Evidence for God from Science

Was anyone else left wondering about the apparent glancing over of certain sexist messages in the Bible while reading the article at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html ?

In particular, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 popped into my mind:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and becam a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

I guess for me it's not that big of a deal that it's in there, seeing as it's the word of Paul and not the word of God. Considering the common place of women when that was written I would be surprised if there weren't any sexist viewpoints in there, considering that the books were written by the hands of men, and not the Hand of God. Just wondering if anyone else had a particular reaction to that article...

Edited by Kurieuo: A2C's message was sincere and not necessarily out to make a mockery of Scripture, whereas there is an agenda at your link to the Skeptics Bible which is not appropriate for this board. Go elsewhere if you wish to push their same agenda. Thanks.

Athiest2Christian said :Was anyone else left wondering about the apparent glancing over of certain sexist messages in the Bible while reading the article at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html ?

Answer: Yes, I was.

<snip>

Regards,
Nick

A2C, this is certainly a hot topic across the entire theological board these days. First, though I understand your concern, I would caution you against separating between Paul's words and God's words. God speaks through men, and when it comes to Scripture, God spoke through the apostles specifically.

Now, more to the point, you cannot get around the obvious fact that there is sexism in the Bible. But, the question no one is asking is this: is that a bad thing? The assumed answer is yes, but that is not so obvious as it seems. Think about the electoral college in American government. It was designed because, two hundred years ago, most people were illiterate and it would have been absurd to have given them the ability to make major governmental decisions. It would be much like giving a child the right to vote today. They simply would not have known what they were doing! Suppose, now, that in a few hundred years that America is long gone and some historian comes across a discussion of the electoral college. In his country, no such thing exists as the people are well educated. Would he not be horrified at the thought that our forefathers thought it right to restrict our right to vote? "Well, there's discrimination in the Constitution!" he might say. And, he would be right. But, was it justified discrimination? The answer is a resounding "yes."

No, the truth of the matter is that women in the first century A.DA. did NOT have the same kind of role in society nor the same upbringing as they did today. Despite this, Christianity had an extremely liberating effect on first century women, but you know the old adage, "Give an inch, they take a mile." Remember that women were so disregarded in that culture that they were not even allowed to testify in court to an event they had seen. They were just considered THAT unreliable. Needless to say, their attendance (much less their participation in) worship was restricted. Try to imagine, now, what would happen if you come along and start declaring complete equality, as Paul did when he insisted that in Christ there was "neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28) Any quality commentary on the subject will give a very detailed discussion on the issue.

In any case, we see that the sexism of the Bible--in the sense of the restriction of women's roles in various areas--was one of necessity. That is, it was occasional, and not at all evil or bad or wrong. Sometimes, governments must declare Martial Law.

On something of a side note, let me also point out that, broadly, Christians may be divided as either "complimentarian" or "egalitarian." The former hold to the more traditional position that the man is the head of the women and is to serve her, and the women is to submit to the man. This, I state clearly, is my own position. The latter holds to a complete equality even in terms of roles and argues against any submission whatsoever. Stanley Grenz is a good example of a scholar who holds this position. From personal study, I would caution against this position as it inherently requires a reformulation of the Trinity into one in which no headship is found in the Father over the Son, and no submission, voluntary or not, is found in the Son to the Father. It is a dangerous position that is being very popularly advocated among a number of evangelicals today, but it has more than a few concerning repercussions. I should also note that a complimentarian perspective is in no way sexist in a negative sense, but sexist in a completely positive sense, for this position alone recognizes and exalts the differences between males and females as God made them, being careful to note that both are made in God's image. It is a position that, in truth, glorifies women especially. It is simply a fact of human nature, and depending on ones theological position part of the curse of womanhood, that feminism seeks to free women (and men) from their defined roles.

God bless

Athiest2Christian wrote:Was anyone else left wondering about the apparent glancing over of certain sexist messages in the Bible while reading the article at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html ?

In particular, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 popped into my mind:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and becam a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

I guess for me it's not that big of a deal that it's in there, seeing as it's the word of Paul and not the word of God. Considering the common place of women when that was written I would be surprised if there weren't any sexist viewpoints in there, considering that the books were written by the hands of men, and not the Hand of God. Just wondering if anyone else had a particular reaction to that article...

I realize this is a very old thread (2004), but I want to address the topic of sexism in the Bible. I also thought the article "glanced over" the main issue of women being treated differently than men in the Bible solely based on their gender. Here is one of my articles that I wrote awhile back on my blog that might be of interest to you, or anyone else reading this thread.


The topic of sexism in the Bible is one that needs to be explored from an angle that I think has been neglected to a large degree. Most of the focus seems to be on trying to justify, or reason away the bias and sexism that is rampant throughout the Bible in order to try and give women equal standing. As I have done in many of my articles on male bias, I am going to once again explore how Scripture is written from the mentality of the primitive male mindset that is focused on domination and control, and expose how that “thought pattern” is mapped onto the biblegod, Yahweh. My objective is not to slander the Christian religion, but rather to accurately show that the Bible is a book written from the minds of men who thought they were inspired by a masculine god they created and named Yahweh. This male-biased structure of the Bible becomes very apparent upon close inspection.

In most primitive societies male domination was a common form of rule, this was no different in the Bronze Age culture of the Bible as is made clear by the composition of its pages. From the very first book of the Bible, sexism rears its ugly head; in the second chapter of Genesis we read how the woman is made from man and for the man, then blamed for introducing sin into the human race, and consequently punished by the biblegod with the declaration that the man will rule over her…this all happens within the span of two chapters, and sets the stage for the entire Bible. Taking a careful look at what transpires in chapters two and three of Genesis one can easily see where the subsequent bias against women was conceived. As one progresses through the Bible, women’s human rights are quickly eroded away to the point of her becoming no more than a man’s property.

In the Bible:

1.Women were considered the property of the man.
2.Women were ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
3.Women do not share equal rights with men.
4.Women are considered inferior to men.
5.Progeny is carried through the loins of the male.
6.The biblegod is portrayed with “male” attributes.

These six points reveal an overarching sexism in Scripture that should not be ignored or reasoned away. My purpose in exposing this overwhelming male-bias is to bring attention to the negative affect the Bible has had on the lives of countless women and men throughout history. There is no need to reject the Bible completely, only to realize that this ancient book was conceived in the minds of men who thought they were inspired by a male-god they called Yahweh. From the perspective of primitive minds and ancient cultural traditions, men mapped their own misogynistic qualities onto the god they created in their own minds.

The sexism manifest in the Bible has been a huge detriment to the progression of women’s human rights in the world, and has in fact done nothing but hinder the cause of equality. Given all the blatant sexism that the Bible contains along with the many scientific errors, contradictions, immoralities, and outright falsehoods, one begins to wonder what positive use this book could possibly have. One will often hear that Christianity offers equality of gender and race in Christ, but fail to realize exactly what that equality really means. Verses like Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” have nothing to do with equality between the genders, but rather are referring to all humans being able to equally participate in salvation. The biblegod clearly lays out the roles that males and females are to have and there is definitely no equality of human rights between those roles. Until each individual realizes the freedom they have to pursue truth outside of the pages of the Bible they will remain trapped in its sexist dogma.

Here is a link to this article on my blog, Sexism in the Bible.

Butterfly, how were you able to type this lengthy response? Does your husband allow you to keep a computer in the kitchen?

But seriously, I'd love to hear What you think are the scientific errors in the bible. If they're anything like two I saw on your blog, then you might want to rethink your argument.
We here at GodAndScience may be a bunch of male chauvinist pigs, but I think you may learn a thing or three about science here. So, in between your cooking and cleaning, if your husband allows, post your biblical scientific errors. If you refuse, I might have to club you over the head and drag you by your hair.

RickD wrote:Butterfly, how were you able to type this lengthy response? Does your husband allow you to keep a computer in the kitchen?

But seriously, I'd love to hear What you think are the scientific errors in the bible. If they're anything like two I saw on your blog, then you might want to rethink your argument.
We here at GodAndScience may be a bunch of male chauvinist pigs, but I think you may learn a thing or three about science here. So, in between your cooking and cleaning, if your husband allows, post your biblical scientific errors. If you refuse, I might have to club you over the head and drag you by your hair.

Hi Rick, as I mentioned in my post, the article I copied was from my blog, so it didn't take much time. I am curious as to which "two" scientific errors you think I made?

You wouldn't believe how lucky I am. My husband lets me have my own computer and blog ... that is as long as I feed him.

Butterfly,

It is very easy to criticize without understanding why it is written so. Today when we say we have equality, we mean it, we are not just shelving dust under the rug to hide. That is seriously not the case. Galatians 3:28 does indeed mean that there is no favor given to anyone as an exception, all are equal.

Male dominance was practiced throughout the world. That is indeed why God of the Bible is referred to in the male gender when we do know that God does not have genders. There is sexism in the Bible because it records what exactly happened and how it happened. And when Christ came he eliminated that bias, done. People and cultures are and can be sexist. But not in the modern sense of the world. A first century women was not even literate would you like her to run for the office of the president. You can not, just like you can not have children vote for your elections. I mean aren't we discriminating when we do not allow children to vote. You can say they do not understand the full context and meaning, the issues and the problems. But it is discrimination, isn't it. After all they also live in the country, don't they?

That is the same reason why women were not allowed in the past. Most women would not even know how to address the problems and those who did were very few and were often backed down by the male dominant factor. turning it around and saying, the Bible is sexist is as much so as the french revolution is bloody. History is neither good or bad, it is just as it is. There are things you must understand, God does not interfere in the world against free will. That is just the way it is.

I have been following the morality thread you have been posting on, slavery etc, and regardless of all your points you fail to realize that you have a very distorted view of God. slavery was rampant in the old world. In a modern world it will close to having nuclear arms. Imagine if the whole world had nuclear arms, wouldn't you also develop some, just to be on the safe side. The old testament never bans slavery because that is how it worked in the old world. You keep confusing Judaism and Israel theocracy with modern human civilization. The law in the o.t was not given to individuals they were given to a country, a society.

Infact most of the laws regarding slavery are actually in favor of the slave. The same way people are naive and say God allowed rape as long as the man married the women is horribly wrong. If a girl was raped, she could have no real justice. The society would not accept her in marriage either. So God commanded that if a girl was raped, the man who raped her, would marry her too and that means she would have the social status of a wife. The command was not to rape, as most so liberally and wrongly make it sound, the point was to stop rape. It meant, if you raped a girl, you are responsible and you will treat her with respect, honour and dignity, you will marry her, you will provide for her and you will also protect her. You can not rape her and walk away, she is your responsibility. Do not assume that ancient women were treated equal to men, they were not considered equal. Rape was a common problem and so God established the commandment in favour of the girl, not of the man.

the O.T is harsh, it is indeed very harsh, because it was given to cruel men who lived in a cruel world.

The Bible as a whole does condemn slavery and sexism, because you can not keep the commandment of Christ, love your neighbor as yourself if you degrade women or slaves. You can quote all the old testament you like, that does not change the fact that the message of the gospel clearly demands equality. And that s the reason why we keep it. We understand what happened, I am are not trying to hide and change what was written, no sugar coating at all but if you are unaware of the context then my explanations would be considered a sugar coated version of those commands. But the truth is it is an eye for an eye. The nations which Israel fought and killed were also the nations that kept warring on them as well. To think that God ordered to kill them is greatly problematic because they also killed Israel, it was not killing for fun, it was war. the same as pearl harbor was not fun for america, it meant war. That's the real world and Israel as a country had real world problems. The issue of slaves is closely tied to this. Israelite were often themselves captured and taken as slaves, so they took slaves too. Does God like slavery, no...what it would prefer God with? think about this question, it requires a motive on God's part, which you don't have. He didn't stop it in the O.T, he regulated it so that it was not abused. Is it a good thing? no but it is a necessity? yes. God does not like slavery because that is the first reason he took Israel out of slavery from Egypt or may be you didn't read that, I'm not sure.

This is the difference between old and new testament, they are different, with Christ these things changed, the theocracy of Israel ended. So please you do not have to agree, but to paint it all with such broad generalization is sad and naive. Apply modern concepts to ancient people is just wrong., you might as well blame them for not having seat belts for camel riding, you know safety and all that.

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:Butterfly, how were you able to type this lengthy response? Does your husband allow you to keep a computer in the kitchen?

But seriously, I'd love to hear What you think are the scientific errors in the bible. If they're anything like two I saw on your blog, then you might want to rethink your argument.
We here at GodAndScience may be a bunch of male chauvinist pigs, but I think you may learn a thing or three about science here. So, in between your cooking and cleaning, if your husband allows, post your biblical scientific errors. If you refuse, I might have to club you over the head and drag you by your hair.

Hi Rick, as I mentioned in my post, the article I copied was from my blog, so it didn't take much time. I am curious as to which "two" scientific errors you think I made?

Sorry, my mistake. It was one scientific error that you claimed was in the bible. You made two statements to refer to the one error. Here, from your blog:

Take for instance in the days of creation when the plants are made on the third day and the sun and moon are made on the fourth day…that is one amongst many, many scientific errors contained in Scripture.

The bible doesn't say that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. Only that they appear from the writer's perspective, on the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14 14 Then God said, “Let there be [a]lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

This article by Rich explains it in more detail:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

You wouldn't believe how lucky I am. My husband lets me have my own computer and blog ... that is as long as I feed him.

, just be thankful to "biblegod", that you were born in these modern times, in a society that allows you as a woman to have an education, and the freedom to express your opinions, however misguided they are.

If you stick around here long enough, I think you'll see that your perceived biblical contradictions are only due to your interpretation, and don't exist when we understand the bible in its proper context.

Sometimes people forget that Paul wrote in response to direct situations, as in the case of the sexual immorality in 1Corintithinas, and they try to take a specific case and make doctrine out of it.
That is wrong.
We must take the WHOLE of what Paul wrote, in particular the letters and parts that are NOT disputed.
Paul's whole view of women is very high, as he mentions a few even by name in his letters.
That he is at times critical of how a gender or group behaves is perfectly normal.
Paul was an imperfect human, overly-zelous at times and was dealing with issues (gentiles) that most other writers didn't, as such he had a different perspective at times.
Paul made it clear when he was speaking what the Lord told him ( Not me but The Lord...) or his own view (Not the Lord but I...)

,
Let's get to your post:

The topic of sexism in the Bible is one that needs to be explored from an angle that I think has been neglected to a large degree. Most of the focus seems to be on trying to justify, or reason away the bias and sexism that is rampant throughout the Bible

I think you're conflating the male dominated society that existed when the OT was written, with God supporting sexism. The bible doesn't ignore or brush aside the sexism that existed. It was written within that society, so it acknowledges sexism, but doesn't show that God supports sexism.

In most primitive societies male domination was a common form of rule,

And unfortunately, some modern societies too.

In the Bible:

1.Women were considered the property of the man.
2.Women were ruled over by men solely based on their gender.
3.Women do not share equal rights with men.
4.Women are considered inferior to men.
5.Progeny is carried through the loins of the male.
6.The biblegod is portrayed with “male” attributes.

In the society that existed when the Old Testament was written:

1. The harsh reality of life and customs at that time.
2. see #1
3. see #1
4. see #1
5. see #1
6. this is Anthropomorphism. Used so we can begin to understand God.
The church(all believers in Christ) is described as the bride of Christ. Do you see me saying God promotes effeminism?

These six points reveal an overarching sexism in Scripture that should not be ignored or reasoned away. My purpose in exposing this overwhelming male-bias is to bring attention to the negative affect the Bible has had on the lives of countless women and men throughout history.

I agree that people have misinterpreted scripture to manipulate others. It's still done today. Westboro Baptist Church is one extreme example of misusing scripture to manipulate.

The sexism manifest in the Bible has been a huge detriment to the progression of women’s human rights in the world, and has in fact done nothing but hinder the cause of equality.

The sexism that the bible shows, is due to man's sinful nature, and his desire to be like God. We are all equally sinners, in need of a savior. Women have equally as much of a "right" to be saved as men do.

Given all the blatant sexism that the Bible contains along with the many scientific errors, contradictions, immoralities, and outright falsehoods, one begins to wonder what positive use this book could possibly have.

Again, the bible contains sexism because that is the way society was. Not because God promotes sexism.
Let's see,
"scientific errors"-unsubstantiated claim
"contradictions"-unsubstantiated claim
"immoralities"- of course the bible contains immoralities, because the reason the bible was written was to show us that we are all sinners, in need of a Savior. People are "immoral". We all do immoral things.
"outright falsehoods"-again, unsubstantiated claim

Now , the onus is on YOU to prove that God promotes sexism. Not that the bible SPEAKS about sexism. Use the bible, and show us specifically where GOD SAYS women are inferior to men.

RickD wrote: ,
Let's get to your post:

The topic of sexism in the Bible is one that needs to be explored from an angle that I think has been neglected to a large degree. Most of the focus seems to be on trying to justify, or reason away the bias and sexism that is rampant throughout the Bible

I think you're conflating the male dominated society that existed when the OT was written, with God supporting sexism. The bible doesn't ignore or brush aside the sexism that existed. It was written within that society, so it acknowledges sexism, but doesn't show that God supports sexism.

Doesn't it seem odd that the rules and laws the biblegod gave to the Hebrews perfectly reflect the dominant patriarchal societies of the time period in which the Bible was written? You are right, the Bible doesn't brush aside the sexism that was common in that time period, but rather its god built upon those customs and added more. Saying that god only allowed the sexism that was already in place is a convenient excuse that is easily proven wrong. All throughout the Bible, its god gives to the Hebrews unique rules and laws that were not common amongst their neighbors, like the many food prohibitions and clothing restrictions. So, what was keeping Yahweh from implementing laws that treated the genders with equality...what an improvement that would have been for its people, while showing how fair and just their god is.

The main issue that I keep reiterating is the fact that in the area of gender equality the Bible god acts no differently than any of the other gods that the surrounding peoples worshiped. As I point out in my article The Male Bias of the Bible the Bible is filled with verses that established a clear distinction between the human rights that men are allowed and the human rights of women, and all these laws are ordained by god. God not only supports sexism, he decrees it!

RickD wrote:The sexism that the bible shows, is due to man's sinful nature, and his desire to be like God. We are all equally sinners, in need of a savior. Women have equally as much of a "right" to be saved as men do.


Again, the bible contains sexism because that is the way society was. Not because God promotes sexism.


Now , the onus is on YOU to prove that God promotes sexism. Not that the bible SPEAKS about sexism. Use the bible, and show us specifically where GOD SAYS women are inferior to men.

Yes, the sexism the Bible shows is due to man, because men wrote the Bible. But, within the context of the Bible it is God who allows, condones, and decrees its existence...that is undeniable. I can easily prove from the pages of Scripture that God not only allows sexism to thrive, but initiates specific laws that introduce sexism...here is a verse for starters where God introduces the idea and tells Moses that female babies and their mothers are unclean twice as long as male babies. What's up with that?

Lev.12:1-5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days (7 days); according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (33 days); she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days (66 days).


I have lots more to say on the issue of sexism in the Bible, but my womanly duties are calling (Homeschooling my son amongst other things) and since I've got two threads I am responding to it's keeping me busy.

Be back soon...

RickD wrote:
The bible doesn't say that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. Only that they appear from the writer's perspective, on the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14 14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

This article by Rich explains it in more detail:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

The verse you quoted says: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens", implying there were no lights in the expanse of the heavens before the fourth day.

neo-x wrote:Butterfly,

It is very easy to criticize without understanding why it is written so. Today when we say we have equality, we mean it, we are not just shelving dust under the rug to hide. That is seriously not the case. Galatians 3:28 does indeed mean that there is no favor given to anyone as an exception, all are equal.

Male dominance was practiced throughout the world. That is indeed why God of the Bible is referred to in the male gender when we do know that God does not have genders. There is sexism in the Bible because it records what exactly happened and how it happened. And when Christ came he eliminated that bias, done. People and cultures are and can be sexist. But not in the modern sense of the world. A first century women was not even literate would you like her to run for the office of the president. You can not, just like you can not have children vote for your elections. I mean aren't we discriminating when we do not allow children to vote. You can say they do not understand the full context and meaning, the issues and the problems. But it is discrimination, isn't it. After all they also live in the country, don't they?

That is the same reason why women were not allowed in the past. Most women would not even know how to address the problems and those who did were very few and were often backed down by the male dominant factor. turning it around and saying, the Bible is sexist is as much so as the french revolution is bloody. History is neither good or bad, it is just as it is. There are things you must understand, God does not interfere in the world against free will. That is just the way it is.

I have been following the morality thread you have been posting on, slavery etc, and regardless of all your points you fail to realize that you have a very distorted view of God. slavery was rampant in the old world. In a modern world it will close to having nuclear arms. Imagine if the whole world had nuclear arms, wouldn't you also develop some, just to be on the safe side. The old testament never bans slavery because that is how it worked in the old world. You keep confusing Judaism and Israel theocracy with modern human civilization. The law in the o.t was not given to individuals they were given to a country, a society.

Infact most of the laws regarding slavery are actually in favor of the slave. The same way people are naive and say God allowed rape as long as the man married the women is horribly wrong. If a girl was raped, she could have no real justice. The society would not accept her in marriage either. So God commanded that if a girl was raped, the man who raped her, would marry her too and that means she would have the social status of a wife. The command was not to rape, as most so liberally and wrongly make it sound, the point was to stop rape. It meant, if you raped a girl, you are responsible and you will treat her with respect, honour and dignity, you will marry her, you will provide for her and you will also protect her. You can not rape her and walk away, she is your responsibility. Do not assume that ancient women were treated equal to men, they were not considered equal. Rape was a common problem and so God established the commandment in favour of the girl, not of the man.

the O.T is harsh, it is indeed very harsh, because it was given to cruel men who lived in a cruel world.

The Bible as a whole does condemn slavery and sexism, because you can not keep the commandment of Christ, love your neighbor as yourself if you degrade women or slaves. You can quote all the old testament you like, that does not change the fact that the message of the gospel clearly demands equality. And that s the reason why we keep it. We understand what happened, I am are not trying to hide and change what was written, no sugar coating at all but if you are unaware of the context then my explanations would be considered a sugar coated version of those commands. But the truth is it is an eye for an eye. The nations which Israel fought and killed were also the nations that kept warring on them as well. To think that God ordered to kill them is greatly problematic because they also killed Israel, it was not killing for fun, it was war. the same as pearl harbor was not fun for america, it meant war. That's the real world and Israel as a country had real world problems. The issue of slaves is closely tied to this. Israelite were often themselves captured and taken as slaves, so they took slaves too. Does God like slavery, no...what it would prefer God with? think about this question, it requires a motive on God's part, which you don't have. He didn't stop it in the O.T, he regulated it so that it was not abused. Is it a good thing? no but it is a necessity? yes. God does not like slavery because that is the first reason he took Israel out of slavery from Egypt or may be you didn't read that, I'm not sure.

This is the difference between old and new testament, they are different, with Christ these things changed, the theocracy of Israel ended. So please you do not have to agree, but to paint it all with such broad generalization is sad and naive. Apply modern concepts to ancient people is just wrong., you might as well blame them for not having seat belts for camel riding, you know safety and all that.

Your whole post is nothing but a series of excuses as to why the god of the Bible allows, condones and mandates sexism. You act as if God had to accommodate people and their bad moral behavior because of their primitive mentality, which is like saying that I have to allow my toddler to hit other children because he doesn't know any better.

Within the pages of the Bible, God had no problem initiating unique laws and rules that were not practiced in other societies of the time. God imposed new standards upon his chosen people to live by, yet time and time again male-bias rears its ugly head in the laws that were mandated by him. Granted, male dominated societies were the norm then and now, but that is no reason for an omnipotent law-giver to condone existing laws along with adding more biased laws into the mix.

It matters not that women were supposedly treated better than their female neighbors, because what we are dealing with here is divine standards not human standards. God is suppose to be just, and perfect not preferring one person over another, yet the Bible claims that he is the author of its moral laws which includes the Golden Rule. Well, let me tell you something; you cannot deny a person equal human rights and claim to be just and perfect. It looks to me like the god of the Bible is a perfect reflection of the dominate male mentality of the time, and that being a tribal, male war god.

A simple syllogism states:

1. The Bible is bias towards the male
2. God inspired the Bible
3. Therefore God is biased toward the male

If God is biased, he is not just and perfect, therefore the god that the Bible promotes cannot be the true god.

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:
The bible doesn't say that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. Only that they appear from the writer's perspective, on the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14 14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

This article by Rich explains it in more detail:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

The verse you quoted says: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens", implying there were no lights in the expanse of the heavens before the fourth day.

here,

Many people believe that the text about day 4 says that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This is not what the text actually says, so let's read it again.

•Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14)
•and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15)
•And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)
•And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17)
•and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18)
How can a day be longer than 24-hours?
Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom17 has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.18

In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.

the verse says the lights weren't visible from the perspective of the surface of the earth. It doesn't say the lights didn't exist.

From this article by Rich:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

RickD wrote: the verse says the lights weren't visible from the perspective of the surface of the earth. It doesn't say the lights didn't exist.

From this article by Rich:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

What you're saying is that no light was visible from the earth, so if that is the case then how did the grasses and trees which the earth brought fourth on the third day grow? You know it takes quite a bit of time for plants to grow, especially trees...and that requires sunlight. Unless God made them in their full form, but they still would require sunlight to survive.

Bronze age man would have known nothing about photosynthesis, in their minds everything a plant needed would have come from their roots, that is why the order of when plants were created versus sunlight being created didn't matter in the days of creation.