "joy" associated with sex is immaterial. There are couples where sex is painful and is not joyous event though where children are wanted and are conceived that is a joyous event more so than the discomfort that might have to be endured in the sexual act. Sex outside marriage often brings unhappiness instead of joy when unwanted children are born.

Sex might be pleasurable, but having extra marital affairs and committing adultery is comparable with;( Hebrews 11:25) to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

All the best.

David

sylvius

09-01-2012, 01:08 AM

Thank you Sylvius for your Hebrew language contributions.

I am curious to know how you know God's Angels would have been jealous.

Rashi on Genesis 1:26,

Let us make man: From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them

There is no verse in the Bible that I can find that indicates God's Angels get jealous.

The snake was

Rashi on Genesis 3:1,

Now the serpent was cunning: What is the connection of this matter here? Scripture should have juxtaposed (below verse 21): “And He made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.” But it teaches you as a result of what plan the serpent thrust himself upon them. He saw them naked and engaging in intercourse before everyone’s eyes, and he desired her. — [from Gen. Rabbah 18:6]

Was then the snake an angel?
Yes acoording to NT, Revelation 20:1-3,
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Satan being an angel too.

CWH

09-01-2012, 02:32 AM

Of course oppression, and slavery happened to men, but it has always been at the hands of other men. Women have never owned men, nor kept them as slaves. Throughout history men have not been content with controlling their own bodies and lives, but feel the need to control the lives and bodies of women (and other men too), just like the biblegod they created.

Rose
Rose[/QUOTE]
So you want women to own men...for what? What do a woman gained by owning men? if you are talking about male slave, yes there is some gain and there were women who owned male slaves but if you are talking about sex partners, it will only to their disadvantage. The reason why men owned women (and other men too) is perhaps for power and sex but there are other reasons such as in my thread on polygamy which I mentioned for charity and compassion such as helping women overcome poverty, loneliness, rejection. etc. Women naturally need the protection of men to protect them against the enemies and wild beasts and also to help and support the family. By "owning" the women, it then became the men's responsibility to protect and ensure for their well-being. Of course, as I said before some men abuse the power and responsibilty empowered to them which resulted in the women's ill-treatment.

It is not exactly true that women don't own men; there were women that own male slaves and servants, queens and rich women that have multiple men for sex and pleasure, women with many husbands etc. although they are a minority. Some women used beauty, charms, seduction, wealth, sex to control men which is also a form of owning the men.

God Bless all men and women equally.:pray:

Rose

09-01-2012, 10:13 AM

Rose
So you want women to own men...for what? What do a woman gained by owning men? if you are talking about male slave, yes there is some gain and there were women who owned male slaves but if you are talking about sex partners, it will only to their disadvantage.

What kind of craziness are you talking about? I never said anything about wanting to own men! Where did you get that idea from?

The reason why men owned women (and other men too) is perhaps for power and sex but there are other reasons such as in my thread on polygamy which I mentioned for charity and compassion such as helping women overcome poverty, loneliness, rejection. etc. Women naturally need the protection of men to protect them against the enemies and wild beasts and also to help and support the family. By "owning" the women, it then became the men's responsibility to protect and ensure for their well-being. Of course, as I said before some men abuse the power and responsibilty empowered to them which resulted in the women's ill-treatment.

If women needed protection it was from other men, and why do you need to "own" someone in order to protect them? That is a very misogynistic, primitive way of thinking; I don't own my children, yet I protect them. You just don't want to except that the biblegod had a very primitive, tribal mentality because he was invented by primitive, tribal men.

It is NEVER okay to own another human being, no matter what kind of pathetic excuse you try and make up.

It is not exactly true that women don't own men; there were women that own male slaves and servants, queens and rich women that have multiple men for sex and pleasure, women with many husbands etc. although they are a minority. Some women used beauty, charms, seduction, wealth, sex to control men which is also a form of owning the men.

God Bless all men and women equally.:pray:

Your excuses and justifications never cease to amaze me. Is there no end to the things you will make up to try and excuse men for their atrocious behavior? The main point that I have been reiterating over and over again is the fact that the biblegod is the one who introduces sexism in the biblical story...this behavior perfectly mirrors the structure of male dominated societies throughout history. The Bible is a good historical document that records the mindset of men at the time of its writing. It was common practice for women to be thought of as property and people to own slaves, so the god that men invented reflected those mindsets.

Take care,
Rose

Rose

09-01-2012, 03:12 PM

Thank you Sylvius for your Hebrew language contributions.

I am curious to know how you know God's Angels would have been jealous. We know God is jealous, and that is shown when men and women worship idols instead of the One and only true Creator. (EXo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

There is no verse in the Bible that I can find that indicates God's Angels get jealous. It is not a sin to be jealous; only disobeying God is a sin and God's Angels do His will. The only record we have of "angels" sinning applies to humans who were God's messengers (angels).

All the best.

David

Hello David,

Your post got me to thinking about the meaning of the word jealous and its synonym covetous.

Jealous, noun 1. resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.

cov·et·ous adj.1. Excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another. See Synonyms at jealous (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jealous).

Numerous times in the Bible God proclaims himself to be a jealous god, even to the point of saying that because of his jealousy he will inflict iniquity upon the children of the fathers who hate him until the fourth generation...

Exo. 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

yet, in the Ten Commandments God explicitly says "Thou shalt not covet", so the question is: why is it okay for God to be jealous (because he's not being worshiped properly) to the point of inflicting suffering or death upon people, but people cannot be covetous, or jealous? Looks like a double standard to me :p

Take care,
Rose

CWH

09-01-2012, 04:33 PM

David M

09-01-2012, 04:52 PM

Hello David,

Your post got me to thinking about the meaning of the word jealous and its synonym covetous.

Jealous, noun 1. resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.

cov·et·ous adj.1. Excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another. See Synonyms at jealous (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jealous).

Numerous times in the Bible God proclaims himself to be a jealous god, even to the point of saying that because of his jealousy he will inflict iniquity upon the children of the fathers who hate him until the fourth generation...

Exo. 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

yet, in the Ten Commandments God explicitly says "Thou shalt not covet", so the question is: why is it okay for God to be jealous (because he's not being worshiped properly) to the point of inflicting suffering or death upon people, but people cannot be covetous, or jealous? Looks like a double standard to me :p

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose
To be sure we need to know what the author (God) intends us to know by the word that has been translated "jealous". Dictionary.com gives this English definition;

Jeal·ous [jel-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often followed by of ): He was jealous of his rich brother.
2.feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often followed by of ): He was jealous of his brother's wealth.
3.characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.
4.inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.
5.solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.

The majority definitions above have a sense of resentment in them. If we are covetous does not have to mean we are resentful; we just wish to have something that is not ours. God has made everything, so He has no need to covet as everything belongs to Him. I think your case for saying God is covetous is not made.

We can understand why God should be resentful of those who do not give Him praise and credit for the wonderful creation He has made and instead want to worship idols and gods that do not exist and practice that which is against human rights. Exodus 20:5 clearly states the reason for God to be jealous and covetousness does not come into it. God is resentful and so people have no excuse when God has warned them of the consequences. God so often called his people to repentance. Where people do not repent or even acknowledge God, He gives them over to be reprobates and will not save them. So whether reprobates are allowed to die naturally or in the case of the Canaanites killed of sooner does not make any difference since they would not have been suitable for the kingdom of God.

One of the reasons for killing off the children of reprobates is that the children follow the practice of the parents for that is what the parents teach the children. Therefore, you have to blame the parents for turning their children into reprobates; NOT God.

What do you understand by the phrase " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children"?

in·iq·ui·ty [ih-nik-wi-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural in·iq·ui·ties.
1. gross injustice or wickedness.
2. a violation of right or duty; wicked act; sin.
It would appear that God is not punishing the 3rd and fourth generation solely for the sins of the 1st generation. It is the sins of the 1st generation that is passed to the next generation who could also be punished for the the sins of their generation. Maybe by the time of the 3rd and 4th generations it is time for God to say enough and put a full end of them for it is apparent that those people are not going to change their ways.

All the best.

David

Rose

09-01-2012, 04:57 PM

God's laws are always merciful unlike secular laws. Secular laws are more rigid in which e.g. commit murder will mean death sentence. God's pardon is based on several variables, one of which is mercy. Jesus said that it is ok to do good (i.e.merfciful) work on a Sabbath. It is the same with secular laws as there are exception to the rules. It is not ok to murder or kill but in wars, it is ok to murder and kill the enemy. Looks like double standard but it is not.

Due to His merciful nature, God hardly inflict iniquity upon the children of the fathers who hate him until the fourth generation. Show me a passage in the Bible in which God did that. Hardly any. It is more of an exagerated threat so that people will fear and do what is right. Same as the use of the word jealous in human terms, why should God be jealous? The word jealous was used to reflect what was then in the Israelite's heart because they were jealous of the people who worshipped pagan gods and enjoying life, free sex with temple prostitute, abundant harvest, sexual perversions, worshipping many gods etc.

May God Bless Us all with Mercy. :pray:

Sounds like you're making excuses again for the biblegod. If you believe that the Bible is "God's book" then why don't you except what it says? If it says that God is a jealous god and he inflicts iniquity on the children of fathers who hate him then you should believe it, and quit trying to change its meaning. God does not always show mercy upon people, the Bible explicitly says in many places that he will show no mercy.

Who are you to say that the threats in the Bible are exaggerated? If the Bible says that God is jealous of people who worship other gods and not himself, who are you to say differently? Quit making excuses for what the Bible says about its god. If the Bible were true and its god real I think he would know how to say what he means? Don't you?

Take care,
Rose

CWH

09-01-2012, 05:19 PM

Sounds like you're making excuses again for the biblegod. If you believe that the Bible is "God's book" then why don't you except what it says? If it says that God is a jealous god and he inflicts iniquity on the children of fathers who hate him then you should believe it, and quit trying to change its meaning. God does not always show mercy upon people, the Bible explicitly says in many places that he will show no mercy.

Who are you to say that the threats in the Bible are exaggerated? If the Bible says that God is jealous of people who worship other gods and not himself, who are you to say differently? Quit making excuses for what the Bible says about its god. If the Bible were true and its god real I think he would know how to say what he means? Don't you?

Take care,
Rose
Looks like everybody who disagrees with you is making excuses. I have asked show me a passage that shows God inflict iniquity upon the children of the fathers who hate him until the fourth generation but you can't. What more to say? Of course God also punished those who committed sin but He also pardon sinners who repented; this shows that merciful God is not rigid with His laws but based on situations such as repentence, mercy etc. Same as I would put to you, why don't you accept what the Bible said but your lame answer is you don't believe in the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, then why bother if there is male bias in the Bible or that God is jealous? This is what the online dictionary means in regards to jeolousy and it could reflect what God or the Israelites felt:

"unhappy and angry because someone has something or someone you want, or because you think they might take something or someone that you love away from you".

Is it sinful or wrong to be jealous?

Thank you merciful God.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-01-2012, 05:54 PM

Looks like everybody who disagrees with you is making excuses. I have asked show me a passage that shows God inflict iniquity upon the children of the fathers who hate him until the fourth generation but you can't. What more to say?
So are you saying God LIED when he declared that he would visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"?

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Rose

09-01-2012, 06:54 PM

Hello Rose
To be sure we need to know what the author (God) intends us to know by the word that has been translated "jealous".

The majority definitions above have a sense of resentment in them. If we are covetous does not have to mean we are resentful; we just wish to have something that is not ours. God has made everything, so He has no need to covet as everything belongs to Him. I think your case for saying God is covetous is not made.
Hello David,
According to Strongs, the word qana which is used in the verses that speak of God's jealousy, has envy/envious as one of its definitions. To be envious of something also means to covet it, so you really can't be to picky about the definition of jealousy, it's pretty broad.

qana' {kaw-naw'} a primitive root; TWOT - 2038; v AV - jealous 10, envy 9, jealousy 5, envious 4, zealous 2, very 2, zeal 1; 33 1) to envy, be jealous, be envious, be zealous 1a) (Piel) 1a1) to be jealous of 1a2) to be envious of 1a3) to be zealous for 1a4) to excite to jealous anger 1b) (Hiphil) to provoke to jealous anger, cause jealousy

We can understand why God should be resentful of those who do not give Him praise and credit for the wonderful creation He has made and instead want to worship idols and gods that do not exist and practice that which is against human rights. Exodus 20:5 clearly states the reason for God to be jealous and covetousness does not come into it. God is resentful and so people have no excuse when God has warned them of the consequences. God so often called his people to repentance. Where people do not repent or even acknowledge God, He gives them over to be reprobates and will not save them. So whether reprobates are allowed to die naturally or in the case of the Canaanites killed of sooner does not make any difference since they would not have been suitable for the kingdom of God.

It seems pretty childish for God to be resentful because he isn't getting enough praise or credit...come on, do you really expect children to go around praising and worshiping their parents?

Jos. 24:19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.

One of the reasons for killing off the children of reprobates is that the children follow the practice of the parents for that is what the parents teach the children. Therefore, you have to blame the parents for turning their children into reprobates; NOT God.

Your reason doesn't explain why in Number 31 God allowed the Hebrew soldiers to keep the virgin girls for themselves? They were children too you know, why were they not corrupted by their parents?

What do you understand by the phrase " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children"?

It would appear that God is not punishing the 3rd and fourth generation solely for the sins of the 1st generation. It is the sins of the 1st generation that is passed to the next generation who could also be punished for the the sins of their generation. Maybe by the time of the 3rd and 4th generations it is time for God to say enough and put a full end of them for it is apparent that those people are not going to change their ways.

All the best.

David

I interpret those verses that speak of God punishing the children of sinful parents in the manner they are written. Meaning, the children will be punished for the sins of their parents continuing until the fourth generation, which by the way is an exact contradiction of other verses that say God won't punish the children for the parents sins, nor the parents for the children's sins. Go figure. :p

Take care,
Rose

CWH

09-01-2012, 06:58 PM

So are you saying God LIED when he declared that he would visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"?
If you warned your child that you will beat him severely if he steal and your child did stole but before you raise your hand to beat him, your child became very remorseful and crying and begging you a hundred times to spare him as he has learned his lesson, will you still beat him or will you just let him go with a stern warning? If you let him go with a stern warning not to do it again, does that mean you lied about beating him?

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
What I want is proof from the Bible that God did punished the Israelites to the third and fourth generation that hates him. You have so far did not provide any proof.

God is Merciful. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-01-2012, 07:09 PM

If you warned your child that you will beat him severely if he steal and your child did stole but before you raise your hand to beat him, your child became very remorseful and crying and begging you a hundred times to spare him as he has learned his lesson, will you still beat him or will you just let him go with a stern warning? If you let him go with a stern warning not to do it again, does that mean you lied about beating him?

Oh, so you are asserting that every Israelite who ever hated God repented before God was able to punish him? Where is you evidence for that? And if it is true, then what about all the people that God did punish in the Bible? Once again, you prove that you are willing to reject the truth of the Bible to support the truth of the Bible. The only thing you have proven is that your beliefs are totally irrational.

What I want is proof from the Bible that God did punished the Israelites to the third and fourth generation that hates him. You have so far did not provide any proof.

God is Merciful. :pray:
If God did not do what he said he was going to do, then he lied. Simple as that.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-01-2012, 07:32 PM

1) Adam and Eve's sin was "disobedience" of God's word of truth. Now we know that disobedience brings "division" between people, in this case Adam and Eve, male and female. The male and female's "disobedience" to God's word caused this sexism NOT GOD! This is what God is saying will occur to mankind because of this transgression. It opened the door to division, violence, death and destruction as is clearly seen beginning with Cain and Able.

That's not true. God never told them anything about any consequence of "sexism." God himself established sexist laws in the Bible. It is entirely his doing.

And worse, you refer to "disobedience of God's word of truth." That is false because God was not true to his word. He said they would DIE the day that they ate of the tree, but that didn't happen. And then he imposed curses on them that he did not warn them about beforehand! So God was was not true to his own word, and he is totally and absolutely responsible for the actions HE CHOSE after they sinned.

The real issue here is that the Bible has exactly the character we would expect if it were written by primitive men. That's why this is proof that it is not the word of God.

2) It was NOT GOD who instituted sexism,it was because of Adam and Eve's disobedience. This would be the "effect" (punishment) it would have on mankind because of their transgression. It is Adam and Eve's disobedience that "set up that system" NOT GOD.

That is not true. It was GOD and GOD ALONE who declared the curses upon Adam and Eve. But even if you were correct about the Garden story, God would still be responsible for all the sexist laws that he instituted in the Torah. That was HIS WORD, not the word of men (unless you agree that the Bible was not inspired by God).

God could have chosen any kind of punishment he wanted. The fact that he chose to put men in rulership over women means he instituted sexism. And then he confirmed this throughout the entire Bible with sexist laws and commands like "I don't allow a woman to teach" (which Paul based on the Garden story because Eve was deceived). It is entirely God's choice to set up this system.

And again, Adam and Eve were never told they would be cursed with sexism. On the contrary, God explicitly said that they would die the day they ate. So God was not true to his word and he was not just because he imposed a punishment that he didn't warn them about.

3) The laws of God were to "right" in time through the Jewish nation the immoral things done by man that set up that system of sexism, slavery, etc. instituted since Adam and Eve if they (Israel) would have obeyed him.

That's absurd. God's laws instituted slavery and sexism and they have been used for centuries to justify gross immorality. If God had wanted to set things right, he simply would have commanded that no one keep slaves and that women were equal.

The sexism you and Rose see in the Bible was instituted by man NOT GOD. A good study of the Bible shows its as simple and straightforward as that.

That is absolutely false. The sexism is built into the Bible. Indeed, it is entwined into the fundamental theology of the Bible. God is MALE (FATHER) MALE (SON) MALE (SPIRIT) and he is HEAD over Christ as Christ is HEAD over men and men are HEAD over women (who are the bottom of the list). Paul based the NT sexism on the Garden story. There's no way to deny these facts while remaining true to the Bible.

CWH

09-01-2012, 07:32 PM

Oh, so you are asserting that every Israelite who ever hated God repented before God was able to punish him? Where is you evidence for that? And if it is true, then what about all the people that God did punish in the Bible? Once again, you prove that you are willing to reject the truth of the Bible to support the truth of the Bible. The only thing you have proven is that your beliefs are totally irrational.
That was exactly what happened when ample chance was given to the people of Noah's time and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to repent but they did not. God had to finally and regretfully destroy them.

If God did not do what he said he was going to do, then he lied. Simple as that.
If you change your mind to do something which you said you will or plan to do, does not mean you lied. Simple as that.

God Bless. :pray:

Rose

09-01-2012, 08:12 PM

What I want is proof from the Bible that God did punished the Israelites to the third and fourth generation that hates him. You have so far did not provide any proof.

God is Merciful. :pray:

We do not need to provide proof that God did what he said he was going to do, since we are not the ones who said it! If God did not mean what he said, then why did he say it? And if he changed his mind then he is not a god who does not change. Either way you look at it you loose...:dizzy:

Rose

sylvius

09-01-2012, 10:43 PM

God explicitly said that they would die the day they ate. So God was not true to his word

Second story of creation:

בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱ־לֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
On the day of Hashem Elohim's making of earth and heaven and no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, (..,) and a mist went up (...) and He formed man (...)
and He planted a garden (...) and He made grow (...) and a river went out (...) and He took the man (...) And Hashem Elohim commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת

Genesis 1:5,
And Elohim called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, day one,

Day one, יוֹם אֶחָד, "yom echad", and not "yom rishon", not the first in a row. But "all encompassing one".

Rashi

According to the sequence of the language of the chapter, it should have been written, “the first day,” as it is written regarding the other days, “second, third, fourth.” Why did Scripture write“one” ? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, was the only one in His world, for the angels were not created until the second day. [i.e., יוֹם אֶחָד is understood as ‘the day of the only One’] So is it explained in Genesis Rabbah (3:8).

only one = "yachid" = Greek μονογενὴς (John 1:18)

(You see that Rashi is much more Christian than Christianity...)

Twospirits

09-02-2012, 06:05 AM

Richard wrote,

That's not true. God never told them anything about any consequence of "sexism." God himself established sexist laws in the Bible. It is entirely his doing.

And worse, you refer to "disobedience of God's word of truth." That is false because God was not true to his word. He said they would DIE the day that they ate of the tree, but that didn't happen. And then he imposed curses on them that he did not warn them about beforehand! So God was was not true to his own word, and he is totally and absolutely responsible for the actions HE CHOSE after they sinned.

The real issue here is that the Bible has exactly the character we would expect if it were written by primitive men. That's why this is proof that it is not the word of God.

Yes he did, in Gen. 3:15 (their transgression causing this hostility/sexism through the seed). When reading scripture many times a passage is given in “general” terms where further details are given in other passages; the same applies here. Ex. In Gen. 2:17 Adam is told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the warning that in “fulfilling” that transgression would be “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Now it stands to reason that since they did not literally die the day they ate, the “death” God's speaks of must have further meaning besides physical death. Metaphorically we die in many ways, spiritually, mentally, in pain, sickness, etc. and eventually physical death; this I believe is how God is speaking in Gen. 2:17.

The details and consequences of Adam and Eve's actions are not given us here but are given us in Gen. 3:14-19. In Gen. 2:17 God is revealing to Adam that he (and she) would bring down upon themselves these consequences “of dying” in “the day they eat (transgress) thereof.” It is a self-fulfilling prophecy brought upon by the transgressors Adam and Eve, NOT GOD! It is Adam and Eve's transgression that brings about the Words spoken by God. God gave them the Word/message/warning and left them to choose whom they would obey.

Now God foreknowing what this transgression would lead to, he reveals to us in Gen. 3:14-19. “Because thou hast done this--.” Now he tells them because you have done this THIS is what will happen to the serpent and to Adam and Eve from that time forward: To the serpent: "dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” In scripture “dust” is idiomatic for “subservience,” one ruling over another.

This is the “enmity” God “put” (the consequence of Adam and Eve's transgression) between the serpent and the woman's seed (Gen. 3:15). We see because of this transgression will come “pain and sorrow.” For the woman (Gen. 3:16) her conception will come with great pain; for the man (vv. 17-19) toil and sweat for survival all the days of their lives.

That is not true. It was GOD and GOD ALONE who declared the curses upon Adam and Eve. But even if you were correct about the Garden story, God would still be responsible for all the sexist laws that he instituted in the Torah. That was HIS WORD, not the word of men (unless you agree that the Bible was not inspired by God).

God could have chosen any kind of punishment he wanted. The fact that he chose to put men in rulership over women means he instituted sexism. And then he confirmed this throughout the entire Bible with sexist laws and commands like "I don't allow a woman to teach" (which Paul based on the Garden story because Eve was deceived). It is entirely God's choice to set up this system.

And again, Adam and Eve were never told they would be cursed with sexism. On the contrary, God explicitly said that they would die the day they ate. So God was not true to his word and he was not just because he imposed a punishment that he didn't warn them about.

In foreknowledge God declared the “warnings” that would come upon Adam and eve if they took of the tree of good and evil, and because of their transgression they came to pass, by the “will” of Adam and Eve-NOT GOD. The “warning” became “a curse” to Adam and Eve due to the fault of Adam and Eve-NOT GOD!

Because of MAN God would later institute the Laws of Torah in order to gradually bring his people Israel back to how he wanted it in the garden, but they disobeyed him as is clearly seen throughout the OT. MAN instituted sexism and rulership over woman BECAUSE of the transgression in the garden- NOT GOD!

The Bible is the Word of God whether it is believed or not, the choice lies with the receiver of that Word.

That's absurd. God's laws instituted slavery and sexism and they have been used for centuries to justify gross immorality. If God had wanted to set things right, he simply would have commanded that no one keep slaves and that women were equal.

Sexism and slavery were instituted by man, and God's laws were set up so that in time, God would make right, through Israel those transgressions had they obeyed.

That is absolutely false. The sexism is built into the Bible. Indeed, it is entwined into the fundamental theology of the Bible. God is MALE (FATHER) MALE (SON) MALE (SPIRIT) and he is HEAD over Christ as Christ is HEAD over men and men are HEAD over women (who are the bottom of the list). Paul based the NT sexism on the Garden story. There's no way to deny these facts while remaining true to the Bible.

When Adam and Eve ingested this “fruit” sexism was given birth by the very own actions of Adam and Eve themselves. They gave birth to “enmity” between them and their seed, where man would take advantage of her and have rulership over her until the coming of Christ.

These are the facts given us in the Bible.

God bless---Twospirits

CWH

09-02-2012, 08:36 AM

We do not need to provide proof that God did what he said he was going to do, since we are not the ones who said it! If God did not mean what he said, then why did he say it? And if he changed his mind then he is not a god who does not change. Either way you look at it you loose...:dizzy:

Rose
Did God ever changed His mind? Of course He did!:

http://www.anointedlinks.com/freewill.html

Excerpt:
Does God ever change His mind? If He does then it should be outlined in the Word. If we look at Genesis 6:6-7 we read:

The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.” [NIV]

So apparently God DID change His mind – and that change of mind led to the Great Flood.

If we look at the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 we read that God was so unhappy with his ‘stiff necked people’ that, in verse10, the Lord said to Moses:

“Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” [NIV]

But Moses pleaded for his people and finally God said to Moses (v14):

Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.[NIV]

If we continue on with the story of the errant Israelites we find that God is still unhappy with them. In Exodus 33:3 God says:

“Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.” [NIV]

This is extraordinary! God is saying that He might not be able to control Himself because of the attitude of the Israelites. This is exactly what we have been looking at. God is, in some ways, at our mercy. The freewill He has given us as the tool so that we can love Him as sons and daughters can also be turned against Him – it is a two-edged sword. With gifts like freewill comes responsibility. One cannot flourish without the other.

Look what’s happening in our schools today. We tell children that they have ‘rights’ but be don’t balance that with the knowledge that with those ‘rights’ comes ‘responsibility’ – one cannot successfully live without the other. God has given us the ‘right’ to our freewill, but we must temper that by being responsible.

Let’s look at another Scripture where God has changed His mind. In 1 Samuel 15:35b it says:

And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. [NIV]

Again, man has let down God and God grieved His original decision to make Saul king.

One of the most remarkable stories in the Bible can be found in the book of Jonah (Jonah 1:1-4):
The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
But Jonah ran away from the LORD and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the LORD.
Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. [NIV]

With the ship threatened, Jonah told the crew to throw him overboard to appease God and to save them. This they reluctantly did and the raging sea grew calm (v15). Jonah, of course, was swallowed by a “great fish” and stayed there for three days and nights. Finally, God “commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land” (Jonah 2:10).

Now let’s read from Jonah 3:1-4...

Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”
Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city – a visit required three days. On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.” [NIV]

So Jonah finally obeyed the Lord and told the Ninevites that they had only 40 days before their huge city of more than 120,000 people would be overturned. Reading further from Jonah 3:5-10...

The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust.
Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste
anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let
everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows?
God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. [NIV]

So the Ninevites repented of their “evil ways and their violence” and God, again, changed His mind!

Obviously, how we behave – for good or for bad – determines how God treats us. God ‘adjusts’ His behaviour to us dependent on how we behave and what choices we make.

God Bless and Love us.:pray:

Rose

09-02-2012, 09:23 AM

Yes he did, in Gen. 3:15 (their transgression causing this hostility/sexism through the seed). When reading scripture many times a passage is given in “general” terms where further details are given in other passages; the same applies here. Ex. In Gen. 2:17 Adam is told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the warning that in “fulfilling” that transgression would be “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Now it stands to reason that since they did not literally die the day they ate, the “death” God's speaks of must have further meaning besides physical death. Metaphorically we die in many ways, spiritually, mentally, in pain, sickness, etc. and eventually physical death; this I believe is how God is speaking in Gen. 2:17.

The details and consequences of Adam and Eve's actions are not given us here but are given us in Gen. 3:14-19. In Gen. 2:17 God is revealing to Adam that he (and she) would bring down upon themselves these consequences “of dying” in “the day they eat (transgress) thereof.” It is a self-fulfilling prophecy brought upon by the transgressors Adam and Eve, NOT GOD! It is Adam and Eve's transgression that brings about the Words spoken by God. God gave them the Word/message/warning and left them to choose whom they would obey.

Now God foreknowing what this transgression would lead to, he reveals to us in Gen. 3:14-19. “Because thou hast done this--.” Now he tells them because you have done this THIS is what will happen to the serpent and to Adam and Eve from that time forward: To the serpent: "dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” In scripture “dust” is idiomatic for “subservience,” one ruling over another.

This is the “enmity” God “put” (the consequence of Adam and Eve's transgression) between the serpent and the woman's seed (Gen. 3:15). We see because of this transgression will come “pain and sorrow.” For the woman (Gen. 3:16) her conception will come with great pain; for the man (vv. 17-19) toil and sweat for survival all the days of their lives.

Those are sure a lot of words to explain four little words spoken by God to Adam if he ate from the tree "thou shalt surely die". :lol: As Richard said, it wasn't until after they had eaten of the tree that God filled in the blanks...the bottom line is that according to the story Adam and Eve lived in a Garden created by God. It was God who placed the forbidden tree in its midst, easily assessable to them both, so of course the blame lies totally at the feet of God.

If a parent has a child, and puts in front of that child a bowl of poison candy...telling the child not to eat it or he will die...and the child is talked into eating the candy by a stranger and dies. Whose to blame? The parent of course! According to the story, Adam and Eve are innocent like children, not knowing good from evil. Eve has no concept of the wickedness of the snake who presents her with a piece of fruit that to her eyes looks delicious, so she eats it. Her crime is disobedience, but the wicked intent lies solely with "god the parent" who knew that his children in their innocence would easily be tricked into eating of the forbidden tree, yet chose to put it in their midst anyway. In a court of law, God would be the guilty party!

In foreknowledge God declared the “warnings” that would come upon Adam and eve if they took of the tree of good and evil, and because of their transgression they came to pass, by the “will” of Adam and Eve-NOT GOD. The “warning” became “a curse” to Adam and Eve due to the fault of Adam and Eve-NOT GOD!

That is the key word "foreknowledge" which makes God totally liable for the outcome. Remember, the story says that if they eat of the tree their eyes will be opened and they will know good from evil.
Gen. 3:7 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Obviously if they didn't know good from evil, how could they tell the serpent was up to no good? God knew all this would happen, yet he chose to allow it anyway...how wicked is that?

Because of MAN God would later institute the Laws of Torah in order to gradually bring his people Israel back to how he wanted it in the garden, but they disobeyed him as is clearly seen throughout the OT. MAN instituted sexism and rulership over woman BECAUSE of the transgression in the garden- NOT GOD!

The Bible is the Word of God whether it is believed or not, the choice lies with the receiver of that Word.

There you go again, stripping your god of all his power and giving it to MAN! Who's in-charge of things anyway?

Sexism and slavery were instituted by man, and God's laws were set up so that in time, God would make right, through Israel those transgressions had they obeyed.

Yes, I agree...sexism and slavery were instituted by man, because the Bible is a record of human history and the god that man created.

When Adam and Eve ingested this “fruit” sexism was given birth by the very own actions of Adam and Eve themselves. They gave birth to “enmity” between them and their seed, where man would take advantage of her and have rulership over her until the coming of Christ.

These are the facts given us in the Bible.

God bless---Twospirits

You just made that up. :nono: The enmity is between the woman and the serpent, not between male and female...you got your facts WRONG!

Take care,
Rose

Rose

09-02-2012, 09:35 AM

Did God ever changed His mind? Of course He did!:

http://www.anointedlinks.com/freewill.html

Excerpt:
Does God ever change His mind? If He does then it should be outlined in the Word. If we look at Genesis 6:6-7 we read:

The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.” [NIV]

So apparently God DID change His mind – and that change of mind led to the Great Flood.

If we look at the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 we read that God was so unhappy with his ‘stiff necked people’ that, in verse10, the Lord said to Moses:

“Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” [NIV]

But Moses pleaded for his people and finally God said to Moses (v14):

Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.[NIV]

If we continue on with the story of the errant Israelites we find that God is still unhappy with them. In Exodus 33:3 God says:

“Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.” [NIV]

This is extraordinary! God is saying that He might not be able to control Himself because of the attitude of the Israelites. This is exactly what we have been looking at. God is, in some ways, at our mercy. The freewill He has given us as the tool so that we can love Him as sons and daughters can also be turned against Him – it is a two-edged sword. With gifts like freewill comes responsibility. One cannot flourish without the other.

Look what’s happening in our schools today. We tell children that they have ‘rights’ but be don’t balance that with the knowledge that with those ‘rights’ comes ‘responsibility’ – one cannot successfully live without the other. God has given us the ‘right’ to our freewill, but we must temper that by being responsible.

Let’s look at another Scripture where God has changed His mind. In 1 Samuel 15:35b it says:

And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. [NIV]

Again, man has let down God and God grieved His original decision to make Saul king.

One of the most remarkable stories in the Bible can be found in the book of Jonah (Jonah 1:1-4):
The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
But Jonah ran away from the LORD and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the LORD.
Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. [NIV]

With the ship threatened, Jonah told the crew to throw him overboard to appease God and to save them. This they reluctantly did and the raging sea grew calm (v15). Jonah, of course, was swallowed by a “great fish” and stayed there for three days and nights. Finally, God “commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land” (Jonah 2:10).

Now let’s read from Jonah 3:1-4...

Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”
Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city – a visit required three days. On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.” [NIV]

So Jonah finally obeyed the Lord and told the Ninevites that they had only 40 days before their huge city of more than 120,000 people would be overturned. Reading further from Jonah 3:5-10...

The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust.
Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste
anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let
everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows?
God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. [NIV]

So the Ninevites repented of their “evil ways and their violence” and God, again, changed His mind!

Obviously, how we behave – for good or for bad – determines how God treats us. God ‘adjusts’ His behaviour to us dependent on how we behave and what choices we make.

God Bless and Love us.:pray:

I think god needs to make up his mind...he either changes or he doesn't.:dizzy:

Mal.3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Twospirits

09-02-2012, 09:41 AM

Those are sure a lot of words to explain four little words spoken by God to Adam if he ate from the tree "thou shalt surely die". :lol: As Richard said, it wasn't until after they had eaten of the tree that God filled in the blanks...the bottom line is that according to the story Adam and Eve lived in a Garden created by God. It was God who placed the forbidden tree in its midst, easily assessable to them both, so of course the blame lies totally at the feet of God.

If a parent has a child, and puts in front of that child a bowl of poison candy...telling the child not to eat it or he will die...and the child is talked into eating the candy by a stranger and dies. Whose to blame? The parent of course! According to the story, Adam and Eve are innocent like children, not knowing good from evil. Eve has no concept of the wickedness of the snake who presents her with a piece of fruit that to her eyes looks delicious, so she eats it. Her crime is disobedience, but the wicked intent lies solely with "god the parent" who knew that his children in their innocence would easily be tricked into eating of the forbidden tree, yet chose to put it in their midst anyway. In a court of law, God would be the guilty party!

That is the key word "foreknowledge" which makes God totally liable for the outcome. Remember, the story says that if they eat of the tree their eyes will be opened and they will know good from evil.
Gen. 3:7 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Obviously if they didn't know good from evil, how could they tell the serpent was up to no good? God knew all this would happen, yet he chose to allow it anyway...how wicked is that?

There you go again, stripping your god of all his power and giving it to MAN! Who's in-charge of things anyway?

Yes, I agree...sexism and slavery were instituted by man, because the Bible is a record of human history and the god that man created.

You just made that up. :nono: The enmity is between the woman and the serpent, not between male and female...you got your facts WRONG!

Take care,
Rose

Rose, the enmity between the woman and the serpent does its work through the seed of the offspring of the male and female-don't ya think?

I knew from the very first post that this discussion would come to futility, but I thought for the reader's sake I would give some insight into this thread. This I've done, and there's not much more I can say, so I won't bother going on and on over the same ground. It would be nice if some of you readers can chirp in and add other insights into this discussion that may give us more understanding of the God of the Bible that Rose and Richard no longer believe in.

But for now, God bless---Twospirits

Rose

09-02-2012, 11:04 AM

Rose, the enmity between the woman and the serpent does its work through the seed of the offspring of the male and female-don't ya think?

I knew from the very first post that this discussion would come to futility, but I thought for the reader's sake I would give some insight into this thread. This I've done, and there's not much more I can say, so I won't bother going on and on over the same ground. It would be nice if some of you readers can chirp in and add other insights into this discussion that may give us more understanding of the God of the Bible that Rose and Richard no longer believe in.

But for now, God bless---Twospirits

According to Paul, Gen.3:15 has nothing to do with men ruling over women, as he points out in Romans.
Rom.16:19-20 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The curse that was placed on the serpent (according to Paul) was a forewarning of the conflict between good (Jesus) and evil (Satan) which is far different from the desire of men to dominate women.

Just because Richard and I no longer believe the Bible is the word of God, does not mean we can't interpret it correctly. We probably have a much broader and clearer perspective of the Bible, because our vision is not clouded by trying to defend and justify every wicked and evil deed done by its god.

There are two words that can completely deconstruct the Bible's validity as the word of God...MALE BIAS

Take care,
Rose

Twospirits

09-02-2012, 11:35 AM

According to Paul, Gen.3:15 has nothing to do with men ruling over women, as he points out in Romans.
Rom.16:19-20 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The curse that was placed on the serpent (according to Paul) was a forewarning of the conflict between good (Jesus) and evil (Satan) which is far different from the desire of men to dominate women.

Just because Richard and I no longer believe the Bible is the word of God, does not mean we can't interpret it correctly. We probably have a much broader and clearer perspective of the Bible, because our vision is not clouded by trying to defend and justify every wicked and evil deed done by its god.

There are two words that can completely deconstruct the Bible's validity as the word of God...MALE BIAS

Take care,
Rose

Rose, you say you can interpret scripture correctly, if so then you would know that "evil" is not "limited" to a particular thing-or things-but covers anything and everything that is contrary to "good." This includes the "ruling over woman" God warned what was to happen to Adam and Eve BECAUSE of what they did.

The bias you hold lies in your heart not in the God of the Bible. May God take that away from your heart. You are correct in blaming man, but wrong in blaming God.

God bless---Twospirits

Rose

09-02-2012, 03:27 PM

Rose, you say you can interpret scripture correctly, if so then you would know that "evil" is not "limited" to a particular thing-or things-but covers anything and everything that is contrary to "good." This includes the "ruling over woman" God warned what was to happen to Adam and Eve BECAUSE of what they did.

The bias you hold lies in your heart not in the God of the Bible. May God take that away from your heart. You are correct in blaming man, but wrong in blaming God.

God bless---Twospirits

Hello Twospirits,

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve could not discern good from evil, from that we can deduce their mentality was childlike (maybe they were children, which explains why they had no offspring while in the Garden). Given their childlike naivete' it is no wonder that the serpent could beguile Eve into eating the forbidden fruit that would allow her gain wisdom that only comes with maturity. The only blame that can be placed at the feet of Adam and Eve is disobedience, which as any parent knows come with the territory of having children. Children are not born knowing right from wrong, it is something that parents teach their children as they grow in maturity, and understanding...and parents most certainly don't purposely temp their children with something that could kill them.

The reason we know the Garden story is written from a primitive, childlike perspective is because god the parent treats his children, Adam and Eve in a manner no parent would treat their children. No parent would ever place something that is potentially deadly in front of their immature children and then abandon them to their own devices with the strict admonition of "do not eat or else you will die", how could death have any meaning to them? If one is to believe the story as written, Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, yet they were expected to withstand the enticing words of the serpent, temping them to eat something that tantalized all of their senses. This is why if you read the Garden story realistically it doesn't make any sense, Adam and Eve cannot be both innocent and mature at the same time.

I don't have a bias, that is why I can see the male bias in the Bible so clearly. I have no agenda I need to defend or justify, it is only those who adamantly hold on to a particular doctrine or dogma that must blind themselves to any other viewpoint.

Take care,
Rose

sylvius

09-02-2012, 10:21 PM

I don't have a bias, that is why I can see the male bias in the Bible so clearly. I have no agenda I need to defend or justify, it is only those who adamantly hold on to a particular doctrine or dogma that must blind themselves to any other viewpoint.

Take care,
Rose

From where you do derive that man and woman should be equal?

David M

09-03-2012, 03:26 AM

Good morning Rose.
I have replied to your post in the thread 'Sexism in the Bible' See post #21. This is my opening remarks:
We are overlapping here about Adam and Eve with the other thread; 'Male Bias in the Bible'. I might make a similar concluding remark in that thread and move on and perhaps make each new point that has been introduced the topic of a new thread. One thing has become clear from all of our conversations, just as the writer to the Hebrews (4:12) says; For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It is evident that the word is written to discern the thoughts and intents of our hearts that we have towards God and His actions, which for us, we have entirely opposite thoughts. You can read the words to imply what you mean without regard to whether the word should have an earthly bias of a heavenly (Godly) bias. An example of this is the word "jealous" as it applies to God. So it is inevitable that we shall have opposite views and stick to our interpretations to support our argument.

I am going to answer the following point and move on from this thread and to continue with another subject can be the topic of another thread

Hello David,
According to Strongs, the word qana which is used in the verses that speak of God's jealousy, has envy/envious as one of its definitions. To be envious of something also means to covet it, so you really can't be to picky about the definition of jealousy, it's pretty broad.
qana' {kaw-naw'} a primitive root; TWOT - 2038; v AV - jealous 10, envy 9, jealousy 5, envious 4, zealous 2, very 2, zeal 1; 33 1) to envy, be jealous, be envious, be zealous 1a) (Piel) 1a1) to be jealous of 1a2) to be envious of 1a3) to be zealous for 1a4) to excite to jealous anger 1b) (Hiphil) to provoke to jealous anger, cause jealousy

It seems pretty childish for God to be resentful because he isn't getting enough praise or credit...come on, do you really expect children to go around praising and worshiping their parents?
Jos. 24:19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.

As I see your argument Rose, you are applying the word "jealous" as it applies to man who is earthy and I am applying it to God who is heavenly. It is the same distinction as made by the Apostle Paul; (2 Cor 11:2) For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: I see that if we use the word envy, it is not because God wants to own something that is owned by another person, but God is envious that an inanimate object such as an idol should be receiving worship from men and women that should be directed to God as the Creator of everything. This becomes clear from what Paul goes on to write; for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Paul is taking us back to the time of Eve to make his point. The Bible might be a large book with more than a life-time's study in it, but the essential message of salvation is a very simple message and whilst the death and resurrection of Jesus has lots of profound meanings associated with it, the simplicity of the message that is in Christ is being missed (as with other scriptures).
Paul gives the reason for the envy he would experience if; (4) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
In other words, Paul has preached the truth to the Corinthians and is in fear of someone else coming along and persuading them of another message that is false. This is exactly what idolatry is about, teaching the a message about gods which are false and departing from the truth of ONE GOD who is creator of all.

Your reason doesn't explain why in Number 31 God allowed the Hebrew soldiers to keep the virgin girls for themselves? They were children too you know, why were they not corrupted by their parents?
As you say Rose; "they were young". They might not have done as their parents (yet), but it is probable they would have known of the practices of their parents. If you read the text, and from what Moses thought, the Israelites should have killed every Canaanite including these virgins. The fact that the Israelites saved all the women and their children, was not obeying God's instruction. God determined what would happen from that point on. Every male among the children and every woman that was not a virgin who had been taken and not killed as instructed was now to be killed. In one sense the virgins were "lucky" to be alive and given the opportunity to be assimilated into a society that had God as there leader and protector. We know the Israelites did not prove themselves to be the good examples they should have been and that is a different matter from the time this incident took place.

If we accept that God can save the innocent and guiltless whether that be before the events take place or in the time of resurrection, then we do not have to worry about all those who died innocently. Let's deal with those who were not innocent. Those who practiced idolatry and were guilty; this is what we have to understand and why God did what he said He would do. The same would apply to His own chosen people if they did the same.(Deut 4:24) For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. (25) When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: (26) I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

I interpret those verses that speak of God punishing the children of sinful parents in the manner they are written. Meaning, the children will be punished for the sins of their parents continuing until the fourth generation, which by the way is an exact contradiction of other verses that say God won't punish the children for the parents sins, nor the parents for the children's sins. Go figure. :p

I see that God punishes the parents and that God also punishes the following generations for doing the same as their parents. This is likely to continue for at least three of four generations. There are examples where God delays His punishment on His chosen people and when that was done it was accepted by them. One example is that of is found in 1 Kings 21:29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house. The evil that would come later can be seen in the context of visiting the sins of the father on the children. Another case of not God doing what he said He would do but changing His plan due to the repentance or in this case Ahab humbled himself and so God made allowance for that and this is why we do not always know why God does things the way He does for we do not know the allowances God makes. God is wiser than we are and we do well to be humble to think that.

Note that we do not inherit sin, in the same way we do not inherit the sins of our father or mother. We might do the same as our parents in which case we have committed the same sin and therefore can expect the same punishment. When God's punishment on a nation extends to the 3rd and 4th generation this is not the same as punishing a child for the sins of the parent. God says; The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. The context in which the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the 3rd and 4th generation has to be understood in its proper context as would apply to a punishment of a whole nation and how that applies.

All the best.

David

Rose

09-03-2012, 08:29 AM

From where you do derive that man and woman should be equal?

Hello Sylvius,

So glad you asked, though I am surprised you have to? Men and women are both human beings and as such are entitled to equal human rights, which includes control over their own bodies.

Having equal human rights does not mean having the same abilities; we all know that men can't get pregnant. Throughout history (especially in the Bible) it has been one half of the population (men) that think they somehow have the right to own and control the other half, and where did they get this idea? Oh yes, from the god that they invented! How convenient.:p

Take care,
Rose

sylvius

09-03-2012, 10:00 AM

Hello Sylvius,

So glad you asked, though I am surprised you have to? Men and women are both human beings and as such are entitled to equal human rights, which includes control over their own bodies.

Having equal human rights does not mean having the same abilities; we all know that men can't get pregnant. Throughout history (especially in the Bible) it has been one half of the population (men) that think they somehow have the right to own and control the other half, and where did they get this idea? Oh yes, from the god that they invented! How convenient.:p

Take care,

Rose

Is there any god they didn't invent?

Richard Amiel McGough

09-03-2012, 10:01 AM

From where you do derive that man and woman should be equal?
From my heart and mind filled with love and truth.

Why would you ask such a question?

sylvius

09-03-2012, 10:12 AM

From my heart and mind filled with love and truth.

Why would you ask such a question?

Because man and woman are not equal, but different.

Rose: "men can't get pregnant".

That is just one thing.

"Women can get pregnant".

How can that be?

Do believe in the virgin birth?

Richard Amiel McGough

09-03-2012, 10:30 AM

Because man and woman are not equal, but different.

Rose: "men can't get pregnant".

That is just one thing.

"Women can get pregnant".

How can that be?

Do believe in the virgin birth?
No one said men and women are "equal" in the sense of "identical." We've been talking about EQUAL RIGHTS. :doh:

And no, I have no reason to believe in the virgin birth. Do you believe in it?

And for that matter, since you reject vast portions of the NT, what do you believe anyway?

sylvius

09-03-2012, 11:02 AM

No one said men and women are "equal" in the sense of "identical." We've been talking about EQUAL RIGHTS. :doh:

Right is not indifferent.

And no, I have no reason to believe in the virgin birth. It is a question of belief.

Do you believe in it? Yes.

And for that matter, since you reject vast portions of the NT, what do you believe anyway?

That I am.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-03-2012, 11:55 AM

Right is not indifferent.

Yes it is.

It is a question of belief.

Yes.

Yes.

Why?

That I am.
You don't don't seem to understand the most basic questions.

Rose

09-03-2012, 03:49 PM

Good morning Rose.

As you say Rose; "they were young". They might not have done as their parents (yet), but it is probable they would have known of the practices of their parents. If you read the text, and from what Moses thought, the Israelites should have killed every Canaanite including these virgins. The fact that the Israelites saved all the women and their children, was not obeying God's instruction. God determined what would happen from that point on. Every male among the children and every woman that was not a virgin who had been taken and not killed as instructed was now to be killed. In one sense the virgins were "lucky" to be alive and given the opportunity to be assimilated into a society that had God as there leader and protector. We know the Israelites did not prove themselves to be the good examples they should have been and that is a different matter from the time this incident took place.

Hello David,

Nowhere does it say in Numbers 31 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=4&cnum=31&vnum=1&InContext=Yes#v1) that ALL the Canaanites should have been killed, Moses just asks the soldiers if they saved all the women, and then proceeds to tell them to kill everyone - BUT- the virgins which are to be divided up and given to the men. There are other stories like in Judges 21 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Gr/GR_Database.asp?bnum=7&cnum=21&vnum=1&InContext=Yes#v1) where the sole reason for attacking the city of Jabesh-gilead was for taking the virgin girls for wives...everyone else in the city was slaughtered.

All these accounts in the Bible are perfect examples of male mentality which reflected and mirrored what was going on in the world around them. Statistics show (http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/07/24/why-are-so-many-mass-killers-men) that men kill ten times more than women and they do so for very different reasons. Men mostly kill for power, revenge, money and sex, whereas women kill for more emotional reasons, that is why it is so obvious that Yahweh was directly patterned after the male way of thinking. By far the majority of killing that occurs in the Bible is for power, revenge, goods, or sex. God commanded the Hebrews to kill other races for reasons of taking their land, their virgin women, seeking revenge, or to gain control. It's obvious that if women had made up their own goddess based on the female mindset, history would have read far differently, showing that the Bible is based on male standards of thought.

I see that God punishes the parents and that God also punishes the following generations for doing the same as their parents. This is likely to continue for at least three of four generations. There are examples where God delays His punishment on His chosen people and when that was done it was accepted by them. One example is that of is found in 1 Kings 21:29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house. The evil that would come later can be seen in the context of visiting the sins of the father on the children. Another case of not God doing what he said He would do but changing His plan due to the repentance or in this case Ahab humbled himself and so God made allowance for that and this is why we do not always know why God does things the way He does for we do not know the allowances God makes. God is wiser than we are and we do well to be humble to think that.

Note that we do not inherit sin, in the same way we do not inherit the sins of our father or mother. We might do the same as our parents in which case we have committed the same sin and therefore can expect the same punishment. When God's punishment on a nation extends to the 3rd and 4th generation this is not the same as punishing a child for the sins of the parent. God says; The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. The context in which the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the 3rd and 4th generation has to be understood in its proper context as would apply to a punishment of a whole nation and how that applies.

All the best.

David

The Bible is full of stories where thousands of innocent people died or were killed because of the sins of individuals like king Saul and king David. A perfect example of the mentality of the Hebrews in calling down punishment on the innocent is the account in Matt. 27:25 "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.". They seem to have no problem dumping punishment on those who are innocent, just like the 10,000 who were killed because king David took a census, or when a famine occurred because of king Saul.

Take care,
Rose

sylvius

09-03-2012, 10:12 PM

Yes it is.

Both of them shouldn't eat from the forbidden fruit.

Yes.
blessed are those who have not seen and believed.

Why?As mother of the resurrected one she lives eternal.

You don't don't seem to understand the most basic questions.

You aren't the inquisition are you?

David M

09-04-2012, 12:57 AM

A perfect example of the mentality of the Hebrews in calling down punishment on the innocent is the account in Matt. 27:25 "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.". They seem to have no problem dumping punishment on those who are innocent,

Good morning Rose

I do not want to get involved in this thread discussing the topics that we have discussed elsewhere and I have answered. The point you make above is that it is the Hebrews who are doing the bidding. It is not God. Again, you have to blame the people. It is very clear the instructions God gave His people and we know from what they did, they did not follow the instructions to the letter. God gets round the problem. Nothing is to great that God cannot work round in order to bring about His purpose.

It is clear why the Israelites had to exterminate the people around them and it is clear that the Israelites did not do as instructed and it is clear that the consequences for not doing as instructed came back to bite them. They bought the problems on themselves and God had to deal with a people who had corrupted themselves. If it were not for the promises made to Abraham, the Israelites should have been punished to the point of extermination. In fact God severely punished them later on and because they did not repent as they were given chance to and although they were scattered and should have died out as a nation, God said to them that He would not make a full end of them.

The Israelites had to survive for God's purpose to be fulfilled in them. The Jews are God's witnesses whatever they done or do today, even if the world is blind to that fact. God's purpose is being played out everyday and God is bringing His promises to Abraham to fulfillment and this means that His Kingdom will be restored on earth in the time to come. So whatever man does consciously or not to derail God's plan, God will work round the problem. All the terrible incidents in the Bible you keep referring are because man is the cause. It is man that acts inappropriately and by rights God can execute punishment according to His law given to man. Where God does not bring the full punishment of the law to bear, it is because He is merciful and when we look for reasons why, it is because the people involved have either repented or humbled themselves and so God acts accordingly. This might be seen as God changing His mind or else we can say that God is just being fair and responding to the change as men's hearts change.

These are the principles that are seen throughout the scripture and as I am Twospirits keep telling you, you have to blame man and not God. It is not man who has inspired these scriptures, it is God and God has given us these scriptures for the reason of teaching us about other people's mistakes and to conclude that is better to obey God and trust in Him that have any confidence in men (women included).

Maybe you would like to give us examples where it has not been man who is at fault in the first instance and this can be the subject of another thread.

I am now done in this thread.

All the best.

David

Rose

09-04-2012, 12:40 PM

Good morning Rose

I do not want to get involved in this thread discussing the topics that we have discussed elsewhere and I have answered. The point you make above is that it is the Hebrews who are doing the bidding. It is not God. Again, you have to blame the people. It is very clear the instructions God gave His people and we know from what they did, they did not follow the instructions to the letter. God gets round the problem. Nothing is to great that God cannot work round in order to bring about His purpose.

It is clear why the Israelites had to exterminate the people around them and it is clear that the Israelites did not do as instructed and it is clear that the consequences for not doing as instructed came back to bite them. They bought the problems on themselves and God had to deal with a people who had corrupted themselves. If it were not for the promises made to Abraham, the Israelites should have been punished to the point of extermination. In fact God severely punished them later on and because they did not repent as they were given chance to and although they were scattered and should have died out as a nation, God said to them that He would not make a full end of them.

Hello David,

Yes, the biblegod gives clear instructions and among those instructions is one that allows for the keeping of "beautiful women" that men desire to have from enemies they have captured!

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

There is no getting around it, on one hand the biblegod says that they cannot take wives from surrounding nations, and on the other hand it says that men can have any woman they desire from the enemies that have captured. No wonder man is so confused about what is right or wrong. :dizzy:

The Israelites had to survive for God's purpose to be fulfilled in them. The Jews are God's witnesses whatever they done or do today, even if the world is blind to that fact. God's purpose is being played out everyday and God is bringing His promises to Abraham to fulfillment and this means that His Kingdom will be restored on earth in the time to come. So whatever man does consciously or not to derail God's plan, God will work round the problem. All the terrible incidents in the Bible you keep referring are because man is the cause. It is man that acts inappropriately and by rights God can execute punishment according to His law given to man. Where God does not bring the full punishment of the law to bear, it is because He is merciful and when we look for reasons why, it is because the people involved have either repented or humbled themselves and so God acts accordingly. This might be seen as God changing His mind or else we can say that God is just being fair and responding to the change as men's hearts change.

If the Bible is true then its god is either responsible for the plan it contains, or you either have an impotent god. The story says that god created man and placed him in a Garden, then he put a tree whose fruit they were not supposed to eat lest they die in its midst...well, if you don't want your children to eat something, DON'T PUT IT IN FRONT OF THEM!

Okay, so god screwed up the first time and ended up killing everyone except Noah and his family, giving himself a second chance...

And then somehow, he messed up his second chance, and the next, and the next...and the rest of the story consists of killing "sinners" over and over again...

These are the principles that are seen throughout the scripture and as I am Twospirits keep telling you, you have to blame man and not God. It is not man who has inspired these scriptures, it is God and God has given us these scriptures for the reason of teaching us about other people's mistakes and to conclude that is better to obey God and trust in Him that have any confidence in men (women included).

Maybe you would like to give us examples where it has not been man who is at fault in the first instance and this can be the subject of another thread.

I am now done in this thread.

All the best.

David

If it is God who inspired Scripture why is there so many contradictions?

Take care,
Rose