Women in the Bible.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Now, in the context of our roles as humans, male and female, we are not so equal.
Why? To do his will, that's why"

tell me please, what are those roles? and do you think men and women should be treated differentely because of that?

The Bible speaks plainly about what our roles are.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way? It appears to be absolving Adam (and thus all men) of any guilt in the garden of eden and placing the blame on Eve (and thus all women).
I am interested in:
1. Am I understanding Paul correctly?
2. Does anyone here agree / disagree with him.
3. Are the actions of Adam or Eve any ...[text shortened]... en in general?
4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?

Adam knew full well what he was doing.

Eve was deceived.

The correct interpretation is that Adam is the one responsible. God spoke directly to Adam with the command, and placed him in the garden to; "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The point isn't whether or not you view women as inferior to men, but whether or not Paul's teachings demonstrate a view that women are inferior to men.

Whether or not the word "inferior" appears on the verses is irrelevant.

From Merriam-Webster
in·fe·ri·or
1 : situated lower down : lower

Paul taught that women are to quietly and submissively ...[text shortened]... hy.

Clearly this demonstrates a view that women are lower than, hence inferior to, men.

It's not so much your interpretation I disagree with, but the application.

What the Bible says is true. What a man says the Bible says is another thing.

Basically, without applying a negative connotation to it, what Paul is teaching is that men are to hold the positions of leadership as it directly relates to church governance, just as he teaches men to be the leader in the home.

Just like it was from the beginning of time.

But of course you think it's bigotry. You got the wrong mind set.

Originally posted by Badwater
[b]I find this interesting. Does anyone else interpret genesis in this way?

I don't, but that's not the point. Paul is stating in no uncertain terms that's how he interprets the Genesis story.

4. Does the punishment given by God in genesis apply unequally to men and women?

No. Paul is conveniently overlooking that the punishment meted ou ...[text shortened]... of sin - it is a human condition, and a condition that is shared equally between the sexes.[/b]

"Paul is only human and reflecting the bias of his time."

No. Paul is teaching what he received from Jesus, and it is completely in accordance with the entire Word of God.

Originally posted by josephw
...

The correct interpretation is that Adam is the one responsible. God spoke directly to Adam with the command, and placed him in the garden to; "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Maybe accoding to the second creation story, but not the first one. This is also an errant interpretation; as errant as Paul's.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Paul is only human and reflecting the bias of his time."

No. Paul is teaching what he received from Jesus, and it is completely in accordance with the entire Word of God.[/b]

Paul's teaching is not solely from Jesus, nor is he immune to his humanity or the sociological and political goings-on of the time he lived. Your insistence otherwise is quite naive.

Originally posted by Badwater
Maybe accoding to the second creation story, but not the first one. This is also an errant interpretation; as errant as Paul's.

Really? Two creation stories?

One creation, but two stories. Care to explain how that works?

Originally posted by Badwater
Paul's teaching is not solely from Jesus, nor is he immune to his humanity or the sociological and political goings-on of the time he lived. Your insistence otherwise is quite naive.

But we're not talking about socio-politcal goings-on. We're talking about what God's Word the Bible has to say about the topic we're discussing.

Apparently you have the same opinions about Paul as does TOo.

What is it about Paul that rankles you so much?

Originally posted by josephw
Adam knew full well what he was doing.

Eve was deceived.

The correct interpretation is that Adam is the one responsible. God spoke directly to Adam with the command, and placed him in the garden to; "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

So was Paul interpreting Genesis wrong? If not, then what am I missing because you seem to be in total contradiction to Paul.

Originally posted by josephw
Really? Two creation stories?

One creation, but two stories. Care to explain how that works?

Well a lot of Christians do not take them to be factual accounts.
On the other hand we have one Jesus and four stories. How does that work?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Paul is only human and reflecting the bias of his time."

No. Paul is teaching what he received from Jesus, and it is completely in accordance with the entire Word of God.[/b]

says who? paul says that what he says is actually coming from jesus. you don't see anything wrong with this?

Originally posted by josephw
Really? Two creation stories?

One creation, but two stories. Care to explain how that works?

at least one is incorrect. it works.

Originally posted by josephw
Really? Two creation stories?

One creation, but two stories. Care to explain how that works?

You'll have to read Genesis. It's very basic - there are two creation stories and they are nearly diametrically opposed. We learn that in seminaries, you know.

Originally posted by josephw
But we're not talking about socio-politcal goings-on. We're talking about what God's Word the Bible has to say about the topic we're discussing.

Apparently you have the same opinions about Paul as does TOo.

What is it about Paul that rankles you so much?

But we are talking about the socio-political goings on. Why are the Epistles so very different from one another? Different cities, different socio-political goings on.

I have nothing against Paul. I just don't think Paul, for a moment, thought that his advice to different early Christian groups, in the interest of getting the infant Christian movement going, would be construed as THE WORD OF GOD. It's not the word of God, it's an early Christian trying to nudge along his movement. Too often what he writes seems to supercede the master, Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by Badwater
But we are talking about the socio-political goings on. Why are the Epistles so very different from one another? Different cities, different socio-political goings on.

I have nothing against Paul. I just don't think Paul, for a moment, thought that his advice to different early Christian groups, in the interest of getting the infant Christian movement go ...[text shortened]... long his movement. Too often what he writes seems to supercede the master, Jesus of Nazareth.

Maybe sometime we can get into it in more depth.

I have an entirely different take on Paul as well as Bible interpretation.

Too often this forum is dominated by atheists vs. theists and real spiritual debate between believers doesn't occur.

Of course I don't want to fight about it. But a good debate may produce some good results.