Why the Bible Has a Poor View of Women!

What a croc of bull. Why would you post something so stupid.

Fireman,

The fact that King James was a h o m o sexual is pretty well known.  Why do you have such vehemence towards historical fact?

Jesus (if he existed at all) was probably a homo, too.  Is something wrong with that? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if Jesus actually took upon himself the sins of all men right before he died like the bible says-then he too was g ay.  If christians are gonna believe all that 'literal and inerrant' stuff, then they need to believe ALL of it, not just the parts that they like.

Sounds like 'Fireman' there's gettin' a lil' bit dry. It is almost the weekend and he needs to be watered again.

Hi B50,

You have chosen a web site hosted by a homosexual whom, it seems, would claim Lassie to be homosexual if he thought it would advance his homosexual agenda.  In my personal library I have, and have read, the well written book "A Crown For Elizabeth" --  a history of the Tudor family written by Mary M. Luke, a well respected writer and historian who has written numerous books on the Tudor period of England.  Neither in that book, nor any other that I have read, have I found ANY inference or reference to  homosexuality.   Now, I am not saying there was none.  However, why is it that a blatant homosexual is the only one waving that  flag over the House of Tudor?

And, B, why are you using this to imply that God and the Bible are anti-woman?   Even if King James did not like women, or was homosexual, neither of which I have not found in the materials I have read -- he did not translate the Bible into English himself.  He only instigated the effort at the urging of many Protestant church leaders of that day.

This will tell you more about the King James Bible translation:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ENGLISH BIBLE HISTORY
http://www.greatsite.com/timel...glish-bible-history/

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.  The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568.  They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary.  However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.)  Essentially,  the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars.  They took  into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and  even the Rheims New Testament.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

B, regardless of how King James or any other man feels or felt about women -- God loves us all equally.  Yet, just as the Trinity has a chain of authority: God the Father, then Jesus Christ the Son, then the Holy Spirit -- so, too, does God and the Bible have a chain of authority in spiritual matters and the spiritual family.  In the order of the spiritual family, the man is the spiritual leader, i.e., the head of the home and the family.  This, in no means, implies that the man is superior to the woman -- only that, in spiritual matters,  the man is the head of the family.

A country, a company, and a family -- cannot run smoothly with multiple presidents.  In a well run organization, there is one leader.   And, in the spiritual family, God has designated that to be the man of the family.  This is why we always find that the first sin of disobedience was the sin of Adam -- even though Eve was the one misled.  We are told that we have the Adamic sin nature, not the Eve sin nature.  Why?  Because Adam was the head of the family and the burden of spiritual guidance and guilt fell upon his  shoulders.

But, honest, B -- God loves us all equally.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Was he g a y?? Did you see how that dude dressed??

Now, that, my Friend -- is the level of intelligent response I have grown to expect from our atheist Friends.   You know, just forget facts, history, etc. -- just pop out those atheist "cutesy comments."  Never mind that they, in themselves, make no sense.   Just throw them out!  Yes, my Friend, you surely must make your atheist team proud!

What is that old saying, "Throw enough 'stuff' against the wall -- and hope that some sticks!"  Well, my Friend, those "cutesy comments" just do not seem to have the sticking power.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

A croc, i think not.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/.../king_james_***.html


How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.

Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. "The king leans on his [Carr's] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others." (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611)

Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, "I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me." (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)
- Skip Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...t_Duke_of_Buckingham

1st_Duke_of_Buckingham


He was born in Brooksby, Leicestershire, in August 1592, the son of the minor gentleman Sir George Villiers (1550–1604). His mother, Mary (1570–1632), daughter of Anthony Beaumont of Glenfield, Leicestershire, who was left a widow early, educated him for a courtier's life, sending him to France with Sir John Eliot.

George Villiers took very well to the training set by his mother; he could dance well, fence well, and speak a little French. In August 1614, Villiers, reputedly "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England",[3] was brought before the king, in the hope that the king would take a fancy to him, diminishing the power at court of then favourite Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset.
[edit] Court life

Following Villiers' introduction to James during the king's progress of that year, the king developed a strong affection for Villiers, calling him his "sweet child and wife"; the personal relationships of James are a much debated topic, with Villiers making the last of a succession of favourites on whom James lavished affection and rewards. The extent to which there was a sexual element, or a physical sexual relationship, involved in these cases remains controversial. Villiers reciprocated the King's love and wrote to James: "I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had" and "I desire only to live in the world for your sake". Restoration of Apethorpe Hall in 2004–2008 revealed a previously unknown passage linking his bedchamber with that of James.[4]

And, B, why are you using this to imply that God and the Bible are anti-woman?   Even if King James did not like women, or was homosexual, neither of which I have not found in the materials I have read -- he did not translate the Bible into English himself.  He only instigated the effort at the urging of many Protestant church leaders of that day.

Bill, the Bible is anti-women and you know it as well as I do. King James would gather all the people together he wanted to make a Bible, and they would be willing to alter a word or two here or there to find favor with the King. Now I  can't prove it, and you will swear God directed it, but any time something is done by a committee, it's heavily influenced. Women would  be slightly better than slaves at the time, worth less than the pack animals I would guess, so naturally there is no place of authority for women in religion.

But, here we have to agree to disagree. For if God did want a perfect Bible, He would have produced one.

Oh, for chrissakes.  Are the words g a y and h o m o s e x u a l forbidden here?  I find this funny.

DF

Yeah DF. For such a progressive country and a forum of free thinking, you cannot use any term related to same s e x interest. One giant leap for man ..... backwards.

Yep. You can't type ***, ****, or *** **** either!

Mind you the following is my opinion based upon my personal beliefs and I realize is not respective of other Christians.  Not being a women I can't be as sensitive as ladies as to perceptions of what various versions of the Bible say.  I will admit that a large part of the Bible is documentation of history and specifically involving Israel and the Jews.  It also is no secret that women then, as today in many parts of the world, are not held in high esteem when compared to their male counterparts or husbands.  A great part of this is politics and passed down from centuries ago. 

One thing I do wonder about perceptions is are they accurate when it comes to what the Scriptures say specifically about women and the relationship between a woman and a man?  I do know that from reading the gospels and New Testament that Jesus Christ relationship to women was respectful and in no way would I consider it demeaning to women.  He specifically stood in the way between men who wanted to condemn and punish a woman caught in sin and spoke up on her behalf.  Much of Christ personal ministry was unto women.  The same could not be said with respect to the priest and religious leaders of Christ times. 

I fully believe that under the "New Covenant" that in God's eyes women and men are considered equally and that in the next life, next realm, that there will be no male/female distinction as there exist today but we will be in glorified bodies which will be far different than our current fleshly bodies and of a nature that I believe we cannot conceive of with our human mind's limitations.

As for King James and his personal preferences I do not feel or believe that effected the word, structure, or translation of the version that carries his name.  Most of the newer, contemporary translations, are translations of original manuscripts and much the same materials that those who translated the King James versions used only today we have more information and many of the newer translations account for changes in the English language from the times of King James and take into account that some words in our vocabulary today are not actually accurate reflections of the meanings of the words used then.

Women were restricted to roles of little or no authority, largely confined to their father's or husband's home, considered to be inferior to men, & under their authority, either their father before marriage, or their husband afterwards.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm c. 2010 Religious Tolerance.org

______________________________________________________________________

Women in my Episcopal church have much more freedom in the US.

Even today men of a certain age-like bill- wouldn't put up with a woman that spoke her mind. I posted once about an old preacher that was on TV in Huntsville. One morning he was going at it and rared back and said he had a good old woman and she had always "minded him". That's the thinking most of them have, yet it seems funny to me that if they want to "rule the roost" shouldn't that include making all the money and supporting the wife and family? Why then do those women have jobs? I guess the "head of the house" feels like he is "allowing" her to help him support the household. 

____________________________________________________________________

The line to separate your post from mine should have been above your link. You made it look like that link was within my post & it wasn't.

Hi Jennifer,

You tell us, "Even today men of a certain age - like Bill - wouldn't put up with a woman that spoke her mind."

Believe it or not, even young fellows like me do like spirited women.  Before I left the Shoals/Sheffield area to see the world courtesy of Uncle Sam's Air Force, I had never met nor seen a Hispanic nor an Asian woman.  My first encounter with Hispanic women was in Texas during Air Force Basic Training -- and my Friend and I thought we had seen goddesses.  After that, and for many years, I would only date Hispanic women.  Why?  I liked their beauty and I admired their fiery, feisty spirit.

The first time I met an Asian was on the train from Alabama to Colorado for Air Force Tech Training.  I met and got to know a Chinese girl on her way from the East Coast to San Francisco.  Later, I was stationed on a Chinese Air Base in Formosa (Taiwan) and was fortunate to meet many of these lovely ladies.   However, the Chinese/Asian woman was too timid, too submissive, for my taste.

Some years later, I saw the movie "No Man Is An Island."  It is the true story of a U.S. sailor trapped on Guam when the Japanese invaded.  A Filipino family hid him in a cave and protected him for several years until the Americans returned.   During that time, he fell in love with the Filipino daughter, who was portrayed in the movie by Barbara Perez, called the Audrey Hepburn of the Philippines.

When I saw this movie, I told myself, "Self, that is the kind of woman you want to marry!"   Why?  Well, she has the fire of the Latina and the petite femininity of the Asian woman -- and the Filipino culture of "family" is very similar to our Southern ways.  All in all, this seemed like the perfect wife.

Fast forward about 15+ years -- and I met the perfect Filipina.  I met her coming from a real estate meeting -- and, after the first date -- there was no one else for me.  We have been happily married for 34 years.  Is she submissive?  Not really.  Is she loving, family oriented, and a great life partner?  You betcha!

So, I am truly sorry, Jennifer, to burst your bubble -- but, that's the way I role.

Then, you write, "I posted once about an old preacher that was on TV in Huntsville.  One morning he was going at it and reared back and said he had a good old woman and she had always 'minded him.'"

Yes, you can find folks like that in most every state and community.  We just pat them on the head and send them back to their kennel.

Next, you write, "That's the thinking most of them have,. . ."

Funny, you lump all Christians and all people of different age groups together -- and that is "them" and the way "they" think.  Yet, if anyone on the Forum lumps all atheists together and writes, "That is the way 'they' think!" -- you get upset.  Why?  Why can you lump all Christians and older folks into one "ugly group" -- and yet get upset when we lump all atheists together?  Just curious.

You continue, ". . .yet it seems funny to me that if they want to 'rule the roost' shouldn't that include making all the money and supporting the wife and family?  Why then do those women have jobs?  I guess the 'head of the house' feels like he is 'allowing' her to help him support the household."

Well, the Bible does tell us that man is the "spiritual head" of the family.  Yet, it does not speak of any division of work.  I suppose that more or less comes from physical abilities.

However, your accusation brings to mind a situation which occurred in the early 1970s.  I met a young lady who invited me to the Single Adults Group at the Garden Grove Community Church (which later became the Crystal Cathedral).   I became involved with this group and began to attend their meetings.  Instead of a weekly Bible study, they had a weekly "Talk It Over" (no Bibles in sight) and would alternate, weekly, between contemporary religious discussions and contemporary secular discussions.

We would meet as a group for refreshments and then break up into smaller groups for discussions.  One night our discussion focused on the issue of "should wives work?"   We were all in our late twenties/early thirties.  My position was that since the man and wife are equal partners (and back then our national economy was such that it did not require two incomes to support the typical family) -- it should be up to the wife to decide if she wants to work or not.

My first wife, Hispanic, did not work (her own choice) preferring to stay home with the children.  My wife today, Filipina, has always worked (she is a real estate broker) since this is her preference.  Some women are comfortable being a stay-at-home mom/wife --  other wives want/need to be out and involved in the work force.  Yet, assuming that family economics allow, it should be her choice.

When I expressed this feeling in the "Talk It Over" meeting, the man leading our group discussion became very angry, red in the face, and vehemently disagreed with me.  In his mind, wives should stay home and take care of the home.  Later, one of the ladies in the group who knew him better told me the whole story.  His wife had gone to work, had an affair, and they had divorced.   I felt bad for him -- but, I felt even worse for any woman he might later marry.

And, as I told the lady who knew him; if his first wife was inclined to cheat -- she would have regardless of whether she worked in the home or she worked in the public.  Many children have been sired by the delivery man.

The moral of the story:  Man and wife are equal partners -- and should make decisions together.  And, Jennifer, even when we encounter people such your "old preacher that was on TV in Huntsville" -- we should maybe cut them some slack.  We almost never know the full story behind their problem -- such as my young "Talk It Over" meeting group leader.

Jennifer, I pray that I have answered your questions sufficiently.  And, I pray that just because I have mention personal family in this post -- you will not take this as permission for an "open season" personal attack against my family.  I do appreciate your consideration and your civility in our discussions.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Nah, Beeg. It's just open season on you.

You're the only one here in your family telling everybody else how to live and die.

B50M you're making a "straw" arguement here!  You're saying that the bible has a "poor view of women" based on what?  Show me a scripture that supports your arguement.  Also, the fact that King James was or was not a h o m o s e x u a l has nothing to do with the title of your post.  He ordered the translation.  He did not write the Bible nor did he translate it.

Based on this straw woman   :

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/women.htm


It starts in the second account of creation... women were only created because Adam could not find a suitable wife (help meet) in the animals that God showed him.  On top of being second string to cattle and sheep, women were created from a spare rib of a man.  Woman needed man in order to exist.  (Genesis 2:20-22)


Even in the ten commandments women are portrayed as being the property of their husband.  In Exodus 20:17 it says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."  Yes sir, the wife ranks right there with the ox and ass.

Exodus 21:7-10 covers the rules of selling your daughter, her master making her marry him, and then her role if he wants more wives.

Exodus 22:16-17 is a real good one.  If a man sleeps with an unwed virgin, he must marry her.  But if her father refuses to give her to the man, then the man must pay the "pay money according to the dowry of virgins"...  i

It's not just women, female animals are not as good as male animals.  It is male animals that are to be burned for offerings.  (Leviticus 1:3, 1:10)  When a king sins, and needs to make a sacrifice he has to use a male goat, but when any old commoner sins, they have to use a female goat. (Leviticus 4:23, 4:28)

Leviticus chapter 12 is based on the purification of a woman after she has given birth.  Get this...  after a woman has given birth to a boy, she will be unclean for 7 days and must purify herself for 33 days.  If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean for 14 days and needs 66 days of purification.  Go figure.

Leviticus also touches on the treatment of female slaves and their male masters.  According to Leviticus 19:20-22, if a man rapes his female slave... the woman gets punished and the man's sins are forgiven

Women are even worth less in terms of their monetary value.  Here's a table of values as given by God in Leviticus 27:3-7.  $ = Shekels of silver

Ages 1 month - 5 years:  Male =  $5; Female = $3

Ages 5 years - 20 years:  Male = $20; Female = $10

Ages 20 years - 60 years:  Male = $50; Female = $30

Ages 60 and up:  Male = $15; Female = $10

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...hy+2&version=NIV
1 timothy 2
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Hi all,

My., my, it seems that our Friend, B50, is not only a New Age Wiccan (and also a Christian [?]  who does not attend church because it is full of hypocrite) -- but, now is a dedicated Feminist!   I am sure that Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Allred, and Hillary Clinton will be very proud of you, my Friend.

Who else finds it ironic that those who fight tooth and nail to put down God and Christianity -- will always turn to the Bible in their vain attempt to prove their point.   I am sure that God gets a chuckle out of this -- and, one day, WILL ask them to explain in more detail -- face to face with Him.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

well, at least you replied...

I don't have time to go through all your false arguements.  We were created in God's image...a man...not a woman and just because a woman should not teach men or lead men in the church does not mean that they are "lower" than men...they simply have different roles assigned by the Lord.  The main problem with your argument is that you exclude (or don't know) a lot of the scripture about women.  I consider myself blessed to have a wonderful husband to lead my family....it's quite liberating when I think of all the responsibility I am absolved of because it is HIS God given responsibility!  I'm no Biblical scholar or theologist but when reading the Bible you have to realize that it is inerrant...if it is inerrant then it can not be contradictory...you have to take the ENTIRE scripture into consideration.  You can't just take some random verses out of context that appear to be one way.  I pray that the Lord blesses you abundantly and will give you eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.

Here are a quick few that speak "highly" of women in the Bible!

"An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.  The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain.  She does him good and not evil All the days of her life.

She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight.  She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar.  She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens.

She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.  She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong.  She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night.

She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle.  She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy.  She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land.  She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.  Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future.

She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.  She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness.  Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:  'Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.'

Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.  Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates."Proverbs 31:10-31

 
“A kindhearted woman gains respect, but ruthless men gain only wealth.”Proverbs 11:16



“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.”Proverbs 18:22



“Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last; but a woman who fears the Lord will be greatly praised.”Proverbs 31:30



For man did not come from woman,
but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man..... In
the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of
woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything
comes from God. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9,11-12

JD

Hi JD (or whoever you are),

Actually, the one event which speaks most highly of God's respect for women -- is when Jesus Christ first resurrected.  The very first person allowed to see Him -- was a woman.  And, then, she ran to tell the men that our Savior has resurrected.  I would say that He has a very high regard for women.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Thats funny.  The Christian women is subjugate to all men.  Hence, the woman had to run and find a man to tell her what to do and think about a zombie problem.   

The first to see jesus depends on which version of the fairy tale you read.

**********************************************************************************************

LOL! You call that "speaking highly" of women?

Mostly Proverbs, JD, which is like the poetry section of the Bible. And all relate how the woman is there to serve man. She is doing the cooking, cleaning, making the clothes and feeding the poor while hubby is :

Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land.

So she is not known in the gates nor allowed to sit with the elders. Second class citizen.

Bill, I have always been for women's rights, you just never paid attention, because you also don't think women should speak or have a mind of their own.

In many churches today, women are not only teachers, but also leaders and clergy.  I have never been taught that women were less than men in the church. Not part of new age church, just an old Methodist.

That old Methodist is smarter than those fundamentalist churches.

Methodist is fundamentalist.

Right, she came from his rib, a bone! She was created for man cause he wasn't supposed to have sex with animals. A woman can't be dependent of herself, she has to have a man to lead her. He can't be independent of a woman cause she has to do all his dirty work that he shouldn't be expected to do. Man comes from woman cause a man can't take the pain & shouldn't be expected to. So says God.

Is that the same loving god that decided every woman born would have to suffer because of eve? That loving god?? Genesis 3:16

----------------------------------------

The most powerful influential person ever born of natural conception is

a woman.  Mary is her name.

.

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."^[1] The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University), The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

As an organized movement it began within Protestant churches—especially Baptist and Presbyterian—in the United States in the early 20th century. Many such churches adopted a "fighting style" and certain theological elements, such as Dispensationalism,^[2] but it is not an organized movement and has no national body or official statement.

That loving God CHOSE to save a host of sinners who deserved nothing but His righteous wrath and judgement!  Every good thing He has given to us is merciful grace!

Oh really? And just what did these "undeserving" sinners do?