Why Is The Bible So Prejudiced Against Women?

[JayRob]

Here are a few startling examples of the bible's obvious biases towards women.

For instance, it says: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"
There is NO mention of punishment for the raping of a single woman, HOWEVER if the woman is married, there's the death penalty.
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (Deuteronomy 22:25)

How can single women idly sit by and believe in an entity who authorizes such nonsense against single women? Are the lives of single women less important than married women? So it seems, so it seems.

Another major example: A woman couldn't serve as a priestess in the temple. Why not? Isn't she just as competent as a man when it comes to religion? Why such obvious prejudice against women?

 

[Kendrick]

Here are a few startling examples of the bible's obvious biases towards women.

For instance, it says: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"
There is NO mention of punishment for the raping of a single woman, HOWEVER if the woman is married, there's the death penalty.
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (Deuteronomy 22:25)

How can single women idly sit by and believe in an entity who authorizes such nonsense against single women? Are the lives of single women less important than married women? So it seems, so it seems.

Another major example: A woman couldn't serve as a priestess in the temple. Why not? Isn't she just as competent as a man when it comes to religion? Why such obvious prejudice against women?

1. There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the scriptures a strong case can be made that this is citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all.

With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab which mean to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield and to lie, lie down, lie on.

2. In Bible teaching, women are just as important or valued as men. They are honored and rewarded for their work as highly as men are for their work (Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7; Prov. 31:10-31).

Yet, many passages teach the subjection of women to men in general. (See Genesis 2:18; 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; 3:4,12; Titus 2:4,5; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Acts 1:2,11,13 - The apostles were all men.

Acts 1:21,22 - When an apostle was chosen to replace Judas, the one to be chosen was expressly required to be a man (v21). Only males were considered for this role (v23). No consideration was even given to a woman as an apostle.

1 Timothy 3:1,2 (Titus 1:5,6) - Elders, who oversee local churches (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3), must also be men.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 -- Women must not teach over or exercise authority over men. Two reasons are given.

V13 - Man was formed before woman. At creation woman was made to be a helper or companion to man, not a leader or authority figure over him. Man was created with the position of leader and his nature suits that position (Gen. 2:18ff). [See also 1 Cor. 11:3,8,9.]

V14 - Eve tried to take the leadership role and made a decision to disobey God without consulting her husband. She was deceived, so God required that she would always be subject to her husband (Gen. 3:16). Her punishment reminds her that she left her role of subjection.

http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/davinci-women.php

 

[JayRob]

1. There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

First of all, you didn't take the entire context into account. The verse says if he violates her. On top of that, she's forbidden to divorce him. Third, she has NO choice in the matter. Her father has the authority to force her to marry.

Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the scriptures a strong case can be made that this is citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab which mean to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield and to lie, lie down, lie on.

Make the case then. Other words in the verses say violate. What does violate mean? What does seize mean? What does lay hold mean? All of those terms point to a woman being raped.
People give the bible to much leeway and then try and actually justify it's injustices. I truly amazes me that logical people have no problem doing this.

2. In Bible teaching, women are just as important or valued as men. They are honored and rewarded for their work as highly as men are for their work (Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7; Prov. 31:10-31).

No they aren't. In the bible, women are basically the property of men.

Yet, many passages teach the subjection of women to men in general. (See Genesis 2:18; 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12-14; 3:4,12; Titus 2:4,5; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Acts 1:2,11,13 - The apostles were all men.

Acts 1:21,22 - When an apostle was chosen to replace Judas, the one to be chosen was expressly required to be a man (v21). Only males were considered for this role (v23). No consideration was even given to a woman as an apostle.

1 Timothy 3:1,2 (Titus 1:5,6) - Elders, who oversee local churches (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3), must also be men.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 -- Women must not teach over or exercise authority over men. Two reasons are given.

These verses clearly show that women, especially in the old testament, were no more than second class citizens and treated as the property of men.

V13 - Man was formed before woman. At creation woman was made to be a helper or companion to man, not a leader or authority figure over him. Man was created with the position of leader and his nature suits that position (Gen. 2:18ff). [See also 1 Cor. 11:3,8,9.]

V14 - Eve tried to take the leadership role and made a decision to disobey God without consulting her husband. She was deceived, so God required that she would always be subject to her husband (Gen. 3:16). Her punishment reminds her that she left her role of subjection.

There's no evidence to prove any of this nonsense. It's nothing more than a fable that's been taught as fact to unsuspecting minds.
Paternalistic societies used this as a major weapon to subjugate and keep women in constant psychological bondage.
There's not one shred of evidence proving that a woman came from a man. If there is, I plead with someone to post that evidence.

 

[Kendrick]

First of all, you didn't take the entire context into account. The verse says if he violates her. On top of that, she's forbidden to divorce him. Third, she has NO choice in the matter. Her father has the authority to force her to marry.



Make the case then. Other words in the verses say violate. What does violate mean? What does seize mean? What does lay hold mean? All of those terms point to a woman being raped.
People give the bible to much leeway and then try and actually justify it's injustices. I truly amazes me that logical people have no problem doing this.


No they aren't. In the bible, women are basically the property of men.



These verses clearly show that women, especially in the old testament, were no more than second class citizens and treated as the property of men.



There's no evidence to prove any of this nonsense. It's nothing more than a fable that's been taught as fact to unsuspecting minds.
Paternalistic societies used this as a major weapon to subjugate and keep women in constant psychological bondage.
There's not one shred of evidence proving that a woman came from a man. If there is, I plead with someone to post that evidence.

It's not about making women second class citizens. It is about establishing gender roles and responsibilities. In the bible, women are encouraged to teach other women as well as children/teens in the church.

Women are also encouraged to pray and prophesying. However, once inside church, in a public worship assembly, men assume the role of spiritual teacher/leader as God intended.

People who misinterpret the bible or corrupt its message use those scriptures to make women second class citizens or hold them in bondage -- something that never was intended by the God inspired bible.

 

[JayRob]

It's not about making women second class citizens. It is about establishing gender roles and responsibilities. In the bible, women are encouraged to teach other women as well as children/teens in the church.

It's about power, which indirectly led to women being treated as second class citizens. Whose to say that a woman can't teach a man? Whose to say that a man is a better teacher than a woman? That's subjective at best.

Women are also encouraged to pray and prophesying. However, once inside church, in a public worship assembly, men assume the role of spiritual teacher/leader as God intended.

A church is merely a building. A woman doesn't lose her intelligence or commonsense just because she walks into a building.
As far as "god" intending, how do you know that the god of the bible is the one true god to begin with?

People who misinterpret the bible or corrupt its message use those scriptures to make women second class citizens or hold them in bondage -- something that never was intended by the God inspired bible.

The bible itself makes women second class citizens. There are a number of verses proving this in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier. For instance, in Numbers 31:17-18, the old testament god commands Moses to "kill all the Midianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.
Moses commanded the Israelite men to kill off all the men, children, but ONLY kill off the women who've had sex, but they could keep as sex objects the women "who'd never had sex".

How can one explain such evil? Why is this nonsense even in the bible? Why would a so-called "loving" god command all the children, babies and women to be killed, but not the virgins? How cruel and evil can one be?
It's because the women were treated as property and sex objects. This biblical "god" authorized the outright raping and enslavement of women....primarily for sexual duties. There's no other way around it. This is pure unadulterated evil.

In short, the bible is a man-made document full of atrocities, murders and evil, especially against women. The above story is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

 

[Kendrick]

Numbers 31:17-18[/B], the old testament god commands Moses to "kill all the Midianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.
Moses commanded the Israelite men to kill off all the men, children, but ONLY kill off the women who've had sex, but they could keep as sex objects the women "who'd never had sex".

How can one explain such evil? Why is this nonsense even in the bible? Why would a so-called "loving" god command all the children, babies and women to be killed, but not the virgins? How cruel and evil can one be?
It's because the women were treated as property and sex objects. This biblical "god" authorized the outright raping and enslavement of women....primarily for sexual duties. There's no other way around it. This is pure unadulterated evil.

Again, you have to look at the context of the scripture. The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14).

The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared.

It has been groundlessly asserted, that Moses here authorized the Israelites to make concubines of the whole number of female children; and an insidious objection against his writings has been grounded upon this monstrous supposition.

But the whole tenor of the law, and especially a stature recorded in De. 21:10-14, proves most decisively to the contrary.

They were merely permitted to possess them as female slaves, educating them in their families, and employing them as domestics.

God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14).

Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16).

The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). So it would have been unlikely God or Moses instructed their men to rape the women.

 

[JayRob]

Again, you have to look at the context of the scripture. The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14).

Context or no context, there's no logical explanation as to why you kill off the children and babies too. What did they do? Why only kill the women who had sex? Why even mention virgins in the first place? That had nothing to do with anything except allowing the Israelite men to get their rocks off.

The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared.

Were little babies involved? No. Were little girls involved? No, so there goes your theory.

It has been groundlessly asserted, that Moses here authorized the Israelites to make concubines of the whole number of female children; and an insidious objection against his writings has been grounded upon this monstrous supposition.

But the whole tenor of the law, and especially a stature recorded in De. 21:10-14, proves most decisively to the contrary.

They were merely permitted to possess them as female slaves, educating them in their families, and employing them as domestics.

Why educate ONLY virgins? Why not raise the babies and children and educate them? Why order the mass killings of babies, while leaving ONLY the virgins alive? It makes no sense at all, UNLESS they were being saved for sexual purposes.

God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14).

Why do these men need to have foreign virgins when they were already married? What happened to the commandment of adultery? Did their god allow them to commit adultery with these virgins? It seems like he gave them the go ahead to have all the fun they wanted.

Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16).

More excuses. What sane man kills babies, children, women and elderly men, but suddenly treats captured foreign virgins with respect and dignity? What virgin would even respect or humble herself to the VERY man who murdered her father, mother, brothers, sisters and relatives? There would be immense hatred in the hearts of these women no matter how good they were treated. You just don't forget how your family and relatives were killed off, then suddenly have sex with the murderer of your kinfolks.

The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). So it would have been unlikely God or Moses instructed their men to rape the women.

The law this old testament "god" gave also condemned "murder", but it didn't stop him from ordering the Israelites to wipe out innocent babies, girls, boys, elderly folks and women.
Again, the bible is nothing more than a paternalistic PLAGIARIZED listing of stories concocted and constrived by men. No self respecting, all-knowing, all-powerful Being would ever have the need for such massive bloodshed, killing, pain, suffering and death merely to satisfy his selfish appetite.

That's the total opposite of a Being whose supposed to be the epitome of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, kindess and humility.
Killing off babies, little girls and little boys don't come close to those characteristics. If they do, please show me.

 

[Dr H..]

Lord, Jesus here we go again. JR this is the second or third time this year you have started this subject. And perhaps the tenth time being discussed in one way or another. "Fool" the bible is not prejduice "How can a book be prejduice" It was the culture and customs at the time and the
written word" recorded the actions of the people.

Doggone you should be askink the same question about this country, thinking only white men can be President.

 

[dacontinent]

Kendrick,

You should refer JayRob to all of his previous comments on this same subject.

 

[Dr H..]

The sad part of this topic is, these laws were for another culture, people and at a different time and they were the laws of the land.

Doggone, this country was operating under different laws 60, 100, 200, years ago. JR is acting as if those laws are on the book in the US. I recall a low that stated all men had to serve in the military, with a few exceptions. I sorta recall if a woman was pregnant and not married, that man better be headed to the Army or marry her. So, there wer thing practiced by various cultures "but they were not prejduice" It was not that long ago that women could not serve as pilots or in combat in the military.

The laws "back then" protected women, now 2010, women are raped and by chance the dude is sent to jail.

 

[dacontinent]

Ha! In 2010 we now have WOMEN BEING CONVICTED OF RAPE and being sent to jail.

 

[JayRob]

Lord, Jesus here we go again. JR this is the second or third time this year you have started this subject. And perhaps the tenth time being discussed in one way or another. "Fool" the bible is not prejduice "How can a book be prejduice" It was the culture and customs at the time and the
written word" recorded the actions of the people.

Doggone you should be askink the same question about this country, thinking only white men can be President.

Oh, now I'm a fool for pointing out the obvious you already know? You can't accept parts of the bible and the parts you don't like, you can't reject. Words in black and white clearly shows a clear bias against women and you know it no matter how you try and excuse such oppression.

One more thing, doesn't it say in your plagiarized book in Matthew 5:22 that "whosoever says thou fool is in danger of hell fire?" If that book is true, then it looks like you're in line for hell.

 

[dacontinent]

...One more thing, doesn't it say in your plagiarized book in Matthew 5:22 that "whosoever says thou fool is in danger of hell fire?" If that book is true, then it looks like you're in line for hell.

Rest well, Dr. H.

Ps 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
KJV​

 

[JayRob]

Kendrick,

You should refer JayRob to all of his previous comments on this same subject.

Comments, by the way, that you had no logical answers for that weren't orchestrated excuses and ubridled loyalty to a religion that seems to have no boundaries.

 

[JayRob]

The sad part of this topic is, these laws were for another culture, people and at a different time and they were the laws of the land.

DH, your bible says that his word can't be changed and that it stands forever. If that's the truth of the matter, how can you tell old testament folks to do something and punish them IF they didn't do it, but then not punish new testament folks for not doing what you punished old testament folks for doing? That's called hypocrisy. In short, you just unwittingly called the biblical god a hypocrite.

Doggone, this country was operating under different laws 60, 100, 200, years ago. JR is acting as if those laws are on the book in the US. I recall a low that stated all men had to serve in the military, with a few exceptions. I sorta recall if a woman was pregnant and not married, that man better be headed to the Army or marry her. So, there wer thing practiced by various cultures "but they were not prejduice" It was not that long ago that women could not serve as pilots or in combat in the military.

The laws "back then" protected women, now 2010, women are raped and by chance the dude is sent to jail.

DH, there's ONE big difference between the laws of the bible and the laws of the Constitution. The writers of the constitution didn't claim that their words were inspired by a god of the universe or by an omnipotent being like the writers of bible claim and couldn't be changed.
In fact, the writers of the bible claimed that their words were for ALL time and were not to be changed or deviated from. That's exactly what you are doing, changing and deviating from words supposedly written by men who specifically stated that you shouldn't do that.

The laws of the Constitution CAN be changed and amended. That's the big difference between the biblical writers and the writers of the Constitution.

 

[JayRob]

Ha! In 2010 we now have WOMEN BEING CONVICTED OF RAPE and being sent to jail.

What does this have to do with the OT god claiming that women can be sold into a marriage to their rapist?

 

[JayRob]

Rest well, Dr. H.

Ps 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
KJV​

No, you get your facts straight. Find the post where I said that "there's no god or superior entity". You just hinted that I stated that, now back it up with a direct statement from me.

You and Dr. H just love to dig yourselves into holes you can't possibly climb out of. It never fails, but it is quite amusing.

 

[Dr H..]

JR

Stop telling that lie; in a nutshell you have said that the God of the OT is a myth as you said about Jesus.

 

[dacontinent]

No, you get your facts straight. Find the post where I said that "there's no god or superior entity". You just hinted that I stated that, now back it up with a direct statement from me.

You and Dr. H just love to dig yourselves into holes you can't possibly climb out of. It never fails, but it is quite amusing.

No hinting at all. I threw you under the bus. You, JayRob, who has said repeatedly and unequivocably that Elohiym - the God of the Bible - is a myth. Had I access to the archives of threads, I would pull those quotes out in buckets.

 

[bluelight2]

women are just as important or valued as men. They are honored and rewarded for their work as highly as men are for their work

 

[dacontinent]

What does this have to do with the OT god claiming that women can be sold into a marriage to their rapist?

Not one thing at all.

 

[JayRob]

JR

Stop telling that lie; in a nutshell you have said that the God of the OT is a myth as you said about Jesus.

Of course I've said that, and I've emphatically stated it. I'm still trying to get you to prove that out of ALL the known gods, "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CHOSEN GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD?"

You've yet to even address such a simple question, eventhough I've asked it time and time again. I'm asking you once again.

 

[JayRob]

No hinting at all. I threw you under the bus. You, JayRob, who has said repeatedly and unequivocably that Elohiym - the God of the Bible - is a myth. Had I access to the archives of threads, I would pull those quotes out in buckets.

The "god" of the bible is NOT the only stated god in the world. There are other supposed gods as shown by the Muslims, Jews, Hindu, native Americans and others. Me saying that the OT god is a myth is nowhere near being equivalent to saying that "there's no god". There are dozens and dozens of alleged "gods" around the world and they all don't revolve around Christianity.

 

[Dr H..]

"HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CHOSEN GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD?"

Dude you need to get a life, how many times "this year" this topic has been discussed. As I and others said before, it's not up to us to prove anything, you are the one that has to prove that "Fod" is not the one and only, true God.

Hell, you can worship anyone you choose and I am not mad at ya. You worship your god and let us worship our God.

 

[JayRob]

women are just as important or valued as men. They are honored and rewarded for their work as highly as men are for their work

Women SHOULD be valued as being just important as men, but not according to the bible. When has a woman ever been allowed to be a high priest? When was a woman ever allowed to be an apostle? Why were women told to be "silent" in the church, while waiting until they got home to ask their husband questions they probably knew about better than he did?
Why did the authors of the bible claim that MEN were made in "god's" image, while the woman was only made in the image of man?
Those few examples in no form or fashion dictate that women are equal with men in the bible. There are hundreds more such examples in the bible like this.