Is The bible "Anti female?" Done with "male agenda/bias?"

I think the best course is to translate the inspired word such that it says what the original said, and therefore to not adulterate God's word on the alter of political correctness.

But on the other hand, I think we need to carefully study how the Bible treats women and make sure we actually understand the message. To buy into the assumptions and assertions of the past, which evolved in patriarchal societies would be to read our prejudices into the text.

 

It's like in heaven, there is no male or female. Scripture is spiritual, like heaven, but tries to communicate in our terms, to get us to think and respond in His terms.

 

Article VIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that “God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared” and denies “that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.”

… related to this may be the writers perceive the role of women in their society.

The author’s cultural norms could be incorporated into his worldview and would flow into the words that were written in scripture.

We filter (interpret) the scripture we read through our own cultural lens.

Rob

 

I think the response to the question may be a tad esoteric. Paul wrote the qualifications for elders saying "men" of such and such a qualification. Now are we to assume "men" means women may not serve in leadership roles that exercise authority over men? I think that is the majority view. But is that what God was really saying?

 

Absolutely not. It's a completely bankrupt interpretation.

I agree with this very much.

Oh, and the "gender inclusive" Bible translations should be called, "gender accurate." There is no need to say "man" when the Bible means "male and female persons."

 

What is the non bankrupt interpretation of:

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. (NIV 1 Cor 11:3-11)

 

When was the biblical doctrine of "headship submission" ever a bankrupt item?

 

I'll be teaching this passage in a few weeks.

This is sort of off topic but I found a strange artlcle a while back that concerns this passage.

Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15

I only mention it hear for the comments it might bring. Have fun!

Rob

 

I think the idea is that a mistaken understanding of scripture is worthless, i.e. bankrupt. I was responding to post #7, and was looking for someone to present what they see as a valid interpretation that does not place women under the authority of men. I am well aware of the majority view, but I think we need to evaluate views that suggest the majority might be missing the message.

 

In my opinion, the majority are ignoring a very important part of biblical interpretation: the historical and cultural setting. They fail to see the difference between the biblical audience and us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hi Jim1999, I agree that many of the gender inclusive changes seem sound given the culture that referred to males when the message applies to both genders. I would not change the translation but add in italics "and women" so we would know both what the text said and what the well studied translators thought it meant.

But to dismiss what Paul says as a mistaken view because of his cultural bias seems to challenge the idea that all scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction, etc.

 

All scripture is "inspired" in context. Rememer,Paul was dealing with women taking over leadership in false religions and introducing this idea into the local church. He was correcting that. They shaved the heads of those cultists and he told the church women to keep their hair long as a glory....Remember, that even Paul supported female deacons in other verses.

Women played crucial roles in the Old Testament as they did in the early church history.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I do not think too many believers do not accept the idea that women can function as deacons, and carry out the ministry of the body, i.e training children and care giving. The problem appears when it is said scripture supports women having authority over men.

If we interprete 1 Corinthians 11:3-11 as saying if a woman prays in church without her head being covered, she is the same as a Pagan religious nut, that still does not get us past the idea of women being under the authority of men.

How about Ephesians 5:22-33? If a married woman exercised authority over her husband, as in becoming a leader in the church, would that not violate scripture? How about a unmarried or widowed lady, could she exercise authority over men because none are her husband?

In 1 Peter 3:1-6 we see quiet respectful behavior advocated as an outreach to disobediant husbands, but not the exercise of authority as a pastor exercising discipline.

Can we nullify Titus 1:6 and add "and women" and change husband/wife to "having one spouse?" Or is that a bridge too far?

 

Think that while SOME of the bibles must be view in light of the historical setting, would sday that the Apostle paul teachings concerning women and men are valid in all setting, were biblical principles to be applied throughout the times forward from NT times...

there is both equaility and subordination within the Godhead, and that is the image for us to follow today...

There is headship/submission in the Bible for us, time;ess principles to follow, so think the majority indeed got it right this time!

 

Think that the "Bottom Line" to this discussion area is that the Bible indded teaches both headship/submission, as the trinity themselves practice both equality/subordination within God Himself!

 

It seems that so many are not taught that but I have not heard anyone who is a believer talk about the heavens in our society as Paul did in his. The first church had female deacons but they served a different role than so many seem to think. They led and cared for the women and children.

 

I never witnessed any of this, but my dad, and others, told me that they can remember women leading prayer in ORB and UB churches. They don't do so now, but they did at a prior time.

 

In about 125 the world recorded that the church called them deaconesses.