Answer The Bible Studying Guy.

[Navigator]

capacitor:

I have one: why is there so much misogyny in the Bible:

Better question, why is there not more?

1. the missing name of Noah’s wife, the second mother of all humankind, as well as many women;

The culture in the Bible tracked generations by the male of the family, and that was kept fairly well. But in the geneology of Jesus we find the names of Ruth (a simple widow of another people, that returned to Israel to serve her widowed mother-in-law), and Rahab (a harlot that his Hebrew spies prior to the destruction of Jehrico). The wives of all the Patriarchs are mentioned, as is the wife of Moses, who wasn’t even a Hebrew. Two books of the Bible are named after Women, and one doesn’t even mention ‘God’ in the text (the Book of Esther).

2. the allowance of husbands having multiple wives but not vice versa;

That men had more than one wife is true, that is was allowed is a stretch. God consistently portrayed marriage as a ‘one man, one woman’ thing. David’s downfall was because of his straying eye, as was Solomon’s. Because something happened in the text, doesn’t mean it was allowed or even condoned.

3. the explicit verses that indicate that women are to submit to their husbands

Just prior to that is a verse that says, ‘submit to one another, as is pleasing to the Lord’ The culture at the time pretty much let the male of the family rule over his house, this mutual submission was a radical idea at the time. Also read Proverbs 31, to see the picture of a Biblical wife.

4. “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (2 Timothy 2:12, Revised Standard)

A much disputed passage. Not for what it says, but for the context in which it was said. Timothy’s pastorage was in the Ephesus/Cornith region, where the false teaching at the time had converted a number of female women who were radical in their belief’s. Additionally the culture in that region had many ‘women of the night’ that dressed and acted differently than the majority of the women. This difference was what Paul was combatting, and by stating a ‘dress code’ and a ‘worship order’ he combatted the false teachings in the region.

All that said the early church did have females in leadership roles. Which was totally against the popular culture as I have read.

An interesting article on the Topic: Women in the Heart of God

HTH
This disturbing omission of important women, as well as the scripural commands to women to submit authority to men, seem inconsistent to the relative egalitarian history of Jews. This is the main reason why I’m not a Christian today.
**
[/QUOTE]

[Navigator]

whoops… that bottom portion shuld be quoted and placed before my last line with the link. Sorry.

Peace.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I have nothing to add to CMK’s comments on the serpent, etc. The conversation between Eve and the serpent is worth reading carefully; notice how the serpent tries different approaches, to see which one will work. This is NOT as simple a story as it appears on the surface.

Also, may I suggest that the question of Bible attitudes towards women be put into a different topic? This topic is getting long and complex enough on its own; and the topic of the role of women in the Bible is worthy of a separate thread. Please?

[lastgasp]

So it would logically follow that God is accountable for the existence of evil, as he created (and blessed ironically prior to the dissension) the serpent, and also created a capacity for sin in humans. Of course the usual interpretation is that humanity is cursed for eating the fruit and consequently they themselves are responsible for their banishment from paradise. Yet at the very least, the existence of the serpent comes before the creation of man, so therefore evil was already lurking in the weeds. The important point though is that the serpent (Satan/…) is an inferior creation of God’s; in a dualistic system, we would not have this problem.

I see two answers to this problem. The first being that God is imperfect, in that he did not have complete control over his creation. Or, that in a circuitous way, this was God’s intention all along, thus implying a certain importance, if nothing else, for the existence of evil in the world. Either way, there’s no scarcity of ramifications. Any thoughts on this one?

[cmkeller]

lastgasp:

This question is one that has been debated numerous times on this board. I’ll summarize the answer, but for finer points, I’d recommend doing a thorough search before posting more to this thread. At the very least, if you can’t find those other threads, please post the question as a seperate thread, as it has little to do with this subject. Now, that summary:

G-d is not imperfect. He does not lack control over his creation because he’s not able to control them (implying imperfection). He created man with the capacity for free will because he wanted to create free-will creatures. Part of the exercise of free will involves temptation to go either way…if one choice is completely pointless, then not choosing it is not an exercise of will, it’s merely the clear choice. Thus, you are correct that the potential for evil plays an important role in the grand scheme of things.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[lastgasp]

I think the existence of evil is of vast importance to Gen 3, but for the sake of diplomacy, I’ll make it quick.

What about the existence of the snake? Presumably God created it in Gen 1:21 and then subsequently blessed it as he did all of his creations. As of yet man was not created. So if we assume God is not imperfect, than he created the serpent (and evil) with some higher goal in mind.

What I was going after was that typically the accountability for evil in the world is blamed on humans for their original sin. Yet clearly evil predates the existence of humans (as above). So why did he create the serpent?

[cmkeller]

Now I understand. Here’s the scoop (according to Orthodox Jewish tradition):

The snake, like all creatures, was created for man’s use. Snakes are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. It was intended that man use the snake, in its original form, for a good purpose. What that is I can’t be 100% sure, but heck, I’m not sure what the purpose of the duck-billed platypus is either.

When Satan was doing his job to test Adam and Eve as to whether they’d act good or evil, he felt the snake would be the ideal creature through which to convince them. Apparently, he was right. However, this does not mean that the snake was intended specifically for the purpose of evil.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Demo]

Thank you, everyone. Your discussion is fascinating and a wonderful companion to my reading.

agiasofia, clean the aisle with her tongue? ::gasp:: I realized what confession was, but the overwhelming emphasis on guilt was what turned me away. What can I say, I was a guilty little kid.

Anyway, I have some more questions for you:

Gen 6.4 speaks of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of en” giving birth to “giants”. That brought back something I read as a kid and expected to see here, but didn’t. A friend of the family gave me a “Book of Bible Stories”(Mormon) when I was a kid, so it might have come from there: That the sons of God were angels, not men. Hence, the giants. Anyway, I’d like some input on that.

Second, how much is a cubit?

Third is about incest. I didn’t get too much from the Cain’s Wife thread. I mean, even Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. What’s the story on that?

[Navigator]

cubit: IIRC, distance from elbow to tips of fingers ~ 18 inches.

I’ll dig up some stuff on the ‘sons of God’ fer ya…

[cmkeller]

Democritus:

Gen 6.4 speaks of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of en” giving birth to “giants”. That brought back something I read as a kid and expected to see here, but didn’t. A friend of the family gave me a “Book of Bible Stories”(Mormon) when I was a kid, so it might have come from there: That the sons of God were angels, not men. Hence, the giants. Anyway, I’d like some input on that.

My understanding of the Jewish commentaries on that verse is that there are two different interpretations:

1. As you heard, the “sons of G-d” refer to angels. The angels saw how wicked man was being, and told G-d he should destroy them. G-d told them to have some understanding; if they had human passions and temptations, they wouldn’t do any better. The angels told G-d they would and that he should test them, so he sent them to Earth with the human capacity for temptation, and sure enough, they succumbed, giving rise to a race of giants.

2. The phrase you have found translated as “sons of G-d” is actually intended to mean “sons of the mighty” (the Hebrew word “E-lo-him,” usually used to refer to G-d, can also mean anyone in a position of power). This verse is describing how the mighty amongst the humans abused their positions of power and took advantage of many women, bearing powerful and physically large children, who came to be considered giants.

Second, how much is a cubit?

A cubit is the measure of an arm’s lengthm from shoulder to fingertip, of an average person. Jewish scholars are not 100% certain exactly what the standard measure was, but the estimates are all between 18 and 22 inches.

Third is about incest. I didn’t get too much from the Cain’s Wife thread. I mean, even Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. What’s the story on that?

Well, Cain was a special case, and should be ignored when it comes to general discussion of pre-Sinai incest rules. Also, Sarah was actually not even Abraham’s half-sister, but his niece; however, it was common at the time (and even much later) to colloquially refer to grandparents as parents, or to grandchildren as children (hence, when Abraham tells Pharaoh that Sarah is the daughter of his father and not of his mother, he actually means she id the granddaughter of his father). Now, regarding that general issue of incest: my understanding (though I could be wrong, and I invite correction from others) is that the sibling incest prohibited by Noahide laws only applies to full siblings, not to half siblings. (It is only by Israelite law, from the time of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, that even half-siblings are not allowed to get it on.) This difference between Noahide law and later Torah law is also why it was permitted for Jacob to marry two sisters; by the laws that applied at the time, it was not yet forbidden.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Navigator]

Sons of Gods:

Three schools of thought
[ul][li]Cosmologically mixed races: Angels breeded with humans to produce the ‘Nephilim’.[/li][li]Religiously mixed races: Godly Sethite line, breeded with the ungodly Cainite line, producing the ‘Nephilim’.[/li][li]Sociological mixed line: Despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners.[/ul][/li]
Which ever theory you accept the bottom line is the progeny of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ were adversely affected from the mix, and so it was that God grieved over the increased wickedness on planet Earth. Every inclination of the hearts and thoughts of humanity was evil. (Source: Hard Sayings of the Bible)

a web source: Who were the Sons of God?

HTH

[Gaudere]

Chaim:

A cubit is the measure of an arm’s lengthm from shoulder to fingertip, of an average person. Jewish scholars are not 100% certain exactly what the standard measure was, but the estimates are all between 18 and 22 inches.

Shoulder to fingertip? Either you misspoke, or early man was shorter than we have evidence of them being. I’m 5’3" and my shoulder-to-fingertip measure is 25", measuring from the armpit to the middle finger. I’ve always heard, as Nav says, that it’s elbow to fingertip–approx. 17" on me–which would probably place the average male, even back then when the average height was shorter than now, in the 18" to 22" range .

[cmkeller]

My mistake…elbow it is.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**Democritus:
Well, Cain was a special case, and should be ignored when it comes to general discussion of pre-Sinai incest rules. Also, Sarah was actually not even Abraham’s half-sister, but his niece; however, it was common at the time (and even much later) to colloquially refer to grandparents as parents, or to grandchildren as children (hence, when Abraham tells Pharaoh that Sarah is the daughter of his father and not of his mother, he actually means she id the granddaughter of his father). Now, regarding that general issue of incest: my understanding (though I could be wrong, and I invite correction from others) is that the sibling incest prohibited by Noahide laws only applies to full siblings, not to half siblings. (It is only by Israelite law, from the time of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, that even half-siblings are not allowed to get it on.) This difference between Noahide law and later Torah law is also why it was permitted for Jacob to marry two sisters; by the laws that applied at the time, it was not yet forbidden.

Chaim Mattis Keller **

Chaim,

You are correct. A paternal half-sibling is permitted for marriage, according to Noahide law. A maternal half-sibling, however, is not.

Zev Steinhardt

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *

5.5 Adam lived 930 years? Is this a certain part of Adam’s lineage or actually him? What is this meant to convey?

It is intended to refer specifically to Adam. While there might be some greater significance to the number that I’m not aware of, I think most of the numbers in Genesis 5 are intended merely to demonstrate that human lifespans were a lot longer prior to the flood than following it, indicating a wide-ranging change in nature due to the flood.

**

Chaim,
I might have this wrong, but I think I remember a tradition that says that Adam was supposed to live a thousand years, but he knew (from eating the fruit of the tree?), that King David would have died at birth, so he asked G-d to take 70 years from him and give it to David.

[cmkeller]

You are correct, that is one story mentioned in the Midrash.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[tomndebb]

Incidentally, I went to a Catholic school myself for awhile, and I must say I find this idea of salvation through faith and works to be baffling. I can only assume it was put in place while the masses couldn’t read the Bible themselves, and served to increase the power of the Church Administration.

So James did not really write anything that is Scripture? Jesus was simply speaking to abet the acquisition of political power among Church leaders?

People can read the New Testament (particularly Romans, of course) and come to different conclusions. It is not necessary to simply treat every disagreement as having been rooted in greed or power or corruption.

[Chewie]

I know that James said that faith without works is dead, and also that Jesus said “Be ye perfect, as I am perfect” or something like that. My point is that while we are called to a standard, we are not saved by attaining it.
If we honestly have faith, then our lives will bear witness to that faith. It will show in our actions. However our relationship with God does not depend on our actions, but rather the other way around.
At the catholic school I went to, I was also informed, by a history teacher, that Queen Elizabeth the 1st, was also known as the Whore of England. Apparently she also practised witchcraft, and was probably dancing naked on the beach, drinking the blood of virgins, when the Spanish Armarda was sunk.
This all stemmed from her evil plan, cunningly disguised as a compromise between catholics and no-catholics, to do something evil.
I firmly believe, and have been told so by more liberal catholic clergy, that a fair bit of doctrine laid down in the middle ages was aimed at secular, rather than spiritual goals. Particularly the goal of increasing the power of the clergy over all others.

[tomndebb]

“Look at these Christians. See how they love one another.”

In addition to some libels against Elizabeth, it is also true that a priest wrote a rather scurrilous “biography” of Luther in which he portrayed Luther as morally corrupt and an utter hypocrite who did not even believe his own “rantings.” The text of the “biography” was being cited in Catholic schools even into this century. Absolutely shameful.

Of course, Jack Chick doesn’t have the brains to actually invent the lies he tells about Catholicism and most of those tall tales he has stolen from his equally hate-filled Catholic-bashing predecessors among the Protestant troops. (There is/was a bible handbook in print as recently as the 1980’s in the appendix of which I found the religious wars of Mary and Elizabeth against their own people told from a purely anti-Catholic viewpoint–including a number of outright falsehoods.)

While there is no question that many laws were created to support the temporal power of the RCC, there is no Doctrine that I have found that arose from those abuses. (For example, the abuses regarding Indulgences against which Luther originally protested were actually violations of Church law–such as simony–not Catholic Doctrine.)

The RCC does not actually teach that people can save themselves through works–much as that is a popular view in some circles. The RCC’s position is rather closer to the one that you laid out: The response of faith to God’s Salvation must be demostrated in works. Man cannot save himself, but having been saved in love, man is required to respond with love for his fellow man.

[jmullaney]

Even Jesus said – “whoever has faith in me shall do works”

(he also said about sola scripturist’s that they neither know the scriptures nor the power of God)

Still confused by the people who think Paul knew better than J.C. …