Women and the Bible

[CDWolfe]

If anyone actually reads through the Bible, you start getting this vibe that the authors, and/or God, is a male chauvinist. Let's explore this in a little more detail...

For reference, I will be using the NIV since it is the most widely used translation amongst Christians now (I prefer the NASB, the most literal English translation).

Skip over the creation story and get to Eve, the apple and the consequences; let's start there. In Genesis chapter 3, we are told that God increased the pain of child birth for women as a result of "Applegate." God goes on to say that men will rule over women, and that their desire will be for their husbands.

In 1st Timothy, 2nd chapter, women are to be silent and submissive, nor can they teach or have any authority over a man. In the same chapter, God basically blames women for original sin. If you study Jewish history, ancient women were typically uneducated and served doing domestic duties.

In both 1st Timothy and Titus, masculine pronouns are used to define clergymen. This is subject to interpretation, but they are there.

Back in Genesis, Adam was created first, then Eve as his "helper."

Women were supposed to keep their heads covered. To pray with an uncovered head was to bring dishonor, so sayeth 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

In Deuteronomy chapter 22, women are commanded not to put on men's garments (such as pants) otherwise it is an abomination to God.

In Ephesians chapter 5, "the husband is the head of the wife."

In Genesis chapter 2, a married woman becomes one flesh with her husband. It has since changed, but men could not rape their wives as "they were one."

The Bible goes on and on and on about the role of women and what they can't do. Please understand this is not me talking, this is merely stuff that is in the Bible that modern day society tends to ignore (except in extreme religious views), or at least interprets differently.

If modern society actually followed what the Bible states, oh my how things would be different (not necessarily better or worse). But this is why so many people think that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT. They flip-flop on several issues. That or men wanted to insure their dominance. Hmmm... :seesaw:

 

[Desert Snake]

If anyone actually reads through the Bible, you start getting this vibe that the authors, and/or God, is a male chauvinist. Let's explore this in a little more detail...
Greetings.

For reference, I will be using the NIV since it is the most widely used translation amongst Christians now (I prefer the NASB, the most literal English translation).
Eh, I use the KJV but whatever.

Skip over the creation story and get to Eve, the apple and the consequences; let's start there. In Genesis chapter 3, we are told that God increased the pain of child birth for women as a result of "Applegate." God goes on to say that men will rule over women, and that their desire will be for their husbands.
Lol
mmkay

In 1st Timothy, 2nd chapter, women are to be silent and submissive, nor can they teach or have any authority over a man. In the same chapter, God basically blames women for original sin. If you study Jewish history, ancient women were typically uneducated and served doing domestic duties.
Isn't that the same for a lot of society even today?


In both 1st Timothy and Titus, masculine pronouns are used to define clergymen. This is subject to interpretation, but they are there.
And it stayed that way even into Christianity, though I'm not sure if that is overtly male chauvinistic... but yes, I get your point.

Back in Genesis, Adam was created first, then Eve as his "helper."
Helpmate, yes, though I don't know if that's chauvinistic either. It's not like the term 'servant' or something was used.

Women were supposed to keep their heads covered. To pray with an uncovered head was to bring dishonor, so sayeth 1 Corinthians chapter 11.
O.k., is that chauvinistic if taken in context though?

In Deuteronomy chapter 22, women are commanded not to put on men's garments (such as pants) otherwise it is an abomination to God.

In Ephesians chapter 5, "the husband is the head of the wife."

In Genesis chapter 2, a married woman becomes one flesh with her husband. It has since changed, but men could not rape their wives as "they were one."

The Bible goes on and on and on about the role of women and what they can't do. Please understand this is not me talking, this is merely stuff that is in the Bible that modern day society tends to ignore (except in extreme religious views), or at least interprets differently.

If modern society actually followed what the Bible states, oh my how things would be different (not necessarily better or worse). But this is why so many people think that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT. They flip-flop on several issues. That or men wanted to insure their dominance. Hmmm... :seesaw:

Yes, the NT is different in this regard.

 

[ChristineES]

I think you meant to say the authors of the Bible are Chauvinist. God called women: Deborah, Esther, so on and so forth.

 

[horizon_mj1]

MayI ask a serious question; do you believe that God hand wrote the Bible verbatim, or that there was an "inspiration" for what was written? There was not one female figure created in the beginning, but two; clearly revealed within Genesis Ch; 1-7 (maybe the Chapters are extended beyond what is needed, but I am sure it is quite clear within what I suggest). Dominance among sexes IMO is quite Neolithic considering that Jesus born a male was only done so being the Egyptians worshiped the sun therefore God sent a Son (Secrets of Enoch/Lost Books of Eden). I as a Female can accept being referred to as "Man" for the plain fact that of simplistic explanations given of "species identification". The idiocy of gender dominance IMO lays within the animal kingdom, and as a supposed dominate species in which is given understanding of the differentials between Human and Animal, it is quite bias to seek a reason/ideology for male to be "better" or granted more authority than a female. Were Humans not created equal;' or are there just some who wish this were not so?

 

[Pegg]

Skip over the creation story and get to Eve, the apple and the consequences; let's start there. In Genesis chapter 3, we are told that God increased the pain of child birth for women as a result of "Applegate." God goes on to say that men will rule over women, and that their desire will be for their husbands.

these are rightly called 'consequences'....they are not a punishment from God. They are the consequences of what God could foresee happening as a result of the man and woman living independently of Gods guidance and protection.

The woman would only have the man and in his imperfection, he would rule over her in a dominating fashion. Why? Because he would no longer submit himself to God...now he will become his own ruler and this would be bad for the woman. Women are naturally weaker then the males and the males would use this superior strength to dominate and rule over women.

the increase of pain during child birth would be a result of imperfection. God would have kept the birthing process under control and he would have overseen things if the woman was still under his authority.... but now that mankind had left the authority of God, they would have to depend on themselves for such processes of nature. But only God can control nature....we have no control over it so the result would be difficulties for her.

In 1st Timothy, 2nd chapter, women are to be silent and submissive, nor can they teach or have any authority over a man. In the same chapter, God basically blames women for original sin. If you study Jewish history, ancient women were typically uneducated and served doing domestic duties.

The subject that Paul is discussing in 1 Timothy is that concerning congregational matters and he is saying that women should not openly dispute, debate or wrangle over a matter and thus challenge and disgrace the man’s position of headship.
God gave authority to man to be a leader...women must respect Gods decision in that matter and they should not attempt to take that position from a man.

Original sin is not blamed on the woman.... in fact Paul makes the point that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived"
This in itself places the heavier responsibility on the man for the reason that he carried out an act of disobedience with full knowledge of what he was doing...the woman on the other hand did so because she had been deceived. So who bares greater responsibility? The man does.

In both 1st Timothy and Titus, masculine pronouns are used to define clergymen. This is subject to interpretation, but they are there.

feminine pronouns are used to describe Gods Wisdom. God is happy to describe himself in the feminine because he has no issue with femininity. Rather, he is partly feminine.

Back in Genesis, Adam was created first, then Eve as his "helper."

Women were supposed to keep their heads covered. To pray with an uncovered head was to bring dishonor, so sayeth 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

Adam didnt view her as any less then himself....he stated "this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"
She also had autonomy in the garden of Eden...she was not always by his side doing his bidding. The fact that she was alone doing her own thing when the snake spoke to her is evidence that she was not simply created to be a handmaid.

And men were told that they would shame their heads if they shaved them....so men also had things that brought shame on themselves... women were not being picked on.

In Deuteronomy chapter 22, women are commanded not to put on men's garments (such as pants) otherwise it is an abomination to God.

and men were told "neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God."
So men were equally accountable for doing such a thing.

In Ephesians chapter 5, "the husband is the head of the wife."

'and the head of every man is the Christ' ...everyone has someone they are accountable to, even men.

In Genesis chapter 2, a married woman becomes one flesh with her husband. It has since changed, but men could not rape their wives as "they were one."

the man becomes 'one' with his wife too.... why is that chauvinistic?

The Bible goes on and on and on about the role of women and what they can't do. Please understand this is not me talking, this is merely stuff that is in the Bible that modern day society tends to ignore (except in extreme religious views), or at least interprets differently.

it also has a lot to say about what a woman can do...

Proverbs 31:10 A capable wife who can find? Her value is far more than that of corals....13 She has sought wool and linen, and she works at whatever is the delight of her hands....16 She has considered a field and proceeded to obtain it; from the fruitage of her hands she has planted a vineyard....17 She has girded her hips with strength, and she invigorates her arms...18 She has sensed that her trading is good; her lamp does not go out at night....24 She has made even undergarments and proceeded to sell [them],..26 Her mouth she has opened in wisdom, and the law of loving-kindness is upon her tongue....and let her works praise her even in the gates.

Genesis 21:12 Then God said to Abraham: “Do not let anything that Sarah keeps saying to you be displeasing to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her voice

Romans 16:1 I recommend to YOU Phoe′be our sister, who is a minister of the congregation that is in Cen′chre·ae, 2 that YOU may welcome her in [the] Lord in a way worthy of the holy ones, and that YOU may assist her in any matter where she may need YOU

Exodus 15:20 And Mir′i·am the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, proceeded to take a tambourine in her hand; and all the women began going out with her with tambourines and in dances

Luke 2:36 Now there was Anna a prophetess, Phan′u·el’s daughter, ...who was never missing from the temple, rendering sacred service night and day


I dont find the bible to be chauvinistic at all.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'll include the Beginning and the End. There is an Always Being. He gave of His infinite Being to what would be called Sons, creation. God creating independent beings, allowed the diversification of those beings. Growing diversification in/through creation by truth is further separation from certain Fatherliness'. We inherit independently as independent beings and interdependently as allocated by Love. Spoken law first. The written laws occured shortly as society grew and became more estranged. Corruption/deception/misunderstanding resulted in the fall of mankind with Adam first, regarded as First Human for Jews especially. Things become exaggerated through corruption, deception, and misunderstanding as mentioned above. Adam may not be father of all, and he may be, or he may be an example as were the Jews to the rising of Societial success. They had many successess according to the Godliness they inherited in various ways. They also had many failures according to the three things I mentioned above and according to our progressive flow of existence. The fathers in the line of Adam followed after God in distinct ways. Authority and family structure is one. Authority is gained in the world and in God first. The man comes to his wife and kids to divide authority according to what is needed for each intended task. The Good Father cannot waste because He holds an infinite abundance. He gives and gives when asked, except when estrangement is cause to further separation (we give, He takes and/or redistibutes.. contractual - seen with inheritence first with God giving and our own experienced distribution and retribution) but also opportunity for learning/correction. The earthly father, receiving limited resource according to task and contract, wastes according to understanding and (well)being. Reverence for God resulted in the reverence of good fathers and the family foundation, then the society. Family meant power, influence, authority - (well)being. Insurance in numbers against a hostile world. The aforementioned chain of reverence and the progressive flow of existence being mentioned with 'the last Adam' phrasing, resulted in traditions which eventually became included in written law. Some of what you read is slightly off or misunderstood.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If anyone actually reads through the Bible, ...

Oh goodie. Another bible-bashing thread. :tigger:

 

[McBell]

If anyone actually reads through the Bible,

It is interesting that you would start with a line like this then show in the rest of the post to not actually do so...

For reference, I will be using the NIV since it is the most widely used translation amongst Christians now.

Since when?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If anyone actually reads through the Bible, you start getting this vibe that the authors, and/or God, is a male chauvinist. Let's explore this in a little more detail...

Sure. Let's do that. In particular, how might early Christian women (or potential female converts) in the latter half of the first century and onwards have interpreted the NT and other texts which were disseminated during that period? After all, what better way to really understand the "message" of the various biblical texts and how they relate to women than by trying to ascertain how women understood them?

How, though, might one possibly do this? How could we know what some hypothetical women (some wealthy widows, perhaps) might read and interpret any given NT text? We are in luck. There is an excellent piece of scholarship designed to do just this: Barnes, Nathan John. "Reading 1 Corinthians with Philosophically Educated Women." Texas Christian University, 2012. (dissertation now available on ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, although the author has unfortunately not updated his website to reflect this).

Not only does the author provide us with hypothetical (but historically grounded) women capable of reading Paul ("Sophia" and "Fortuna") but demonstrates not simply how women of that day might have reacted to different components in Paul's letter, but also why. Additionally, you will find there all the references you could ask for.

Having done that, or even read a few of the works referenced (e.g,. Families in the New Testament World or A Women's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity), you might be able to provide some of the "detail" you allude to.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived"[/COLOR]
This in itself places the heavier responsibility on the man for the reason that he carried out an act of disobedience with full knowledge of what he was doing...the woman on the other hand did so because she had been deceived. So who bares greater responsibility? The man does.

Actually, in Genesis the woman is specifically punished. Why would God punish Eve if she were innocent of partaking of the forbidden fruit?

 

[Pegg]

Actually, in Genesis the woman is specifically punished. Why would God punish Eve if she were innocent of partaking of the forbidden fruit?

She received the same punishment that Adam received.... the death penalty.
"You will return to the ground for our of it you were taken, for dust you are to dust you will return"
Other then that, i dont read of any punishment.

 

[McBell]

She received the same punishment that Adam received.... the death penalty.
"You will return to the ground for our of it you were taken, for dust you are to dust you will return"
Other then that, i dont read of any punishment.

really?
What version of the Bible are you reading?

Why is it missing Genesis 3:17?

 

[Desert Snake]

really?
What version of the Bible are you reading?

Why is it missing Genesis 3:17?

And 3:16 I might add.

 

[Pegg]

really?
What version of the Bible are you reading?

Why is it missing Genesis 3:17?

the pain they would both experience as a result of disobedience amounts to a consequence, not a punishment.

there is a difference.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the pain they would both experience as a result of disobedience amounts to a consequence, not a punishment.

there is a difference.

There can be, yes. But there need not be. If I don't look where I'm walking, and I trip over something, then as you say it is a consequence, not a punishment, when I fall and hurt myself. However, if I tell my boss that she or he is an idiot, and I am fired, then this is both a consequence and a punishment.

Think set theory: all consequences are the result of something which caused them. Some subset of these are also punishments. Someone breaks a law, and consequently they are punished. Someone breaks a glass and consequently there is glass on the floor.

If an agent (understood as some entity capable of what we would normally interpret as self-willed action), such as God, changes, alters, or otherwise creates differences between what was and what is because certain human actions violated God's "laws", and these changes are deliberately intended to create certain effects which will make life qualitatively more difficult for humans, how are these consequences not also punishments?

 

[Pegg]

There can be, yes. But there need not be. If I don't look where I'm walking, and I trip over something, then as you say it is a consequence, not a punishment, when I fall and hurt myself. However, if I tell my boss that she or he is an idiot, and I am fired, then this is both a consequence and a punishment.

I understand your illustration, however, in the case of Adam and Eve they were given a death penalty...that penalty of death was a mere consequence, it was a punishment.

The consequences were similar to tripping on something and hurting yourself. God informed them of how there actions would affect them...not only would they die, but now they would also experience many problems brought about by their actions as well.

If an agent (understood as some entity capable of what we would normally interpret as self-willed action), such as God, changes, alters, or otherwise creates differences between what was and what is because certain human actions violated God's "laws", and these changes are deliberately intended to create certain effects which will make life qualitatively more difficult for humans, how are these consequences not also punishments?

you have to first 'assume' that God created the consequences...and that is the equivalent of accusing a Judge of orchestrating how someone is treated in Jail. If other inmates bully or intimidate the man, is it the responsibility of the judge who sentenced him? If, as a result of spending 10 yrs in jail, the mans wife leaves him for another, did the Judge orchestrate that consequence?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I understand your illustration, however, in the case of Adam and Eve they were given a death penalty...that penalty of death was a mere consequence, it was a punishment.

I'm not sure if I'm just too sleep-deprived and intoxicated here, or if you meant to say "it was not a punishment". Could you clarify?

The consequences were similar to tripping on something and hurting yourself.

That's a fine analogy, but I'm not sure it supports your position. That is, if I trip over an electric cord and hurt myself, I can get angry at the cord, or at gravitational fields, or at my nervous system, or any number of things which have no intent and whatever role they play in my pain, it is not that of an agent. However, if the exact same thing happens (I trip over some cord) and unfortunately an individual who happens to be carrying some tool (perhaps a kitchen knife, or a tent spike, or a gardening tool), such that when I trip they cross my path and due to our collision when we both fall whatever implement they were carrying punctures a vital organ or cuts an artery, now my accident involves the death of this individual. That is one consequence. But if a judge then sentences me to death, or life in prison, or renders any verdict, the verdict is not simply a consequent, but a punishment. The judge could have realized I simply fell, and while it is possible, at least in principle, that I could have avoided tripping, my accident and the nature of the collision is not cause for my execution. The judge, however, does not see it this way, and thus decides to punish me.

God informed them of how there actions would affect them

Where? Eve wasn't even around.

...not only would they die, but now they would also experience many problems brought about by their actions as well.

Where?

you have to first 'assume' that God created the consequences...and that is the equivalent of accusing a Judge of orchestrating how someone is treated in Jail.

Let's go back to the falling example for a minute. Let's say a judge renders some verdict. Does that judge have the capacity to change the laws of physics? To change the past? To bring back to life person I accidently fell into in such a way that they died? No. Does God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps attributing the pain of childbirth to the actions in Eden is an example of flawed etiology that serves nevertheless as little more than an afterthought to an otherwise compelling coming of age narrative.

 

[Desert Snake]

the pain they would both experience as a result of disobedience amounts to a consequence, not a punishment.

there is a difference.

And Genesis 3:16?

 

[Desert Snake]

Perhaps attributing the pain of childbirth to the actions in Eden is an example of flawed etiology that serves nevertheless as little more than an afterthought to an otherwise compelling coming of age narrative.

Eve 'beguiled' Adam. She was in full knowledge that what she had done was wrong. The "Eve was innocent" crowd is either grossly misinterpreting text or trying to change the scripture outright. There is no basis for the argument, it doesn't even make sense on a basic logic level

Eve>Adam
The snake didn't lie to Eve, she was told the truth, chose to eat of the tree, and then convinced Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit.