Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

No they weren't.

Can you support that statement? I've already listed passages from three distinctly different Biblical writings to support the case for women and that the Bible is not an anti-women text. That doesn't mean the Bible is a "Femi-NAZI" text, either, because one main point the Bible repeatedly makes is the equality of men and women in God's eyes. Thus you can't really make a valid case for bias towards or against women because the Law of the OT applied to EVERYONE, the teachings of Jesus' belonged to EVERYONE, salvation is a gift free to ALL believers, Christian codes of conduct apply to ALL believers.

The human authors (Christians believe through divine inspiration) who composed the NT had to be familiar with OT writings and their intention because it was that law together with later "laws of man" (depending on which Rabbi you spoke with might have included the oral traditions in addition to the written ones) in addition to their governorship by Roman captors that controlled so much of their day-to-day lives.

You might make a case for the writers of the Gospels because they were ordinary men far removed from the Jewish ivory tower clerical elite. But that doesn't work because they spent virtually every day from their calling by Jesus with Him and would have been well-versed in Jesus' interpretation and application of the Law. Jesus often refers to the Law when He points out its abuses carried out by the priests of His day. Jesus understood the law so well that the priests could not build a viable case against Him. Even when they tried to use the "two-witness" rule against Jesus, they still couldn't prove their case because the witnesses couldn't even get their lies straight (the Law required a thorough examination to convict someone of a crime, so it's not unusual in such a case for the truth to come out. Regardless, it should not have been that difficult to find Jesus guilty through false testimony. The fact that it was so difficult reflects Jesus' superior understanding and obedience of and to the Law that far surpassed that of His accusers).

In complete contrast to the writers of the Gospels, Paul (formerly known as Saul) is depicted as a merciless enforcer of Hebrew law and among the first Christian persecutors. No other writer except maybe Peter was quite so thorough in the treatment and execution of Law (Peter had trouble reaching out beyond his own people, outsiders considered to be "unclean," but who no less were in need of Jesus' redemption). And yet Paul, well-versed in the Law as well as the teachings of the people he persecuted, did more in his time to spreading the faith throughout the known world.

By saying simply "No they weren't," you indicate an insufficient understanding yourself of both OT Law and NT teaching. If you know this for certain, you should provide Biblical evidence to support that claim. I've already demonstrated my willingness to show specifically how I feel the Bible stands on certain issues (women's rights). I welcome disagreement and discourse, but you have to do better than that!

I don't mean to come across as a hypocrite, either. I said that you appear to lack a good understanding of the Bible, but the same is true for most Christians, and even I don't have all the answers. I really do try my best to discern Biblical truth for myself. A lot of Christians have trouble with challenges to their faith because they fail to dig into the Bible and understand what's contained within its pages. But I also believe that challenges to faith expose a Christian's spiritual and intellectual weaknesses that can in turn be strengthened through further study and lead to a stronger faith. Before you make a statement about the Bible or its authorship, take the time to figure out what the Bible actually says before making a blanket statement or accusation about it. If you haven't ever actually READ the Bible, it's going to be difficult to support those kinds of statements. If you HAVE read the Bible, then you ought to be able to find specific passages that support what you have to say (as I did in referring to Biblical passages that either support decent treatment of women or are at the very least neutral).

How in earth can you know that the writers of the bible were able to preserve the intented meaning? How do you know at all what the intended meaning is? I take it you "know" the intended meaning because that's what you read from the bible... but if that was not the real thing how the heck are you supposed to know?

OT writers carefully spelled out exactly what they meant. That's the only way ANYONE can know from any superficial perception (i.e. strictly from reading the Bible alone). But of course, there are Christian scholars who examine the Bible, learn the languages used in writing the text and various translations--like ancient Hebrew in the Masoretic manuscript, Greek in the Septuagint. Much of what many Christians learn in Bible studies and sermons descend from a long line of scholarly work that is known to be reliable and accurate.

Also, the intended meaning of any writing has to be drawn from contextual clues based on the time the text was written. For example, the issues facing the Exodus Era Israelites would have significantly different from, say, the Israelites of the Exile period, and both of which would have greatly contrasted with the Roman captivity period (the time of Jesus' earthly ministry). Think about it this way: Shakespeare was fond of using common euphemisms in his plays that even the lowest illiterate classes of British society would have instantly understood. But an American high school student of average intelligence studying Shakespeare for the first time in English Lit. class might have trouble understanding some of the humor ("What's a 'beast with two backs?'"). After studying features of Shakespeare's language, everything else is easy to figure out. But asking how we "know" what the Bible meant is like asking an English teacher how she "knows" what Shakespeare meant. Biblical meaning is knowable because we can study the language of its writing. That doesn't mean we all have to go out and learn Hebrew (which as it existed during the time of Moses is practically a dead language, like Latin of the present day, and has probably only had a resurgence partly due to the Zionist movement), Aramaic (also no longer in use), or Greek. Most good Bible translations point out loose English translations of Hebrew expressions and give the literal interpretation--often these don't have a literal equivalent in the English language, and the translators just try to get just close enough that the translation makes sense to the English reader.

Likewise, the people living during Jesus' ministry and after His ascension would have understood the meaning of Hebrew Law (the priests of this time voraciously interpreted that very law). During the time of Moses, the vast majority of the Israelites would have had no concept of reading or writing. Moses, however, grew up in Pharaoh's palace and would have been among the highly literate and educated. It was his job to teach the law to the Levites who in turn would pass this knowledge from generation to generation. That held them responsible as the scholarly spiritual leaders of the time to act in a magisterial capacity as well as their duties to the Tent of Meeting and, later on, the Temple. The priest class, then, would have nearly perfectly preserved the Law by Jesus' time.

Though they preserved the meaning of the Law, the tenacity by which they carried out its precepts was an oppressive burden to the people they were supposed to serve. This is why Jesus often charged them with hypocrisy. The priests required so much from the people in the ways in which they carried out the Law that the people of Israel had likely almost completely lost faith in God. When they challenged Jesus by asking what the greatest commandment was, He replied (I'm paraphrasing) that it was to love the Lord with your entire being. In doing so, He was actually quoting Moses. The point of this statement is a summary of the meaning of all Law and scripture. What Jesus was trying to say here was that the priests HAD preserved the Law but had forgotten why the Law was given in the first place. Instead of loving God, they were only going through the motions of a purely legalistic approach to religion that had very little to do with genuine praise and adoration of God and everything to do with making themselves look better, higher, and mightier than everyone else. You might say "their excrement didn't stink."

Jesus built up a large following not because He encouraged people to break the Law, but in part because He made the Law easier to understand and follow than the priests could. Basically, if you love God with everything you have, you won't have to worry about all the nit-picky details because you will have a strong, natural desire to act in accordance with scripture. Jesus even added a second commandment to the first greatest commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Doesn't that make so much more sense than having to walk through a maze of rituals and sacrifices that are impossible for the average person? The priests weren't perfect either because their hearts weren't in the right place, and that made them just as much sinners as the believers who followed Him. Part of the problem, I think, is that the priests would have known Jesus was right when they challenged Him on the intended meaning of the OT because they knew their stuff. The Gospels indicate that Jesus shot them down and shut them up every time. If Jesus had answered in error, they would have known immediately which would have expedited their case against Him. The NT documents exactly how desperate their attempts were at protecting their position of power and authority. They resorted to breaking their own laws to "get" Jesus!

To be fair, Christians themselves throughout history have also taken the same approach to the Bible to make their points. I've stated before that using the Bible to push anyone's personal agenda is wrong. I think a FEW of the people participating in witch hunts were probably really good, well-intentioned people that did horrible, unspeakable things because they just didn't understand the meaning of the Bible. Some church congregations are guilty of the same legalistic approach to faith (which is really no approach at all) as the priests of Jesus' day. More Christians than not will agree that those practices were wrong and that love and mercy rule over the penalty of law.

Therefore, a careful reading of the scripture together with an understanding of the culture of the time reveals the intended meaning of scripture. NT writers would have been aware of this the same way we can be made aware of meaning in Shakespearean English.

To answer your other question: I'm not clear on what you mean by "if that was not the real thing." Do you mean if it wasn't the real meaning? Or if it wasn't the real Bible? If we're talking meaning here, I've already explained that. If it wasn't the real Bible, well then, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? But just as we have contextual clues that reveal the intended meaning of scripture, we also have clues as to the reliability of scripture. Rabbinical scholars as well as Christian Biblical scholars are fairly certain that Moses is the sole earthly composer of the Pentateuch. The writing style of this section of the Bible is consistent with other documents which we know for certain date from this period. It's very consistent throughout, which leads the reader to conclude that the Pentateuch is what it says it is. It's not even unreasonable to believe that Moses wrote of his own death at the end of Deuteronomy; but if one is to assume that, say, Joshua edited this portion of the book, it makes it no less valid and reliable. I'm actually reading through the OT and doing my best to thoroughly study it at the moment. But since I haven't gotten past II Samuel yet, I can't vouch for the writers of the rest of the OT at this time. I'll figure all that out when I get there. What I do know is the Biblical record has been verified enough throughout it's history to remain intact for thousands of years. Even the early church counsels that bound together the NT books pulled together writings that were already in established use (this all happened long before things got so messed up). We know that books that didn't make it into the Bible either had nothing new to add or were errant theology inconsistent and incompatible with Christianity as it had already been established and understood. Even certain Christian Roman Emperors tried to impose their own ideas of Christianity onto the Bible, and church counsels STILL ruled in favor of the Bible as it already stood, doing so at the risk of their own lives. Even today, people try to discredit the Bible based on what they think of as contradictions. I believe that the inclusion of heretical teachings would have made the Bible impossible for even Christian scholars to take seriously, much less spread the Gospel message to unbelievers.

I'll say it again: If the Bible is false, then there's no point to discussion. But since the Bible has proven to be verifiable, I think that's a hard case to make; we're discussing it now just as believers and unbelievers alike have been discussing it for centuries. Beyond that, all I got for you is faith and prayer. People will always ignore evidence to validate their beliefs in whatever they want. I try not to be one of those people. My decision to accept Creationism vs. Darwinism or Intelligent Design theory is based on my personal examination of those ideas, not a simple blatant disregard for their supporting evidence. That's why I strongly suggest actually examining the Bible if you take issue with something I or other Christians have said. My belief is that there is nothing to gain from a blind invalidation of the Bible and doing so only serves to avoid confronting real question: What specific challenges do you have to Biblical teaching? You really need to be specific here, because avoiding scriptural references doesn't show that you know any more about the Bible than a Christian does.

It's at the point of tl;dr.

Utter nonsense. The bible is essentially a book of homilies and bronze age fairy-tales. There is nothing verifiable about it. In fact if you take it seriously and literally you must conclude that the entire universe is 6000 years old or thereabouts.

ruveyn

Aw, ruveyn! I'm flattered by your presence!

My apologies, to Avarice: I'll keep this one brief.

Ruveyn, you say NOTHING is verifiable. Even I have to admit some things simply have to be taken on faith. But NOTHING? The OT isn't alone in its historical account of figures such as King David and King Solomon. Archeology even affirms that.

And Jesus wasn't someone that 4 people just made up one day (not including the extra-Gospel writings of Peter and others).

Crucifixion is known to have been an established form of capitol punishment. I'm guessing it was a Roman invention as I can't find a prescription for it in Hebrew law.

Josephus even affirms practices and world affairs that were relevant to the lives of the Jews at the time of the NT.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Bible matches or surpasses the reliability of other texts in regard to copying accuracy and transmission throughout generations. The NT, in fact has one of the shortest periods between the events it records and its publication, as opposed to longer periods between other factual occurrences and their documentation.

Dating the OT, in my opinion, is a futile effort due to so many unknowns. If you try to date it based on the genealogies, you have to account for so many generational gaps for which there is no indication of the passing of time. You might be right, or the universe might be much older.

I don't personally believe this way, but there are those who could make a perfectly valid argument that the Bible doesn't necessarily deny evolution theory. One could make the case that the six days of creation in Genesis refer to six Ages in which the sun and moon represent the beginning and ending of an era or epoch or eon or whatever. The seventh represents an age when God ceased the act of creation and handed it over to man. This is like the seven "days" of tribulation in Revelation, which is most often interpreted as seven years. I don't buy this creation idea because I think a God of power and miracles is a stronger God than one who is subject to laws of nature that He created. As you have already said, ruveyn, it's entirely logical based on that reading that the entire universe is 6000 years old. The Bible doesn't actually reveal that, and I'm not even sure the age of the universe is actually relevant to scripture.

As far as miracles recorded in the Bible, or what you call the "fairy-tales" are concerned: It does no good for a believer to argue in favor of any of those events actually happening--but not because they didn't happen. The account of the Exodus reveals that God was undeniably present in a BIG way (pillar of fire, pillar of cloud) every day of the exodus until after the crossing of the Jordan. The record shows that the Israelites lost their faith by the time Moses was ready to lead them across the Jordon. That condemned them to an additional 40 years of nomadic life after which an entire generation had served and died in military service. God continued to work miracles during Joshua's lifetime. Even though the Israelites would have remembered that after his death, they turned away from their faith anyway.

The question I have to ask here is if the Israelites were so quick to relegate their faith to the stuff of legends and fairy tales after witnessing the power of God in their own lifetimes, how could anyone expect unbelievers to believe God if He manifested Himself in the same way in our own time? Jesus worked miracles, and not everyone believed Him. That doesn't mean that God isn't powerful or that the Bible isn't true. It just means that God can't be manipulated into performing parlor tricks for anyone's amusement.

It just means that humanity is infinitely gullible.

There is no extra-biblical documentation showing the existence of King David, King Solomon or even Abraham and Moses. Their stories are totally contained in scripture therefore have as much evidential weight as Tolkien's -Silmarilion- or -Lord of the Rings-.

There is no reliable archeological physical evidence for the existence of these people. They are characters in a story passed down among the Jews for several thousand years. The stories are entertaining, sometimes inspirational but they are still just stories.

When they dig up King Solomon's bones write us and tell us about it, would you?

ruveyn

I certainly will if I ever hear about it. I doubt that will ever happen, though, since the ravages of time I'm sure have taken their toll. Looks like mummification was lost with the ancient Egyptians, or it was unique to the North African climate. I don't personally have any need for Solomon's bones since the Bible alone is sufficient for me to make up my mind about matters of faith (not to discount prayer and personal revelation, of course).

Apparently your mind is likewise made up on the matter and no matter of discourse will affect that. Even if there were more evidence left in existence, I propose that it still wouldn't serve to change your position. As I said, even the Israelites of the Exodus and Judges periods ignored the evidence they themselves witnessed. Same thing with Jesus. In the case of the Exodus, it was the children who had not witnessed the events in Egypt that held onto the stronger faith. Even Jesus made the comment that His closest followers believed because they could physically see the signs that He was who He claimed to be, but that those who could believe without seeing were more blessed.

In regards to King David: Relegating him to myth and legend on the basis of lack of archeological evidence is unjustified. It also displays an ignorance of such existing evidence, specifically the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele, which do indicate that people outside Israel interacted with (or fought wars against, as the case may be) a Davidic line of kings. How can someone fight a war against the "House of David" if there'd never been a David? Perhaps that's not enough for some people to constitute a "smoking gun." But it's certainly more than "no evidence."

Faith is superstition raised to the level of respectability.

I am one of those people who is swayed by facts, experimental results and rigorous mathematical arguments. Anything short of that leaves me less than convinced.

I do have one article of faith besides belief in my own existence: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

TANSTAAFL

ruveyn

Understandable. My experience has been that I've always "felt" God's presence for most of my life--has to do with upbringing, and I've never felt a need to deny that. By contrast, there are a lot of people where I'm from that grew up the same way, felt the same way at varying times, and ultimately rejected God. But then again, there are also many people out there who at varying times in their lives were atheists, yet they came to know Jesus. In answering challenges to my faith, however, I've always tried to hit back with the same weapons unbelievers use in their attacks: facts, experimental results, and so on. Like I might have mentioned before, I stopped doing that kind of thing because I think a knowledge of God has to rise above human understanding--which means, in my opinion (because I don't know if even theologians will argue for/against this; I draw my own conclusions), God is above all that. Christians who are firmly convinced of God believe so not because God has been proven in any kind of man-made way, but because they've experienced God for themselves. To support that, I'll go a step further and say that MOST Christians aren't even familiar with most of the Bible, just the parts concerning salvation through faith. I'll even say that most of us can't even defend one point in the Bible or another, and that's why so many Christians look like simple idiots in the eyes of ivory-tower intellectuals. They don't understand their faith. But they do know that a saving knowledge of God and Jesus is very real to them.

Christians are also accused of being closed-minded. But a self-proclaimed, open-minded unbeliever who only looks at the math and science in front of them has already closed themselves to the experience. The realm of God and the supernatural can't be quantified and limited to a superficial, materialistic box.

If you like numbers and experiments, you could try an unbiased study of faith, not necessarily limited to Christians. In the face of instantly accessible scientific information, even people who know what you and I know somehow still manage to hold onto their faith--and that's people of all religions. If so many people so often have a hint of the supernatural world, it might be useful to figure out what the root of all these "superstitions" is. Peoples' experience does count as evidence, even in the scientific community. A scientist doesn't have to BELIEVE it necessarily, but he/she can't deny the facts either.

Finally, if you're swayed by facts, etc., then you're swayed by things that are often manipulated by the science community and politicians to further whatever agenda they want to push at a given moment in time. My favorite is the "no polar ice caps in five years" hypothesis. Sure, fix the environment. But don't INVENT a story through mathematical/factual manipulation to support it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are even occasionally guilty of being mutual admiration societies and even have to rescind published articles when the facts presented are proven false. Rigorous mathematical data can be rigorously manipulated to show whatever you want it to show and still be mathematically correct.

The point is that even reliance on factual data, statistics, experiments, and so on is itself a giant leap of faith, though a veiled one that most of us aren't even aware of, and not always one that is necessarily reliable!

Enjoy your delusion. As long as you don't use it to scare the horses or bother the neighbors I have no objection.

ruveyn

Genesis 3:16 (what you quoted) is not a biblical mandate for male dominance, rather, it is a prediction that both genders will be fighting for supremacy.