Does the bible teach that man is superior to women or just diffrerent?

by JH 52 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  A Christian,

  This is one-shot apologetics: brave or suicidal; if it doesn't kill the critic bear at once you've got no second chance. As you do not water the embarrassing text down but write it off globally as a negative quotation, then you have no opportunity to interpret it in a politically correct way.
  

  First question: do you think ancient writers did not feel like being understood?

  Second question: assuming (as you do) that their writings were understood by their initial readers but not by anyone else in the next generations (until you came up), how's that for "inspired and beneficial"?

  In written languages that have no punctation signs there are usually a lot of verbal markers which fulfill the same role; those words are most often left untranslated in modern target languages, because punctuation makes them useless (e.g. Hebrew le'emor or Greek hoti to introduce a direct quotation which we replace by ":" and quotation marks).

  But usually there is much more, especially when adverse opinions are quoted (see how the Church Fathers quote the "heretics"). If your theory is right, "Paul" would have been very careless to say the least. Usually he is not, e.g. the quotation in Romans 3:8:
  

  And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say) [hoti] "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved!

  The passages you write off as "quotations of opposers" are clearly set in the continuity of 1st-person speech in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, as the smooth transition shows:
  

  Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
  I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.

  For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
  I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes

  If the last "I" in both quotations means another than the previous ones, the author sure wanted to lose his readers. Especially in the context of parenetic or practical advice.

  In 1 Corinthians 14 the transition is not so smooth, the text contradicts chapter 11 (here the women can speak with a veil, there they cannot speak at all), and some mss have v. 34f after v. 40: there is good evidence for a later addition.
• 

  a Christian

  Effervescent, Thanks for your kind words. As I figured, my post did not go over very well. For one thing, it was too long for most to read, or at least read carefully. And, of course, some who have been hurt by the JW religion and other so-called Christian sects in this regard have a need to strike back, at God, at Christianity, at religion, at the Bible, and at Paul. Mike
• 

  a Christian

  Nark, Your criticisms are fair and valid. For instance, you wrote: If the last "I" in both quotations means another than the previous ones, the author sure wanted to lose his readers. As I wrote earlier, I believe Paul's original letters employed some means of making his quotations quite clear, a means which I believe was most likely lost, not in translation but in simple transcription. However, I also believe it is possible that the false teachers who were very active in the Church from the very beginning may have deliberately edited out such "quotation marks" when copying Paul's letters. In fact, I even believe it is possible that they may have edited out a couple of Paul's words here and there to make the false teacher's words, which Paul was quoting, appear to be Paul's own words. Most Christians believe that God only inspired the writing of the Bible writers' original manuscripts, not the copying of those manuscripts. That some minor corruptions have found their way into the text of the Bible over the years, with a few words having been added or lost in several places, is acknowledged by all Bible scholars. This becomes clearly evident when two ancient copies of the same portion of scripture are compared. Is the copy with a couple more words the corrupted copy, or is the copy with a couple less words the corrupted copy? Or is neither a perfect copy? No one can say for sure. When looking at any ancient copy of Paul's writings ( which is, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ), and not having Paul's original to compare the copy to, we cannot say for sure how many words, if any, were lost in the copying process or deliberately removed by corrupt copyists with an agenda. Christians believe that God saw fit to accurately preserve in the Bible all the information that anyone needs to find salvation through Jesus Christ. We also know that both Jesus Christ Himself and His Apostle Paul predicted that a widespread corruption of Christianity would take place after they left the earth. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim. 4:1,2) I believe this corruption included the introduction of sexism into Christ's Church, a corruption which may have been aided by a few corrupt copyists very early on slightly altering some of Paul's original writings.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  How is that fair,when I blow my back out because thioer getting easier jobs every day.It does add up over time.

  Well, see it's like this. Women have boobs. If you had boobs, you'd get the easier jobs. Dern It, there is no booby emoticon.

  Edit: Oh yeah and the bigger the boobs, the easier the job. Just ask Pamela Anderson, she changes her boob size all the time. Check it out. Pam's boobsize adventures:

  1. Before implants Q Q

  2.After Implants QQ

  3. After Implant removal QQ

  4. After new implants QQ
• 

  Leolaia

  Bear in mind that the statements cited above from the Pastorals are likely later than Paul's time, from the time when proto-orthodoxy began to reject the status women had earlier enjoyed in the church (as is evident from Romans 16:7, 1 Corinthians 11:5, 12:28; compare Galatians 3:28 and the "Priscilla" of Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19; Acts 18:26). The viewpoint in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is different from that of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, especially the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that acknowledges that women publically prophesy and pray.

  I think the point about women covering their heads while praying is not just about submission; it was intended as a preventative measure. Angels were widely believed at the time to be intercessors for prayers (as in Tobit, 1 Enoch), and Paul says that women should cover their heads while praying "because of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10). Since Hellenistic medicine at the time regarded women's hair as a sex organ that sucks up semen into the womb (cf. v. 14 says that it is not in man's phusis "nature" to have long hair, while it is implicitly part of women's "nature" to have it), and since women's hair was thought to be alluring and attractive to men, and since women were approaching angels in prayer, Paul most probably was concerned about women not tempting the angels as did the "daughters of men" before the Flood (cf. the "Book of Watchers" in 1 Enoch especially). Note especially that the hair is what the angels would first notice as they look down from heaven. By placing "authority" on her hair, women approaching angels in prayer are telling them they are not "available".
• 

  Narkissos

  The viewpoint in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is different from that of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, especially the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that acknowledges that women publically prophesy and pray.

  And the equally post-Pauline addition in 1 Corinthians 14:34f introduces the viewpoint of the Pastorals into an earlier Pauline text, regardless of the contradiction it creates with chapter 11.

  A Christian,

  I understand your take at "inspiration of the originals," although this Evangelical doctrine was always highly problematic to me.

  If such unsuspected and important changes have been made into the text as you assume, making whole passages, to the vast majority of readers, appear to mean the opposite of what the author meant to say, what exactly remains of "Scriptural authority"? As the Reformers made clear, appeal to "Scriptural authority" implied a (admittedly overrated) belief in "Scriptural clarity".

  Separating "minor matters" from "what is essential to salvation" doesn't help much, I guess. In the present topic, the "apparent meaning", right or wrong, is bound to repel the vast majority of the present and upcoming generations (at least those who are not "into submission") from the Bible as an "God-inspired book". So if God cared for the writing but not for the transmission he has a poor communication strategy.

  My opinion:

  (1) political correctness is hardly a good hermeneutic principle and almost always leads to anachronism;

  (2) it's difficult to "let the text speak of itself" when you assume you have to agree with it whatever it says.
• 

  heathen

  Narkosis -- does have a point there . There is no question the bible was tampered with as we can see the many different versions that are available that use different meanings for certain words . The bible also appears to contradict itself in some places such as with the role women should play in the congregation , there are places such as in acts of apostles where women did play a more active role with speaking in toungues and prophesy but it looks like later on things changed . It is written that in the last days that God would pour out his spirit on all flesh , that women would prophesy , men would prophesy and have visions and older men would dream dreams . The apostle Paul was apparently amazed and impressed at first that women had the gifts of the spirit but later makes rules inhibiting them from using them especially when men were present , he still allowed for older women to teach younger women . He seemed to look at women in a different light whenever congregations popped up around the world , young widows were encouraged to remarry because they would be nothing but a nuisance ,older widows would be put on a list ( I'm guessing this is a list of assistants ) . At first he encouraged men and women to remain single but later ascribed glory to women bearing children and part of their requirement for salvation . It's really all very interesting ...............................
• 

  a Christian

  Nark, You wrote: If God cared for the writing [of the Bible] but not for the transmission he has a poor communication strategy. For approximately the first 1,500 years of the Christian Era, at a time before the invention of the printing press and at a time when illiteracy was the norm, very few people ever had a copy of the Bible, ever personally read any portion of the Bible, or ever heard someone else read any large portions of the Bible. Yet during those years the Gospel of Jesus Christ managed to be preached to just as large a percentage of earth's population as it is today. And, as a percentage of earth's population, just as many people managed to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior as they do today. All without the Bible. The fact of the matter is, Christians believe that it is not the Bible, but God Himself by means of His Holy Spirit, who draws people to Christ, convicts them of sin, and provides them with all they need to put their faith in Him. (John 16:8; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8) These things being so, I doubt God has ever been too concerned with either the creation of or the transmission of an absolutely error free, totally incorruptible Bible. Heathen, It doesn't appear that you read my long post on this subject matter on page two of this thread. You may find it of interest.
• 

  Mary

  For cryin out loud Mary - didn't you learn anything on the website? Let's end the questioning and the tone please!

  I beg your pardon??? Am I not allowed to ask a question?? I don't get what that website is.......is it a joke or is it for real??
• 

  confusedjw

  Mary - I was joking, but I don't know about the website.

  Can I make it up to you with some propane or propane accessories?