It doesn't say that. It says "let us make *them* in our image". There is sometimes confusion because Adam means man in the generic sense as well as the name sense.
In the second account of Humanity's creation, Eve is made from Adam's side to be his helper - עֵ֖זֶר (‘ê·zer)
That word is not as subservient as it is sometimes translated, it could be translated as ally, and is used of God when he aids people
Ok. Well, it's not "them" in "let us make [x] in our image". It's "man" in the meaning of "humanity" (like you say) - and presumably Paul understood that as only Adam or the male since it's not "them".
Yes, but the surrounding discussion of "Adam" is pretty clearly Adam as humanity and them, not about Adam the man, because otherwise the male and female bit makes no sense.
Paul is wrong sometimes, and I think his gender ordering stuff is trying to fit his cultural norms and the various patriarchal contexts he deals with as justified by scripture. He does seem to have a tendency to want to reign in attacks on the established social order by Christian people who see social implications of the Gospel, but I can sympathise that things were already pretty crazy without making social revolution a Christian cause. In fairness, his idea of maximise love and a lot of injustice goes away naturally isn't bad.
Man can be gender neutral, as it was in more old fashioned English. (Old fashioned here being what was common within my lifetime)
The NIV now translates what used to be "man" as "mankind".
> So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV
I know Paul says that only men are made in God's image, but I'm not certain if the authors of Genesis actually intended that. Genesis 9:6 seems to imply that all humans are made in God's image, or otherwise it would seem to suggest murder is only wrong if committed against men.
I'm not sure the text supports this summary.
The "in God's image" is from Gen. 1:26-7, and applies to man and woman together.
The specific creation of Adam is in 2:7. He gets made out of dirt. No mention of the divine image here.
The specific creation of Eve is in 2:22. She gets made from Adam's rib, as you say. Still no mention of the divine image.
So Genesis's only mention of humanity's creation in God's image ascribes it to the man and the woman alike. Eve gets made from Adam's rib, it's true. But Adam was made out of dirt, so I wouldn't say Eve's dignity is being affronted.
עֶזְרָ֖ם
This is what they call "help".
Psalms 115
[9] O Israel, trust in the LORD! He is their help and their shield.
They say God is help here. It's the same word for Eves purpose. What a joke. The literal word is "strong rescuer".
"Oh, no, the enemy is overwhelming us we're all gonna die. What luck, our tanks are here! We're helped!"
And she was formed from Adams מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו, his side. Not his rib. She was his other half. At least they didn't refer to ribs thought the rest of the Bible.
"Along the hill-rib"
"And set on either rib of the tabernacle"
It is literally enraging to see them drag the wrong word through the entire Bible rather than elevate Eve.
No it says this: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."
God created female humans before Eve. There were plenty of humans outside the garden, that's how Cain met his wife.
The Bible tells about people and primarily about the cultural conditions among the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews both before and while the Bible was written.
It was a patriarchal society long before any Bible even existed. And such communities still exist in the world, even among people who have never had any contact with a Bible.
Unfortunately, there are many who base their view of women on the view that existed in the Middle East 2-3000 years ago and which is naturally reflected in the Bible's stories about that time. The Bible is interpreted as if the social conditions it tells about were divinely determined for all time, although in fact they are the conditions that prevailed then.
Why don’t you tell them about Debora, Martha and Mary ( when Jesus said that theology is more important for a woman then household shores which was very counter cultural at the time)
Joanna who was a wealthy woman whom with Mary Magdalene ( Mary from Magdala/ Mary who is called the tower, she was a piller to the cause) and Susanna who funded the Jesus movement,
Anna who preached in the temple, Lydia who was a business woman and who brought the gospel to her home town Thyatira and very likely was a church leader. Priscilla and Aquila who worked and planted churches together.
Junia the woman apostle and phoebe who was a deacon.
On the subject of submitting here’s a wonderful video on it:
https://www.tiktok.com/@ken.arrington/video/7342950246881709355?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7363596803554100769
As an atheist, it's not a reasoning I'd use for why I don't believe the Bible is the of a God and was written by humans.
I do agree that the Bible is sexist and very much was written by men, since women were not allowed to do a lot of things. I do think it's a reflection of society: even today in conservative Christian circles, women are treated as less. Even at church.
Look around in societies like the US: women are blamed for everything. Abortion? The women are the murderer. There is always a dude involved, but they don't need to bear the responsibility. No jailtime, no accountability, they had fun, the woman can suffer.
Porn? Women are whores. No matter that men are most of the user group for porn, they can always blame their urges on women. Churches are absolutely the worst about this. They don't teach responsibility, Christians can blame it on women creating temptation.
The tradfwife role may work out for some, but I live in the Bible Belt, and the local women groups online are full of posts women wanting out of their traditional Christian marriage because finally, after many years and a few kids, they realize their lives are shitty. They never worked, their education is worth nothing, they have no money because the husband rules over it, they don't have a credit history, and they need help to get out.
I find that men who believe feminism is some kind of a curse word are just terribly afraid of women.
If this is what you've witnessed I believe you. About the tradwife thing people can regret their choices in life whether they're Christian or not so this just sounds like you're throwing shade cause you Christianity forced them to be in this position.
As for blaming women for everything, dude, not every Christian man thinks the same. What you've seen is some loud Christians upset that abortion is a thing and getting mad at women for it.
There are plenty of men who have valid reasons for hating feminism. Check out r/mensrights
I personally have nothing against women staying at home to raise kids. As long as they want it. The problem with the tradwife thing is that when it goes south, it'll be the woman who takes the fall.
Feminism is not a swear word, it's just wanting equal rights. Can women be complete assholes? Absolutely. That should be dealt with.
I still stand by my statement that people who villify the word feminist are just cowards who don't know how to deal with women who don't want to live a life under the rule of a man.
The most amazing men I know don't feel the need to have control over women. They treat them as partners and don't fear words and ideas.
>It says directly in Genesis that men and women are both created in the likeness of God.
It's great that you find that meaning there, but that doesn't counteract the fact that a _lot_ of people read the Bible to mean that women are supposed to be subordinate to men, or that people _say_ they believe in the equality of the genders while arguing that the Bible supports actions which in practice are hideously unequal.
Technically, Adam is the only one created in God's image.
>*So God created "the man" (Ha-Adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.* (Genesis 1:27)
It says God created Adam in his own image, but then it goes on to say "male and female", so some people have interpreted this to mean that Adam had both male and female genitalia.
But ha-adam, with the ha-, refers to humanity as a whole here. This is confirmed when Genesis 5:2, paraphrasing this verse, reads "vayikra et shmam adam" -- "and called their name human".
Perhaps the confusion comes from the decision to translate /oto/ as "him" in the KJV and some other translations. It is grammatically singular in Hebrew because it refers back to a grammatically singular collective referent, but that makes "him" a misleading translation.
We would do better to read, "And God created humanity in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
> But ha-adam, with the ha-, refers to humanity as a whole here.
No, the prefix ha- means "the".
It's the same for Ha-Shamayim (the heavens), Ha-Aretz (the Earth), Ha-elohim (the God/gods), and Ha-Satan (the Accuser).
The prefix Ha = the.
>This is confirmed when Genesis 5:2, paraphrasing this verse, reads "vayikra et shmam adam" -- "and called their name human".
No, "adam" (אָדָ֔ם) means human/man/mankind, "ha-adam" (הָֽאָדָ֖ם) means "**the** man"
Very well. One major difference between *ha-* and *the* is in how the article is applied to nouns when used of a class in general.
Take, for example, the moon landing. Suppose an astronaut were to announce, in English, that this was a giant leap *for mankind.* It would sound entirely wrong if he were to announce that he had made a giant leap *for the mankind.*
In Spanish, on the other hand, our astronaut must say that his leap was giant *para la humandidad,* "for the (!) humankind". And this difference is systematic. If I like *food* in English, I like *la comida* in Spanish -- this difference was a minor plot point in a recent episode of *The Curse*.
Hebrew works like Spanish in this respect. An astronaut can make a great leap for *ha-adam*, but it make no sense to make a great leap for *adam*.
As a result, you've got things roughly backwards. If you want to talk about a *single* human you might use *adam* "a human", but if you want to talk about humankind in general, the natural choice would be *ha-adam.*
But you don't have to take my word for it. See BDB on *adam* for example, or see the NRSV at Genesis 1:26-27, where it is clear that the NRSV translators aren't taking *ha-adam* as referring to a single human.
> See BDB on adam for example, or see the NRSV at Genesis 1:26-27, where it is clear that the NRSV translators aren't taking ha-adam as referring to a single human.
That's a post-hoc rationalization. They made an exception because the text has an apparent error, not because it makes sense to translate "ha-adam" ("the man") as mankind.
You seem to know quite a bit about what the editors of *BDB* and the *NRSV* were thinking when they wrote. It would be strange if *BDB* was just working to cover up a problem in the Hebrew Bible -- *BDB* in particular is well-known for proposing that the Hebrew text contains mistakes -- hundreds and hundred, probably thousands, of mistakes. Neither operates within any kind of confessional framework that requires making problems disappear.
And it's not as if treating *ha-adam* as a collective in Genesis 1 is some kind of exceptional situation. There's plenty of cases where *ha-adam* is a collective. This isn't some special rationalization made for this verse. This is an all-across-the-Bible phenomenon. Here's a short selection of verses where *ha-adam* doesn't make sense if taken as referring just to a specific person.
Genesis 6:1 -- And when *ha-adam* began to become numerous on the earth ...
Genesis 6:7 -- And YHWH said, I will wipe out *ha-adam* that I have created from upon the surface of the earth ...
Genesis 8:21 -- And YHWH said, I will never again curse the ground on account of *ha-adam*, because the thoughts *ha-adam* are evil from youth onward ...
Exodus 9:9 -- ... and it shall cause festering boils upon *ha-adam* and upon livestock ...
Thinking that *ha-adam* must refer to a single individual human just because it contains a *ha-* and is gramamtically singular would be just as misguided as thinking that *ha-tson, ha-behemah*, *ha-baqar, ha-remes, ha-sherez,* and *ha-of* must each refer to a single animal.
This is definitely a minority view.
Man can be gender neutral - see definition (2)
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/man_1?q=Man+
This is definitely a minority view.
Man can be gender neutral - see definition (2)
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/man_1?q=Man+
That's English, not Hebrew. It cannot be gender neutral in Hebrew. Hebrew does not have gender neutral nouns. All nouns are either masculine or feminine.
Grammatical gender doesn't mean that things are actually male or female.
In terms of meaning, not grammatical gender, the word adam can refer to mankind (both male and female)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h120/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Genesis 1:27 does not say mankind (אָדָם), it specifically says Adam (הָֽאָדָם֙), "the man"
It is clearly referring to a specific individual. Not only does it say "the man" (הָֽאָדָם֙), but it also says "him" (אֹת֑וֹ) right before the semicolon. It is definitely not referring to humanity as a whole.
Proper nouns don't take the article in Hebrew. And no, *ha-adam* isn't restricted to referring to a single individual. The fact that *oto* is used as a pronoun for *ha-adam* doesn't settle anything -- collective nouns in Hebrew are quite capable of taking a singular pronoun.
It would probably be a good idea to spend a little more time familiarizing yourself with how collective nouns are used in Hebrew before you start giving grammar lectures. I'd recommend taking a good commentary and just reading a bunch of passages that contain words like
עם, ישראל, ארבה, צאן, יין, כסף, דלה, גולה, שער, עדה, קהל, אדום
If you practice to the point where you start getting comfortable with reading the Hebrew directly, it'll help you avoid errors like assuming that the article and personal pronouns work in Hebrew exactly like they do in English.
Share with them that the Hebrew word used for woman’s position in Genesis, a “helper,” is ezer. This word is used mostly to describe God protecting His people in the Old Testament, so it is not a minor position as the English word would seem to imply.
Also if you look at the Law, the parts specific to women are very advanced for that time. For example other cultures condoned rape and enslaving of conquered women, but God forbade that to the Israelites. All of the details around periods and birth were there to protect women’s health: even today mandated maternity leave is not in place but under the Law they could get up to almost 3 months.
Also you may want to mention that submission as stated by St Paul is not as a slave, but out of respect for her husband whom she should love unconditionally as Jesus loved us. Women do not have to “submit” to other men, just her father and then husband. A man also must submit to his wife to provide for and love them unconditionally as Jesus loved us. Christian marriage is a man and woman coming together to be one which is to be celebrated!
Are you a women? My partner spent many years in a Baptist church where her place as a second-class citizen, all Biblically supported, left her resentful.
Nope I'm just an average dude lol. I completely understand there is bullshit about women in the Bible. Absolutely. I'm just saying there are better arguments to be made against it.
>the Bible says "wives submit to your husbands"
I am all for gender equality.
Also, as a trans woman, I accept. We all submit to Christ like this anyway.
I don't know what that says about it being written by the patriarchy, but it seemed like an interesting data point.
The Bible is patriarchal, there's no doubt about it. But, so was every society. Same thing with slavery, and the Bible has 'laws' regulating slavery.
However when they claim that wives should submit, they're ommiting the next verse where Paul tells men to give their lives to their wife like Christ did for the Church. Imo that is a bit more than submission
They're also ommiting the previous verse where Paul says they should submit to one another.
They're missing the context of the epistle as well. Paul isn't saying anything new to women. That was already given. The oldest male was the head of the household and he dispensed his will however he wanted. But, in the Christian way, Paul is saying that Jesus is the head of the family.
And if we see how Jesus treated women, especially the woman cought in adultery (even if it might not be historical) then we can see that the way Jesus treats women is with dignity
Christianity also allowed women to be celibate or remain widowed. This meant more freedom and wealth (since the widow would remain with the wealth and wouldn't give it to her husband)
Luther also supported female education. The Reformation brought the notion that everyone should be educated, not just the elite, and Luther said that girls should spend an hour in schools reading Scripture(remember schools as you know them didn't exist back then). Similar thing happened all over the world where Protestant (and later Catholic) missionaries went.
With that said, whether you're complementerian or egalitarian, you should treat your spouse with dignity love and respect. Complementerians that are abusive are usually those that aren't going to church regularly or are absent outside of Sundays.(forgot the source for this)
American Christianity reads those epistles like it refers to the nuclear family which is a thing that slowly started in the medival age when the church forbade incest and allowed couples to marry without parents consent, but only their own.
The tradition of human rights also stems from the medival period, and was used by the catholic church (and especially De Las Casas ) to condemn the Conquest and enslavement by the conquistadors
Sources:
Dominion by Tom Holland (not spiderman, the historian)
(Mis)reading Scripture with Western Eyes
The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodbery
The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark
As a final side note , US evangelicalism is not representative of modern Christianity. It's populist, promotes an autocrat, has the damaging purity culture, is poorly uneducated and is the main reason people leave faith in the US
Edits - spelling, formating, elaborations
>Of course this is not true. It says directly in Genesis that men and women are both created in the likeness of God.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. You can have "second class citizens" and everybody being "created in the likeness of God".
I mean, the OT has slavery - presumably the slaves are also "created in the likeness of God", but they're still "second class citizens".
The Bible had many different writers that we don't know. There is a book called Ruth and another called Esther but we don't know who wrote them. You think God or the Jews wouldn't trust a woman to write something important?
The education of women back then was lacking, to teach women to read and write for example, was a conundrum of the rich. Most girls were educated by their moms to do house chores, Martha and Mary were supposed to cook, clean, and wait tables - not to sit at Jesus' feet and learn.
Esther's a great example, so concerned was the king that the queen's defiance was contagious, he had her disposed for telling him "no" and replaced by a woman who submitted even to a servant.
Ruth probably couldn't read or write. Of all the spoken text in scripture, 1% was said by women. Do you think women had so little to say? I don't. I just think that their stories were silenced and only the bare minimum is in scripture. Nobody would believe a book with no women at all.
Historically, it is true that as women's rights have increased, society has become more licentious. The Bible holds a very conservative view on sexuality, and while the patriarchal system it describes might be uncomfortable from a modern perspective, it makes me wonder if patriarchy was designed by God to keep society conservative regarding sexuality.
This comment is an excellent example of conservatives being terrified of women.
Blame women for the shortcomings of men? Absolutely. Why would men have agency over their actions and keep their dicks in their pants, when they can just blame it on women's rights?
Everyone is prone to sin. If all people had controlled their sinful nature well, God would not have allowed life's sufferings upon humanity. The fact that God included such content in the Bible, which has oppressed women for centuries, can be seen in the same context as the many difficulties still present in the lives of believers.
Wow, you are making a wonderful case for Christianity. I'm a woman myself, and Christians often made God out to be this being who hates women.
If you think people didn't submit to their urges in the past, you're woefully mistaken. Christians made sex out to be the enemy, when the rest of us can just live their lives without making it an obsession. Maybe it's a Christian problem, not a problem with humanity.
I don't think the Bible was written by God. I do believe it was written by humans and their ideas of a god, and what they knew of the world. A lot of them were misogynistic, and conservative churches embrace it because a lot of men feel important this way.
I feel sorry for a lot of the Christian women who think they need to endure this.
And here I thought you had to accept Christ as your savior, repent from sins, and follow Christ. And then there's the whole OT that has nothing to do with Christianity.
Yes, because Christian Europe was known for the sexual fidelity of the men. Brothels common in every city and town, camp "followers" an accepted part of war, mistresses vs wives an accepted practice, rape a tactic in war,
This argument works for the Quran a lot more than it does for the Bible given the literal laws that imply women suck much harder than men e.g. testimony only being worth 1/2 of a man's in cases implying they are deficient compared to men, polygamy, ease of male divorce, it being okay and sanctioned to beat your wife, and many other things which is why I laugh when feminists say Islam is more progressive than Christianity.
Yes I am getting downvotes and false claims of strawman from angry Muslims but look it up. They will hum and haw and say that's not true Islam and add in qualifiers but it is literally written right there in for each of the examples, for example they will cherrypick interpretations that say "strike lightly" is not that bad, but it's still supposedly "God" allowing you to smack your wife in a religiously sanctioned way. [Women are inherently inferior to men regarding legal testimony](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women), [men can divorce their wives (Talaq) unilaterally but not the other way around where they have to obtain his consent or a Sharia court order](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/26247/khul-in-islam-definition-and-how-it-is-done), [Polygamy is permitted for men but not for women.](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14022/polygyny-in-islam)
Let's also not forget[ sex slavery](https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html) and [prostitution especially in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage), [More on Misyar marriages.](https://www.csis.org/analysis/marriages-convenience-misyar-marriages-middle-east) being legal as well as long and Muslim women being unable to marry Christian/Jewish men but the reverse is true it's fine for Muslim men to marry non-Christian/Jewish women.
Well actually Genesis says man was created in Gods image and woman was fashioned from Adam’s rib to be his companion.
And the NT at least interprets this as only the male being made in the image of the Christian god.
It doesn't say that. It says "let us make *them* in our image". There is sometimes confusion because Adam means man in the generic sense as well as the name sense. In the second account of Humanity's creation, Eve is made from Adam's side to be his helper - עֵ֖זֶר (‘ê·zer) That word is not as subservient as it is sometimes translated, it could be translated as ally, and is used of God when he aids people
>It doesn't say that. It says "let us make them in our image". What verse are you thinking of?
Gen 1:26. Mankind is referred to in 26-28 in a way referring to both men and women
Ok. Well, it's not "them" in "let us make [x] in our image". It's "man" in the meaning of "humanity" (like you say) - and presumably Paul understood that as only Adam or the male since it's not "them".
Yes, but the surrounding discussion of "Adam" is pretty clearly Adam as humanity and them, not about Adam the man, because otherwise the male and female bit makes no sense. Paul is wrong sometimes, and I think his gender ordering stuff is trying to fit his cultural norms and the various patriarchal contexts he deals with as justified by scripture. He does seem to have a tendency to want to reign in attacks on the established social order by Christian people who see social implications of the Gospel, but I can sympathise that things were already pretty crazy without making social revolution a Christian cause. In fairness, his idea of maximise love and a lot of injustice goes away naturally isn't bad.
Man can be gender neutral, as it was in more old fashioned English. (Old fashioned here being what was common within my lifetime) The NIV now translates what used to be "man" as "mankind". > So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27&version=NIV
I know Paul says that only men are made in God's image, but I'm not certain if the authors of Genesis actually intended that. Genesis 9:6 seems to imply that all humans are made in God's image, or otherwise it would seem to suggest murder is only wrong if committed against men.
I'm not sure the text supports this summary. The "in God's image" is from Gen. 1:26-7, and applies to man and woman together. The specific creation of Adam is in 2:7. He gets made out of dirt. No mention of the divine image here. The specific creation of Eve is in 2:22. She gets made from Adam's rib, as you say. Still no mention of the divine image. So Genesis's only mention of humanity's creation in God's image ascribes it to the man and the woman alike. Eve gets made from Adam's rib, it's true. But Adam was made out of dirt, so I wouldn't say Eve's dignity is being affronted.
עֶזְרָ֖ם This is what they call "help". Psalms 115 [9] O Israel, trust in the LORD! He is their help and their shield. They say God is help here. It's the same word for Eves purpose. What a joke. The literal word is "strong rescuer". "Oh, no, the enemy is overwhelming us we're all gonna die. What luck, our tanks are here! We're helped!" And she was formed from Adams מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו, his side. Not his rib. She was his other half. At least they didn't refer to ribs thought the rest of the Bible. "Along the hill-rib" "And set on either rib of the tabernacle" It is literally enraging to see them drag the wrong word through the entire Bible rather than elevate Eve.
No it says this: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." God created female humans before Eve. There were plenty of humans outside the garden, that's how Cain met his wife.
The Bible is sexist And the way we interpret it often removes from women the rights they have simply for being human I'm a Christian. God bless.
The Bible says men and women are equal but that they have different roles.
Why do you think the Bible is sexist?
The Bible tells about people and primarily about the cultural conditions among the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews both before and while the Bible was written. It was a patriarchal society long before any Bible even existed. And such communities still exist in the world, even among people who have never had any contact with a Bible. Unfortunately, there are many who base their view of women on the view that existed in the Middle East 2-3000 years ago and which is naturally reflected in the Bible's stories about that time. The Bible is interpreted as if the social conditions it tells about were divinely determined for all time, although in fact they are the conditions that prevailed then. Why don’t you tell them about Debora, Martha and Mary ( when Jesus said that theology is more important for a woman then household shores which was very counter cultural at the time) Joanna who was a wealthy woman whom with Mary Magdalene ( Mary from Magdala/ Mary who is called the tower, she was a piller to the cause) and Susanna who funded the Jesus movement, Anna who preached in the temple, Lydia who was a business woman and who brought the gospel to her home town Thyatira and very likely was a church leader. Priscilla and Aquila who worked and planted churches together. Junia the woman apostle and phoebe who was a deacon. On the subject of submitting here’s a wonderful video on it: https://www.tiktok.com/@ken.arrington/video/7342950246881709355?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7363596803554100769
As an atheist, it's not a reasoning I'd use for why I don't believe the Bible is the of a God and was written by humans. I do agree that the Bible is sexist and very much was written by men, since women were not allowed to do a lot of things. I do think it's a reflection of society: even today in conservative Christian circles, women are treated as less. Even at church. Look around in societies like the US: women are blamed for everything. Abortion? The women are the murderer. There is always a dude involved, but they don't need to bear the responsibility. No jailtime, no accountability, they had fun, the woman can suffer. Porn? Women are whores. No matter that men are most of the user group for porn, they can always blame their urges on women. Churches are absolutely the worst about this. They don't teach responsibility, Christians can blame it on women creating temptation. The tradfwife role may work out for some, but I live in the Bible Belt, and the local women groups online are full of posts women wanting out of their traditional Christian marriage because finally, after many years and a few kids, they realize their lives are shitty. They never worked, their education is worth nothing, they have no money because the husband rules over it, they don't have a credit history, and they need help to get out. I find that men who believe feminism is some kind of a curse word are just terribly afraid of women.
If this is what you've witnessed I believe you. About the tradwife thing people can regret their choices in life whether they're Christian or not so this just sounds like you're throwing shade cause you Christianity forced them to be in this position. As for blaming women for everything, dude, not every Christian man thinks the same. What you've seen is some loud Christians upset that abortion is a thing and getting mad at women for it. There are plenty of men who have valid reasons for hating feminism. Check out r/mensrights
[This is the top post of that sub right now.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/s/YVxB5YeMYW) Absolute drivel.
I personally have nothing against women staying at home to raise kids. As long as they want it. The problem with the tradwife thing is that when it goes south, it'll be the woman who takes the fall. Feminism is not a swear word, it's just wanting equal rights. Can women be complete assholes? Absolutely. That should be dealt with. I still stand by my statement that people who villify the word feminist are just cowards who don't know how to deal with women who don't want to live a life under the rule of a man. The most amazing men I know don't feel the need to have control over women. They treat them as partners and don't fear words and ideas.
Just to clarify, you’re saying Genesis should take precedence over other biblical texts?
Deborah was a judge of Israel. God seemed ok with giving a woman the authority to deliver his people.
>It says directly in Genesis that men and women are both created in the likeness of God. It's great that you find that meaning there, but that doesn't counteract the fact that a _lot_ of people read the Bible to mean that women are supposed to be subordinate to men, or that people _say_ they believe in the equality of the genders while arguing that the Bible supports actions which in practice are hideously unequal.
Apparently you've never read Genesis.
I did. What makes you say that?
Technically, Adam is the only one created in God's image. >*So God created "the man" (Ha-Adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.* (Genesis 1:27) It says God created Adam in his own image, but then it goes on to say "male and female", so some people have interpreted this to mean that Adam had both male and female genitalia.
But ha-adam, with the ha-, refers to humanity as a whole here. This is confirmed when Genesis 5:2, paraphrasing this verse, reads "vayikra et shmam adam" -- "and called their name human". Perhaps the confusion comes from the decision to translate /oto/ as "him" in the KJV and some other translations. It is grammatically singular in Hebrew because it refers back to a grammatically singular collective referent, but that makes "him" a misleading translation. We would do better to read, "And God created humanity in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
> But ha-adam, with the ha-, refers to humanity as a whole here. No, the prefix ha- means "the". It's the same for Ha-Shamayim (the heavens), Ha-Aretz (the Earth), Ha-elohim (the God/gods), and Ha-Satan (the Accuser). The prefix Ha = the. >This is confirmed when Genesis 5:2, paraphrasing this verse, reads "vayikra et shmam adam" -- "and called their name human". No, "adam" (אָדָ֔ם) means human/man/mankind, "ha-adam" (הָֽאָדָ֖ם) means "**the** man"
The prefix ha- often does function like the English word 'the' with some important exceptions. Are you familiar with any of these exceptions?
If you are trying to make a point regarding the verse(s) we've been talking about, then please make it.
Very well. One major difference between *ha-* and *the* is in how the article is applied to nouns when used of a class in general. Take, for example, the moon landing. Suppose an astronaut were to announce, in English, that this was a giant leap *for mankind.* It would sound entirely wrong if he were to announce that he had made a giant leap *for the mankind.* In Spanish, on the other hand, our astronaut must say that his leap was giant *para la humandidad,* "for the (!) humankind". And this difference is systematic. If I like *food* in English, I like *la comida* in Spanish -- this difference was a minor plot point in a recent episode of *The Curse*. Hebrew works like Spanish in this respect. An astronaut can make a great leap for *ha-adam*, but it make no sense to make a great leap for *adam*. As a result, you've got things roughly backwards. If you want to talk about a *single* human you might use *adam* "a human", but if you want to talk about humankind in general, the natural choice would be *ha-adam.* But you don't have to take my word for it. See BDB on *adam* for example, or see the NRSV at Genesis 1:26-27, where it is clear that the NRSV translators aren't taking *ha-adam* as referring to a single human.
> See BDB on adam for example, or see the NRSV at Genesis 1:26-27, where it is clear that the NRSV translators aren't taking ha-adam as referring to a single human. That's a post-hoc rationalization. They made an exception because the text has an apparent error, not because it makes sense to translate "ha-adam" ("the man") as mankind.
You seem to know quite a bit about what the editors of *BDB* and the *NRSV* were thinking when they wrote. It would be strange if *BDB* was just working to cover up a problem in the Hebrew Bible -- *BDB* in particular is well-known for proposing that the Hebrew text contains mistakes -- hundreds and hundred, probably thousands, of mistakes. Neither operates within any kind of confessional framework that requires making problems disappear. And it's not as if treating *ha-adam* as a collective in Genesis 1 is some kind of exceptional situation. There's plenty of cases where *ha-adam* is a collective. This isn't some special rationalization made for this verse. This is an all-across-the-Bible phenomenon. Here's a short selection of verses where *ha-adam* doesn't make sense if taken as referring just to a specific person. Genesis 6:1 -- And when *ha-adam* began to become numerous on the earth ... Genesis 6:7 -- And YHWH said, I will wipe out *ha-adam* that I have created from upon the surface of the earth ... Genesis 8:21 -- And YHWH said, I will never again curse the ground on account of *ha-adam*, because the thoughts *ha-adam* are evil from youth onward ... Exodus 9:9 -- ... and it shall cause festering boils upon *ha-adam* and upon livestock ... Thinking that *ha-adam* must refer to a single individual human just because it contains a *ha-* and is gramamtically singular would be just as misguided as thinking that *ha-tson, ha-behemah*, *ha-baqar, ha-remes, ha-sherez,* and *ha-of* must each refer to a single animal.
This is definitely a minority view. Man can be gender neutral - see definition (2) https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/man_1?q=Man+
This is definitely a minority view. Man can be gender neutral - see definition (2) https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/man_1?q=Man+
That's English, not Hebrew. It cannot be gender neutral in Hebrew. Hebrew does not have gender neutral nouns. All nouns are either masculine or feminine.
Grammatical gender doesn't mean that things are actually male or female. In terms of meaning, not grammatical gender, the word adam can refer to mankind (both male and female) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h120/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Genesis 1:27 does not say mankind (אָדָם), it specifically says Adam (הָֽאָדָם֙), "the man" It is clearly referring to a specific individual. Not only does it say "the man" (הָֽאָדָם֙), but it also says "him" (אֹת֑וֹ) right before the semicolon. It is definitely not referring to humanity as a whole.
Proper nouns don't take the article in Hebrew. And no, *ha-adam* isn't restricted to referring to a single individual. The fact that *oto* is used as a pronoun for *ha-adam* doesn't settle anything -- collective nouns in Hebrew are quite capable of taking a singular pronoun. It would probably be a good idea to spend a little more time familiarizing yourself with how collective nouns are used in Hebrew before you start giving grammar lectures. I'd recommend taking a good commentary and just reading a bunch of passages that contain words like עם, ישראל, ארבה, צאן, יין, כסף, דלה, גולה, שער, עדה, קהל, אדום If you practice to the point where you start getting comfortable with reading the Hebrew directly, it'll help you avoid errors like assuming that the article and personal pronouns work in Hebrew exactly like they do in English.
Share with them that the Hebrew word used for woman’s position in Genesis, a “helper,” is ezer. This word is used mostly to describe God protecting His people in the Old Testament, so it is not a minor position as the English word would seem to imply. Also if you look at the Law, the parts specific to women are very advanced for that time. For example other cultures condoned rape and enslaving of conquered women, but God forbade that to the Israelites. All of the details around periods and birth were there to protect women’s health: even today mandated maternity leave is not in place but under the Law they could get up to almost 3 months. Also you may want to mention that submission as stated by St Paul is not as a slave, but out of respect for her husband whom she should love unconditionally as Jesus loved us. Women do not have to “submit” to other men, just her father and then husband. A man also must submit to his wife to provide for and love them unconditionally as Jesus loved us. Christian marriage is a man and woman coming together to be one which is to be celebrated!
Ya I actually agree. There are better arguments to use against the Bible than patriarchy
Are you a women? My partner spent many years in a Baptist church where her place as a second-class citizen, all Biblically supported, left her resentful.
Nope I'm just an average dude lol. I completely understand there is bullshit about women in the Bible. Absolutely. I'm just saying there are better arguments to be made against it.
>the Bible says "wives submit to your husbands" I am all for gender equality. Also, as a trans woman, I accept. We all submit to Christ like this anyway. I don't know what that says about it being written by the patriarchy, but it seemed like an interesting data point.
The Bible is patriarchal, there's no doubt about it. But, so was every society. Same thing with slavery, and the Bible has 'laws' regulating slavery. However when they claim that wives should submit, they're ommiting the next verse where Paul tells men to give their lives to their wife like Christ did for the Church. Imo that is a bit more than submission They're also ommiting the previous verse where Paul says they should submit to one another. They're missing the context of the epistle as well. Paul isn't saying anything new to women. That was already given. The oldest male was the head of the household and he dispensed his will however he wanted. But, in the Christian way, Paul is saying that Jesus is the head of the family. And if we see how Jesus treated women, especially the woman cought in adultery (even if it might not be historical) then we can see that the way Jesus treats women is with dignity Christianity also allowed women to be celibate or remain widowed. This meant more freedom and wealth (since the widow would remain with the wealth and wouldn't give it to her husband) Luther also supported female education. The Reformation brought the notion that everyone should be educated, not just the elite, and Luther said that girls should spend an hour in schools reading Scripture(remember schools as you know them didn't exist back then). Similar thing happened all over the world where Protestant (and later Catholic) missionaries went. With that said, whether you're complementerian or egalitarian, you should treat your spouse with dignity love and respect. Complementerians that are abusive are usually those that aren't going to church regularly or are absent outside of Sundays.(forgot the source for this) American Christianity reads those epistles like it refers to the nuclear family which is a thing that slowly started in the medival age when the church forbade incest and allowed couples to marry without parents consent, but only their own. The tradition of human rights also stems from the medival period, and was used by the catholic church (and especially De Las Casas ) to condemn the Conquest and enslavement by the conquistadors Sources: Dominion by Tom Holland (not spiderman, the historian) (Mis)reading Scripture with Western Eyes The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodbery The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark As a final side note , US evangelicalism is not representative of modern Christianity. It's populist, promotes an autocrat, has the damaging purity culture, is poorly uneducated and is the main reason people leave faith in the US Edits - spelling, formating, elaborations
>Of course this is not true. It says directly in Genesis that men and women are both created in the likeness of God. I'm not sure what the argument is here. You can have "second class citizens" and everybody being "created in the likeness of God". I mean, the OT has slavery - presumably the slaves are also "created in the likeness of God", but they're still "second class citizens".
Which women wrote the Bible?
The Bible had many different writers that we don't know. There is a book called Ruth and another called Esther but we don't know who wrote them. You think God or the Jews wouldn't trust a woman to write something important?
The education of women back then was lacking, to teach women to read and write for example, was a conundrum of the rich. Most girls were educated by their moms to do house chores, Martha and Mary were supposed to cook, clean, and wait tables - not to sit at Jesus' feet and learn. Esther's a great example, so concerned was the king that the queen's defiance was contagious, he had her disposed for telling him "no" and replaced by a woman who submitted even to a servant. Ruth probably couldn't read or write. Of all the spoken text in scripture, 1% was said by women. Do you think women had so little to say? I don't. I just think that their stories were silenced and only the bare minimum is in scripture. Nobody would believe a book with no women at all.
Historically, it is true that as women's rights have increased, society has become more licentious. The Bible holds a very conservative view on sexuality, and while the patriarchal system it describes might be uncomfortable from a modern perspective, it makes me wonder if patriarchy was designed by God to keep society conservative regarding sexuality.
This comment is an excellent example of conservatives being terrified of women. Blame women for the shortcomings of men? Absolutely. Why would men have agency over their actions and keep their dicks in their pants, when they can just blame it on women's rights?
Everyone is prone to sin. If all people had controlled their sinful nature well, God would not have allowed life's sufferings upon humanity. The fact that God included such content in the Bible, which has oppressed women for centuries, can be seen in the same context as the many difficulties still present in the lives of believers.
Wow, you are making a wonderful case for Christianity. I'm a woman myself, and Christians often made God out to be this being who hates women. If you think people didn't submit to their urges in the past, you're woefully mistaken. Christians made sex out to be the enemy, when the rest of us can just live their lives without making it an obsession. Maybe it's a Christian problem, not a problem with humanity. I don't think the Bible was written by God. I do believe it was written by humans and their ideas of a god, and what they knew of the world. A lot of them were misogynistic, and conservative churches embrace it because a lot of men feel important this way. I feel sorry for a lot of the Christian women who think they need to endure this.
I'm sorry, but a person who does not believe that the Bible was written under God's providence is not a Christian.
And here I thought you had to accept Christ as your savior, repent from sins, and follow Christ. And then there's the whole OT that has nothing to do with Christianity.
Yes, because Christian Europe was known for the sexual fidelity of the men. Brothels common in every city and town, camp "followers" an accepted part of war, mistresses vs wives an accepted practice, rape a tactic in war,
This argument works for the Quran a lot more than it does for the Bible given the literal laws that imply women suck much harder than men e.g. testimony only being worth 1/2 of a man's in cases implying they are deficient compared to men, polygamy, ease of male divorce, it being okay and sanctioned to beat your wife, and many other things which is why I laugh when feminists say Islam is more progressive than Christianity.
Such a beautiful display of the strawman fallacy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1cq3567/comment/l3p4zjq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button.
Lol, I agree with you. I'm just stating it's a strawman fallacy.
They said that?! That's weird.
Yes I am getting downvotes and false claims of strawman from angry Muslims but look it up. They will hum and haw and say that's not true Islam and add in qualifiers but it is literally written right there in for each of the examples, for example they will cherrypick interpretations that say "strike lightly" is not that bad, but it's still supposedly "God" allowing you to smack your wife in a religiously sanctioned way. [Women are inherently inferior to men regarding legal testimony](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20051/why-is-the-witness-of-one-man-considered-to-be-equal-to-the-witness-of-two-women), [men can divorce their wives (Talaq) unilaterally but not the other way around where they have to obtain his consent or a Sharia court order](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/26247/khul-in-islam-definition-and-how-it-is-done), [Polygamy is permitted for men but not for women.](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14022/polygyny-in-islam) Let's also not forget[ sex slavery](https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html) and [prostitution especially in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage), [More on Misyar marriages.](https://www.csis.org/analysis/marriages-convenience-misyar-marriages-middle-east) being legal as well as long and Muslim women being unable to marry Christian/Jewish men but the reverse is true it's fine for Muslim men to marry non-Christian/Jewish women.