Women and the Bible

[crossfire]

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.

The reason why men have authority over women is because Adam was not deceived, but Eve was.
1 Tim 2:14

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.​

 

[MysticSang'ha]

LOL and women have been blamed for everything since.

"Adam, you did wrong."

"Nuh-uh! She tricked me, it's her fault!"

It's not like women are any better, though. Eve blamed a talking snake.

.

.

.

It kinda supports George Carlin's humorous commentary of the differences between men and women, though: "Men are stupid. And women are crazy." However, let's playfully say that Carlin's thoughts support any sort of truth of the Biblical argument on the "nature" of women and men.......It still doesn't support why stupidity should be given authority over insanity. Both are equally incompetent when it comes to leadership.

 

[McBell]

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

there is a difference.

except this alleged "consequence" did not exist until AFTER god used it to punish them...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Nuh-uh! She tricked me, it's her fault!".

I think the word used by our Torah expert was "beguiled." :yes:

 

[Pegg]

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?

sorry, i wrote that badly,

the death penalty was not only a consequence, it was the specific punishment God gave them.

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.

some are saying that God gave Eve childbirth pain as a punishment.
But that is not a punishment...it is a consequence of physical imperfection.
The only punishment God gave them was death. Everything bad that happens besides death (sickness, violence, domination etc) is not a punishment from God...it is a consequence of their situation.

Where? Eve wasn't even around.

Genesis 3:1 '... it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’”

Eve knew what the punishment for eating from the tree would be.

Where?

Genesis 3:14 And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one ...
16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground

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?

Yes God can bring them back, and he has promised to do that. But that doesnt include Adam and Eve.

 

[Pegg]

except this alleged "consequence" did not exist until AFTER god used it to punish them...

God didnt use it to punish them.

God never told Adam to begin dominating his wife....he began to do that as a result of his imperfect nature.
God never caused childbirth pain to increase...it increased as a result of her imperfect physical body.

 

[Pegg]

And Genesis 3:16?

the jerusalem bible renders this verse as “I shall greatly increase the pain of you pregnancy. In birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”

in the hebrew, the things that God permits are said to be done by him. the reason being that he could stop all such things at any time. But he allows mankind to feel the effects of the consequences of sin.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the word used by our Torah expert was "beguiled." :yes:

Why don't you enlighten everyone as to why god would punish Eve for something that she was "tricked" into. Eve is in fact just as guilty as Adam, unless of course you think that the KJV was translated completely wrongly, with additional verses added.
That's the real issue here

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

sorry, i wrote that badly

No problem, I do that in almost every post I write.

Genesis 3:1 '... it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’”

Eve knew what the punishment for eating from the tree would be.

This is true. But it is not the same as saying

God informed them of how there actions would affect them

We might infer that God told Eve (Adam, perhaps, knew better than to try to tell his wife what to do) not to eat the fruit, but that doesn't mean they knew the following would happen:

Genesis 3:14 And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one ...
16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground

We can't infer that God told either Adam or Eve he would do the above (e.g., "greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy"), because it is not until after they do what they did that God the actions he will engage in as a result of what they did. These actions changed the nature of childbirth, the fertility of the soil, etc. They were not simply consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve.

If I trip over a cord, I can say that as a consequence I will fall. If I red wine on the carpet, it will stain. If I put my hand in a fire, it will burn. These are all consequences due to my actions and the nature of reality. But according to Genesis, God changed the nature of reality as a result of what Adam and Eve (and the snake) did. To say that his is a mere consequent is to say that God couldn't have done otherwise. If you believe that God did not have the capacity to do other than what he did (change reality in particular wasy, e.g., making childbirth a rather painful affair), just as I do not have the capacity to change gravity to avoid falling, then yes all those effects were just consequences. However, if you believe that God had the power not to change the nature of childbirth, but did so a consequence of the actions of Eve, then this is what a punishment is.

 

[Pegg]

It's not like women are any better, though. Eve blamed a talking snake.

but hey, at least that was the truth

 

[angellous_evangellous]

: 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.

Holy crap! I wrote that! ha

So far as I can tell this is the only reference anywhere to my dissertation that's not on my website or in library card catalogs.

I will be available for autographs. HAHA

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

Something funny = both of these books were written by one of my mentors- Carolyn Osiek (with another mentor, David Balch on the first).

 

[Alceste]

The Old Testament is a totally misogynistic collection of texts written exclusively by men in an extremely patriarchal culture.

If anything, the fact that the gospels in the NT are not overwhelmingly misogynistic is impressive for the time. Paul managed to restore the misogynistic tone eventually, but Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul.

 

[crossfire]

The Old Testament is a totally misogynistic collection of texts written exclusively by men in an extremely patriarchal culture.

If anything, the fact that the gospels in the NT are not overwhelmingly misogynistic is impressive for the time. Paul managed to restore the misogynistic tone eventually, but Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul.

I think much of the reason Paul did this was due to the fact that Christians of the time were facing persecution from the misogynistic culture they were surrounded by. The cry of, "These folks let their women speak! They are an abomination that must be stamped out!" could very well be a "justification" used by the non-Christians to persecute the Christians.

 

[Alceste]

I think much of the reason Paul did this was due to the fact that Christians of the time were facing persecution from the misogynistic culture they were surrounded by. The cry of, "These folks let their women speak! They are an abomination that must be stamped out!" could very well be a "justification" used by the non-Christians to persecute the Christians.

Yeah, you're probably right. Jesus was a long-haired radical feminist hippie. I'm not surprised modern authoritarian, conservative, patriarchal Christians prefer to cite the Old Testament and Paul and ignore everything Jesus ever said or did. Heck they even want to weed out the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, where Jesus allegedly saves a woman from being murdered by a knuckle-dragging mob for adultery.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, you're probably right. Jesus was a long-haired radical feminist hippie. I'm not surprised modern authoritarian, conservative, patriarchal Christians prefer to cite the Old Testament and Paul and ignore everything Jesus ever said or did. Heck they even want to weed out the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, where Jesus allegedly saves a woman from being murdered by a knuckle-dragging mob for adultery.

LOL, the law says that BOTH the man and woman are to be put to death, not just the woman. I wonder if that is what Jesus wrote on the ground before he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[Alceste]

LOL, the law says that BOTH the man and woman are to be put to death, not just the woman. I wonder if that is what Jesus wrote on the ground before he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I like to think he wrote "you're all a bunch of horrible, knuckle dragging lunatics", but in his own personal cypher that nobody else could read.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Holy crap! I wrote that! ha

I hope you have now updated your blog to reflect the fact that it is accessible via proquest.

So far as I can tell this is the only reference anywhere to my dissertation that's not on my website or in library card catalogs.

So I will need to find other forums and blogs where the subject of Paul's letters, early Christian studies, and/or feminism are/is addressed so that I can change this. Or would you rather wait until you turn it into a book? In which case, then I'll need you to

be available for autographs.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My primary website should be up to date. My book will be entering thee final stage of press next month. I'm not sure when it will be available. New website is www.nathan-Barnes.com

 

[crossfire]

I like to think he wrote "you're all a bunch of horrible, knuckle dragging lunatics", but in his own personal cypher that nobody else could read.

Obviously, the crowd thought that stoning the man would be an act of knuckle-dragging lunacy, since he wasn't there. They thought differently concerning the woman, however, highlighting their misogyny.