Posts by JosephAlward

26

how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist in

i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.

how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.

i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.

JosephAlward

Dungbeetle writes,

I don't make a correlation between soft clothing and anti-homosexuality.

I don't make that correlation, either; nor does anyone else on this list, Dungbeetle. I think you are intentionally trying to misrepresent the skeptical position on this forum, to have the skeptic argue a position that is much weaker than the actual one. This is called "creating a straw man," which is a dummy any fool can knock down; this is dishonest.

My argument that Paul said that “effeminate” men are not going to heaven is not based in the least on the use of the word malakos to mean "soft." It's instead based one-hundred percent on the fact that the Perseus Project cites overwhelmingly the use of malakos for "effeminate," and on the fact that all of the translators of all of the different Bible versions have Paul denying heaven to homosexuals.

I mentioned the soft clothes only to help explain how in the world malakos clothes could be consistent with a malakos man, which is translated as "effeminate" in the 1 Corinthians passage. I suggested that perhaps effeminate men were thought of as being "soft" of skin, and that's how that word came to be associated with homosexuals. I wasn't arguing that the word malakos in Paul's verse had to be translated as "effeminate" just because it means "soft" somewhere else, and I think you know that. My argument is based on the fact that the adjective malakos as applied to men means "effeminate," and there is ample proof of this, which you have conveniently ignored.

The principal word used for "effeminate" in Greek is malakos. To confirm this, go to the site at

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek

and enter the word "effeminate." You will find that the overwhelming most common Greek word used to represent "effeminate" is malakos.

Dungbeetle, if you want to rebut the argument that the Bible teaches that effeminate men will not go to heaven, then you should go to the site I listed above, discover for yourself the truth of what I’ve said, then come back to the forum and explain why you still don’t believe the translation is correct.

After you've done that, then you should explain to the forum how it could be that you’re right, and the translations listed below are all wrong?

King James Version

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [(1 Corinthians 6:9)

American Standard Version

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

Revised Standard Version

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

New American Standard Bible

Or 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 effeminate, nor homosexuals,

New International Version

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Dungbeetle, if you still believe that Paul did not say that homosexuals would not go to heaven, would you please explain why you believe you know more than the translators of all of these different Bible versions?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

JosephAlward

The Bible says that moral and righteous (upright) men are hard to find, but it's even harder--if not impossible--to find such a woman:

I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare. "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things--while I was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." (Ecclesiastes 7:24-28 NIV)

If you believe that whatever is taught in the Bible comes from God, then you have to believe that God teaches that righteous women are harder to find than righteous men.

You can believe that women are just as righteous as men, or you can believe that the Bible is the word of God, but you cannot believe both.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

JosephAlward

Kenneson believes,

So rather than being insignificant in the New Testament, we see
that women played a major role.

There's no doubt that some women played positive roles in New Testament stories, but we should not exaggerate their importance. Consider Mary, for example, who was on the list of women Kenneson offered:

After Jesus’ mother had said that he was “out of his mind,” and appeared outside a house to “take charge of him (Mark 3:21),” Mark does not have Jesus invite her inside, nor does Mark have Jesus go outside to greet her. Instead, Mark has Jesus makes it clear to his followers inside the house that he does not regard the woman outside as his mother.

He explains to his followers what his definition of a “mother” is: A “mother” is whoever does the will of God, (Mark 3:31-35), with the clear implication being that one who didn’t recognize Jesus as the son of God was obviously not in tune with the will of God.

Thus, Jesus effectively abandons his mother to serve God, thereby setting the example for the readers of Mark’s gospel to follow should their families, too, not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Thus, almost two thousand years before the practice of shunning of unbelieving family members was put into practice by Jehovah's Witnesses, the precedence for this behavior was established by Jesus himself.

Surely we cannot claim that Luke had a positive view of Mary, can we, if he has her call Jesus crazy, and has Jesus essentially disown her?

I won’t try to describe the roles played by all of the other women in the New Testament, but I will try to debunk the notion that any women were Jesus’ disciples. I will post here excerpts from my articles

“Women Are Not the Glory of God,” at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/women_in_the_bible.html

and “Women May Not Teach Men,” at
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/silent_women.html

When reminded that even Jesus appointed no women apostles, feminists assert that Jesus was concerned that if he had done so, people would discount his message, that accepting women as apostles would be a cultural change too radical --too revolutionary--for people to accept, and that they would have turned away from Jesus and his message. That's preposterous, given the fact that Jesus' activities and teaching were already so revolutionary; who would worry about the women helping Jesus?

Furthermore, Jesus as the son of an omnipotent God had the power to do whatever he wanted, and that included making anyone accept as truth anything he wanted them to believe; if Jesus had appointed women as apostles, he would have found a way to make a woman apostle acceptable to the people to whom he preached, that's a certainty. Bruce Waltke makes a similar point in his article,"The Role of Women in Worship in the Old Testament":

Jesus...was a revolutionary in his age own with regard to the role of women in worship...[but he] confirmed the Old Testament patriarchy by not appointing a woman as an apostle, though women followed him, ministered to him, and were his close friends. It is nonsense to argue that the counter-cultural Jesus appointed only male apostles because he was culturally conditioned. Is it not plausible to think that had he intended to empower women to have equality with men in leadership he would have called a woman to be an apostle, either before or after the resurrection?

Paul evidently never gave a thought to the notion that women could be bishops:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:2)

If women were allowed to be bishops in the first century church, then where is to be found a parallel statement about women, stating that they must likewise be blameless and the wife of one husband? There isn't such a statement. If the Bible writers wanted us to know that women could be bishops in the church, they would have know that readers would wonder why they didn't say that the wife as bishop must only have one husband, and likewise be vigilant, sober and of good behavior. The absence of such a statement is strong indication that women as bishops was unthinkable.

This evidence, when placed alongside all the other evidence, makes it obvious that Gods' message to us is that women are not to teach men. Naturally, this doesn't deter those who practice a kind of Biblical "analysis" known as evangelical feminism, who the evidence shows are teachers of false teaching.

The liberal response to this is to point to Jesus' statement, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). They say that even though there's no reference to women hating her husband, nobody believes that the Bible teaches that women cannot be a disciple of Christ. Therefore, they argue, if the statement in Luke must not be interpreted to mean that women cannot be disciples, why should we interpret the statement in Timothy to mean that women cannot be bishops?

This argument is easily rebutted: no matter how much one might wish for it to be true, it's simply not true that the Bible teaches that Jesus had women disciples. The word disciple [mathetes] is used 268 times in the New Testament, and not once does the word clearly refer to a woman. And, of all the women one would think Jesus would accept as a disciple, one would have to count the women who went to the tomb to minister to Jesus; who else in the Bible were of greater help to him? Yet, these women are never referred to as disciples, and it's clear that the angel who spoke to some of them didn't consider them disciples at all; the angel tells the women to "go tell his disciples" (Mark 16:7) what had happened to Jesus. If the Bible writers wanted us to know that these women were disciples, they would have had the angel say, "Go tell the other disciples."

Thus, we see that as much as many Christians would like to believe that Jesus had women disciples, it simply is not true.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

JosephAlward

Are you married? I like a forward thinking man.

I'm married, and I like women who think I'm forward thinking.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

JosephAlward

Joseph, you look a lot like David Letterman.

I have feelings, you know.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

40

Women are Not the Glory of God

by JosephAlward in

no teaching in the bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men.

below i show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of god, but woman is not.

furthermore, the evangelist paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to genesis to explain why.

JosephAlward

No teaching in the Bible is clearer, more consistent, than the one which teaches that women are inferior to men. Below I show that it is taught that the woman was created from man, for man, that man is the glory of God, but woman is not. Furthermore, the evangelist Paul says that he'll not abide women teaching men, and he refers to Genesis to explain why.

Elsewhere in the Bible it's taught that women are not as righteous as men, are not clever enough to enter into contracts, are to keep silent and seek answers in private from their husbands, and are to treat their husbands as if they were God.

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.....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. (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)
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. (Ephesians 5:22-24)
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 (1 Corinthians 11:2-9)

In the passage below we see that the Old Testament writer makes it clear that agreements entered into by the wife can be cancelled if the husband disapproves; once again the Bible places women in a subservient position. The man is the master of the women; the woman has little control over her life.

If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. (Numbers 30:10-12)

Blaming women for the fall of man, and assuming that women are not bright enough to make informed decisions, is just what one would expect from men--and gods--who believe that women are inferior to men; it's also what one would expect from anyone who accepts the teachings in Genesis, where we find God's writers telling us that the woman was created from man to be just a helper to man. It sort of reminds you of the modern-day cloning of body parts to be used as replacements. In Adam's case, part of him was cloned to create a being which would make it possible for him to reproduce himself.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)...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. (Timothy 2:11-12)

If a widow has no one to take care of her and is under the age of 60 years, the people shall not take care of her because it's to be expected that she will marry again. Furthermore, such women can be expected to be busybodies and gossipers, because (or so the Bible writers apparently believed), that's just the way young widows are. Thus, Paul, alleged to be the founder of Christianity, is seen stereotyping women negatively. Is this the attitude of a man who believes that women are his equal?

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate....Let [her not] be taken [care of] under threescore years old..... [these] younger widows... will marry...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. (1 Timothy 5:5-13)

The choice seems clear: those who believe--indeed, know--that the woman is not inferior to man cannot also believe that the Bible is the word of God; one of the beliefs has to be given up.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

26

how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist in

i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.

how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.

i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.

JosephAlward

There are other politically incorrect teachings in the Bible besides the one on homosexuality; women's rights advocates have struggled mightily over the past few years to make it seem that the god of the Bible held women in as high esteem as men, but their fight is larely in vain. Few teachings in the Bible are clearer than the one that holds that man was intended to be the head of the woman, and that man's judgement in all matters is superior to that of women. I'll raise this issue in a separate thread.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

26

how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist in

i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.

how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.

i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.

JosephAlward

Andee writes,

I know of many gay men that ARE NOT effeminate.

Until recently, in their naivete, most people thought all homosexuals were outwardly effeminate; Paul was likely more naive than even the most naive among us, given the time in which he lived. Thus, to him, all homosexuals were effeminate; he was wrong, of course, but he was wrong about God having condemned women to a position of subservience, too.

simwitness writes,

Soft in the Feminine sense = homosexual" ?? And you make that leap by 3 other places where it refers to soft clothes?

I mentioned the soft clothes only to help explain how in the world malakos clothes could be consistent with a malakos man, which is translated as "effeminate" in the 1 Corinthians passage. The principal word used for "effeminate" in Greek is malakos. To confirm this, go to the site at

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek

and enter the word "effeminate." You will find that the overwhelming most common Greek word used to represent "effeminate" is malakos.

Dungbeetle,

There is no way around the fact that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is to be condemned. Just as feminists have been struggling to convince themeselves that their Bible and their god wants them to be church deacon and to lead men, so do homosexuals who love their Bible and their god want to believe that their god approves of homosexual practices. Few teachings in the Bible are more clear than those which teach that women are inferior to men, and homosexuality is to be condemned. Paul teaches that homosexuals will not go to heaven, and there's just no getting around that. One must either accept that the Bible is wrong--which I believe it is, or else one must accept that homosexuals won't go to heaven.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

26

how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist in

i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.

how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.

i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.

JosephAlward

Dungbeetle asks,

Now, can anyone find a Greek Septuagent anywhere online by any chance?

The Septuagint will be of no help with 1 Corinthians 6:9; if you want to see the Greek for that passage, here it is, from the Blue Letter Bible:

Eido ou hoit adikos kleronomea ou kleronomeo basileia theos?...[Oute] pornos oute eidololatres oute moichos oute malakos.
I know you don't want to look at the English translation, Dungbeetle, but I'll provide it for those who are not as Greek-capable are you are:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate.(1 Corinthians 6:9)

The word malakos appears four times in the Bible; three of the times it refers to softness of clothes; the other time it is appears in this passage, referring to an effeminate person, one who is soft is the feminine sense, in other words, gay.

Thus, it is clear that Paul is claiming that homosexual men will not enter the basileia theos (kingdom of God).

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

26

how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist in

i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.

how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.

i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.

JosephAlward

Dungbeetle wrote,

Adonai438...everything you said regardinmg homosexuality and the Bible is wrong.

I think you're wrong, Dungbeetle. The Bible, which I believe is filled with false teachings of men, and is not the word of any god, contains a number of verses which make it clear that the writer is opposed to homosexual relationships. Paul, for example, taught that effeminate men would not go to heaven:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (1 Corinthians 6:9)

I believe the Bible is even more clear on the issue of women in church, and the headship of men over women: no teaching in the Bible is clearer, I believe, than the one which holds that the woman is never to be the one who guides men, or teaches them. This is not to say that I believe this is the way it should be--I don't, but this is what the Bible teaches. This is one more reason to believe that the Bible is not the word of a god.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html