Are women inferior to men?

[Jason Sanders]

As I have been personally witnessed to, healed, and prophesied over by both men and women in equal measure, and felt the Spirit move just as powerfully through the teaching of a woman as it has a man's, I can say that they are not, in anyway, inferior to men.

While I understand why some people feel the way they do about women, I do have one question- Who, exactly, are you to question God? Yes, we must test the spirits and be cautious when dealing with unknown teachers, but as Jesus said, if you do not believe the person's sincerity, the believe their fruit, the works that they do in the name of our Lord. That should be how we measure our brothers and sisters in Christ, not by if they are male or female.

 

[Imagican]

Do unto others.........................does not mean that if you are a man that likes being treated like a woman that you are to treat other men as women. Do unto others is a concept based on 'love'.

When the Bible states that women are to be submissive to their husbands, this doesn't eliminate the 'do unto others.............' by placing the man as the head of the relationship. For it is not a matter of 'gender' that we are to 'do unto others.............', it is that which concerns 'love'.

It is a known fact that Thomas Jefferson was 'in love' with one of his 'slaves'. This clearly proves my point. While this 'slave' was considered 'property', Thomas Jefferson 'loved' her.

And we can clearly see that the Bible explains that those that were 'slave owners' were to treat their 'slaves' with 'love'. Regardless of being 'property' that they had every 'right' to treat in any manner that they deemed fit.

So, 'do unto others..............' has absolutely no bearing on the instructions we have been given according to 'gender'. Attempting to use this concept to create a completely different set of rules contradictory to the rest of scripture is an absolute effort of futility. And I find it difficult to believe that anyone could actually be serious in offering such a concept.

Scripture cannot contradict scripture or it is either false or mistranslated or interpreted incorrectly.

Do unto others............... has nothing to do with treating those of different gender 'the same'. Men and women are 'not the same'. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. And regardless of the secular worlds attempt to MAKE them 'equal', (which means: the same), they are not equal nor are they 'the same' in any manner.

Do unto others....................is basically summed up in this: Love thy others as thyself.

Children are not allowed to 'do' as they please simply because they are loved by their parents. It is the parents responsibility to protect them by limiting their actions.

We see that Eve, when exhibiting her 'independence' from Adam fell into temptation. Like it or not, it's the truth. Adam was the 'head' of Eve. She was formed 'from' Adam to be 'for' Adam. This is the 'order' of God's creation whether we 'like it' or not.

Blessings,

MEC

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

As I have been personally witnessed to, healed, and prophesied over by both men and women in equal measure, and felt the Spirit move just as powerfully through the teaching of a woman as it has a man's, I can say that they are not, in anyway, inferior to men.

While I understand why some people feel the way they do about women, I do have one question- Who, exactly, are you to question God? Yes, we must test the spirits and be cautious when dealing with unknown teachers, but as Jesus said, if you do not believe the person's sincerity, the believe their fruit, the works that they do in the name of our Lord. That should be how we measure our brothers and sisters in Christ, not by if they are male or female.

What I hear you offering are your 'feelings'. Your perception.

What about the Bible? What about 'scripture' that clearly defines the roles of both men and women? Are your 'feelings' more important than the instructions we have been offered by God? Who exactly are you to question God?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Strong in Him]

What I hear you offering are your 'feelings'. Your perception.

Surely you're not saying that healing and prophecy are "feelings"?

What about the Bible? What about 'scripture' that clearly defines the roles of both men and women?

It doesn't though.
If Scripture clearly taught that women were not allowed to be Ministers, then none of them would be.

Unless you're saying that women are so keen to have equal opportunities that they deny and disobey God's word, and are so cunning and manipulative that they have persuaded male clergy - poor, gullible men - that they should disobey God as well.

Are your 'feelings' more important than the instructions we have been offered by God? Who exactly are you to question God?

We could equally ask, "what about the testimonies of women who have heard God's voice and calling and experienced his leading, his affirmation, and been filled with his Spirit to enable them to do what they are called to do? Is the way that you interpret Scripture more important than the fact that God is clearly speaking to, and working through, women? Who are you to question what God is doing?"

 

[Brokenhill]

I said "Scripture says scripture is not that important" unless you are misquoting some other statement.
It's hard to tell. And that comment is the result of this:

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Nowhere does that verse say scripture is unimportant. Once again you're taking something completely out of context and trying to stretch it to mean something it doesn't.

 

[Brokenhill]

Yes, but how much "cherry picking" do you do? Do you keep all the OT laws? Do you avoid eating pork? Are you OK with Exod. 21, with selling your daughter into slavery and beating slaves, just as long as you don't kill then?

As I stated, there are certain grey areas or exceptions, but those exceptions are given only by God.

Col 2:13-14 "[URL='http://biblehub.com/colossians/2-13.htm']13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,14[/URL]having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

This teaches us that the rituals and ordinances of the Old Law have been abolished. Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, that's why we don't offer libations or slaughter animals anymore (see the entire book of Hebrews).

But even prior to the NT, God made statements that would be clarified with the coming of Christ:
Isaiah 1:14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them."
Hosea 6:6 "For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

And when we look at OT passages like these from a modern perspective, we start to see that fundamentally the Mosaic covenant is the same as the New covenant of Christ--God always has had the same expectation of character (justice, love, mercy, etc.). The differences come when you look at how we worship and som eof the physical minutia of life.
So in one sense, if I'm following Christ then I am fulfilling the Old Law as well.
___
I'm sure there are times I have cherry-picked scripture, but that's never my intent and I hope that I am called out on it. However, I don't think I've done that here.

 

[Brokenhill]

A well supported complaint, but my argument is more researched than you give credit.
I'm afraid that those who give sermons are guilty of ignoring scripture in favor of MAN-Sermons.

38As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces,39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

(they emphasize men before women)

Matthew 7:12
Matthew 22:40 - "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Luke 6:31 - Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another,
for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10 - Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Galatians 5:14 - For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
James 2:8 - If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
Luke 6:31 - And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise.
Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’g There is no commandment greater than these.”
Matthew 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Luke 10:27 He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself

These passages eliminate all gender based rules.
What man wants women making rules for all men?
What woman wants men making rules for all women?
What Christian wants Muslims, making rules for all Christians?

We all want rules protecting the weak from the strong.
And protecting the strong from their weaknesses.

I love my wife by leading her in a Godly fashion, holding her up and respecting her as the "weaker vessel". My wife loves me by supporting me and submitting to my Godly leadership.

It doesn't matter what men want or women want, it's what God wants. I want to do what God wants me to do. God wants me to be the head of my wife and lead her spiritually in love and gentleness. And that I shall do.
Talk to my wife, she does not feel disrespected or angry because i'm the leader, because she knows that it's not my egotistic rules...it's God that's shes following.

 

[Brokenhill]

Surely you're not saying that healing and prophecy are "feelings"?



It doesn't though.
If Scripture clearly taught that women were not allowed to be Ministers, then none of them would be.

Unless you're saying that women are so keen to have equal opportunities that they deny and disobey God's word, and are so cunning and manipulative that they have persuaded male clergy - poor, gullible men - that they should disobey God as well.



We could equally ask, "what about the testimonies of women who have heard God's voice and calling and experienced his leading, his affirmation, and been filled with his Spirit to enable them to do what they are called to do? Is the way that you interpret Scripture more important than the fact that God is clearly speaking to, and working through, women? Who are you to question what God is doing?"

Women can teach non-believers, as proven by Acts 18:26.

Women are not to hold "offices" in the body of Christ such as elder or deacon or preacher/teacher (to men). 1 Tim 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

 

[SkyWriting]

Nowhere does that verse say scripture is unimportant.

Seems you had to re-phrase my comment to make it less like what I said.

 

[SkyWriting]

I love my wife by leading her in a Godly fashion, holding her up and respecting her as the "weaker vessel". My wife loves me by supporting me and submitting to my Godly leadership.

I'm sure she consideres you exactly as you think.
Or perhaps I'm not sure.

 

[Strong in Him]

Women can teach non-believers, as proven by Acts 18:26.

Apollos was a believer, knew the Scriptures, was full of fervour for the Lord and taught accurately about Jesus. He just didn't know about baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Women are not to hold "offices" in the body of Christ such as elder or deacon or preacher/teacher (to men). 1 Tim 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

You've just acknowledged that Priscilla taught a man. And even if Apollos HAD been an unbeliever, if a woman is forbidden from teaching men, then that should mean ALL men in all circumstances.
Yet evangelism involves teaching; teaching people they are sinners, what God says about that and what he did for us. Are you saying that women can't evangelise; like the woman at the well who ran back to her town and said, "Come and meet a man who told me everything I've ever done - could he be the Messiah?" That's basically what evangelism is; introducing someone to Jesus. Jesus told us that we should make disciples, teach others, Matthew 28:19-20, and be his witnesses, Acts 1:8. Are you saying women are exempt from that? Mary Magdalene was chosen to be the first witness to the resurrection.
Prophecy involves teaching. You have a word from the Lord, a message, instruction, word of comfort or challenge and you give it; tell people what God is saying to them, or to the church. Paul said that women could prophecy, because he taught about having their heads covered when they did so. In the OT, when Josiah wanted a word from the Lord he sent his priests to consult a prophet and they chose to go to Huldah, (a woman). Her message from God led to a revival. Philip had 4 daughters and they were all prophets.

As well as prophesying, Paul also said that women can pray, 1 Corinthians 11:5. So how does that fit with your belief that he told women to be quiet? Women were in the upper room with the disciples after the ascension, and as all the believers were gathered when the Spirit came at Pentecost, then no doubt they received him and spoke in tongues also. In his teaching about prophecy and speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14, Paul doesn't say that women can't do these things, nor did he rebuke the women who were present from doing so.

 

[Brokenhill]

Apollos was a believer, knew the Scriptures, was full of fervour for the Lord and taught accurately about Jesus. He just didn't know about baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I guess I should have clarified that he was untaught about Jesus. At least the scripture seems to indicate his ignorance of Jesus. I could be wrong though.
Regardless, she wasn't alone, she had a male with her also teaching.

You've just acknowledged that Priscilla taught a man. And even if Apollos HAD been an unbeliever, if a woman is forbidden from teaching men, then that should mean ALL men in all circumstances.
Yet evangelism involves teaching; teaching people they are sinners, what God says about that and what he did for us. Are you saying that women can't evangelise; like the woman at the well who ran back to her town and said, "Come and meet a man who told me everything I've ever done - could he be the Messiah?" That's basically what evangelism is; introducing someone to Jesus. Jesus told us that we should make disciples, teach others, Matthew 28:19-20, and be his witnesses, Acts 1:8. Are you saying women are exempt from that? Mary Magdalene was chosen to be the first witness to the resurrection.
Prophecy involves teaching. You have a word from the Lord, a message, instruction, word of comfort or challenge and you give it; tell people what God is saying to them, or to the church. Paul said that women could prophecy, because he taught about having their heads covered when they did so. In the OT, when Josiah wanted a word from the Lord he sent his priests to consult a prophet and they chose to go to Huldah, (a woman). Her message from God led to a revival. Philip had 4 daughters and they were all prophets.

As well as prophesying, Paul also said that women can pray, 1 Corinthians 11:5. So how does that fit with your belief that he told women to be quiet? Women were in the upper room with the disciples after the ascension, and as all the believers were gathered when the Spirit came at Pentecost, then no doubt they received him and spoke in tongues also. In his teaching about prophecy and speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14, Paul doesn't say that women can't do these things, nor did he rebuke the women who were present from doing so.

Why would it have to mean all the time? It wouldn't have to be outright exclusive if God provided the exceptions, which He did.
Of course women can evangelize, but to balance those instances with the teachings of authority, we must infer that in the case of men who were already in the body of Christ (via baptism), women were not able to exercise authority over them/teach them. This is supported by the fact that Paul was addressing a local congregation, not sinners outside the body.
And yes I agree that 1 Cor 11 teaches that women were prophesying in some special way, even to men, but just like you said they had to wear a covering... to GIVE HEADSHIP TO THE MAN. God granted the exception to the women in that case, BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE IN GOD'S WAY.

What gives you the right do disregard those portions of the NT that discuss headship/authority?

 

[Strong in Him]

I guess I should have clarified that he was untaught about Jesus. At least the scripture seems to indicate his ignorance of Jesus. I could be wrong though.
Regardless, she wasn't alone, she had a male with her also teaching.

If God had commanded that women should not teach, then women should not teach - anyone, ever.

Why would it have to mean all the time? It wouldn't have to be outright exclusive if God provided the exceptions, which He did.

Well either having female teachers is not a command from God then, or he breaks his own word. And if the latter, then how can we trust it?

Of course women can evangelize, but to balance those instances with the teachings of authority, we must infer that in the case of men who were already in the body of Christ (via baptism), women were not able to exercise authority over them/teach them.

Evangelism involves teaching - it is informing someone they are a sinner, why they are a sinner, how they became separated from God, what they (we) deserve and what God did to rescue us. It may involve answering their questions and objections and showing, and explaining, various Scriptures. If women are allowed to do this, then women are sometimes involved in teaching men - and it doesn't matter if they are in the Body of Christ or not; teaching a man is teaching a man and if it is forbidden then it should be totally forbidden, across the board, no exceptions.
But there are women who teach theology, even train men for the Ministry. Female authors teach men. I am replying to your post, and reply to many posts on these forums written by men. There have been some men on this forum who have written unscriptural posts - they claim they are Christian yet deny the Trinity, for example. I have replied to many of these posts. Maybe you feel that I shouldn't; maybe you believe that it would be better if I left the men in ignorance, or ignored false teaching. Maybe you would rather these forums were just for men?

This is supported by the fact that Paul was addressing a local congregation, not sinners outside the body.

Even Christians in the body of Christ are sinners and not perfect. Paul addressed the believers in Corinth as saints, yet he had some pretty harsh words for them regarding their sexual morals, or behaviour at communion, for example.
Again, if God has commanded women not to teach men, then he has commanded women not to teach men. Full stop. It's not correct to say, "oh they can teach non Christian sinners, but as soon as men become Christians and part of the body of Christ, women must stop teaching them."

And yes I agree that 1 Cor 11 teaches that women were prophesying in some special way, even to men, but just like you said they had to wear a covering... to GIVE HEADSHIP TO THE MAN. God granted the exception to the women in that case, BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE IN GOD'S WAY.

Ok, so God apparently commands women not to teach men, then makes exceptions; breaks his own commands?

What gives you the right do disregard those portions of the NT that discuss headship/authority?

The NT teaching on headship is about the marriage relationship; "wives obey your husbands", and so on.
Being a Minister in a church is not the same as being a husband. Ministers can retire, resign or be sacked; husbands can't (or shouldn't.) Ministers have their calling tested, are trained, are appointed to a particular church for a while and then move on, are paid and may get promotions - husbands don't and aren't.
If you're talking about authority in the church, however; you have just, more or less, said that a woman may teach if she has a man with her or if she is wearing a head covering. So presumably a woman may be a curate in a church where her husband is the Minister? Or be a vicar if her husband is also one, or a bishop, or if she wears a hat while preaching?

God gives authority to us, believers, to teach, perform miracles, forgive sins and so on. He calls and equips us to be his witnesses, to make disciples and TEACH people about him and everything Jesus said. Paul did not say, anywhere, that women are exempt from this or that God will never give the gift of teaching to a woman.

 

[Hoghead1]

If God had commanded that women should not teach, then women should not teach - anyone, ever.



Well either having female teachers is not a command from God then, or he breaks his own word. And if the latter, then how can we trust it?



Evangelism involves teaching - it is informing someone they are a sinner, why they are a sinner, how they became separated from God, what they (we) deserve and what God did to rescue us. It may involve answering their questions and objections and showing, and explaining, various Scriptures. If women are allowed to do this, then women are sometimes involved in teaching men - and it doesn't matter if they are in the Body of Christ or not; teaching a man is teaching a man and if it is forbidden then it should be totally forbidden, across the board, no exceptions.
But there are women who teach theology, even train men for the Ministry. Female authors teach men. I am replying to your post, and reply to many posts on these forums written by men. There have been some men on this forum who have written unscriptural posts - they claim they are Christian yet deny the Trinity, for example. I have replied to many of these posts. Maybe you feel that I shouldn't; maybe you believe that it would be better if I left the men in ignorance, or ignored false teaching. Maybe you would rather these forums were just for men?



Even Christians in the body of Christ are sinners and not perfect. Paul addressed the believers in Corinth as saints, yet he had some pretty harsh words for them regarding their sexual morals, or behaviour at communion, for example.
Again, if God has commanded women not to teach men, then he has commanded women not to teach men. Full stop. It's not correct to say, "oh they can teach non Christian sinners, but as soon as men become Christians and part of the body of Christ, women must stop teaching them."



Ok, so God apparently commands women not to teach men, then makes exceptions; breaks his own commands?



The NT teaching on headship is about the marriage relationship; "wives obey your husbands", and so on.
Being a Minister in a church is not the same as being a husband. Ministers can retire, resign or be sacked; husbands can't (or shouldn't.) Ministers have their calling tested, are trained, are appointed to a particular church for a while and then move on, are paid and may get promotions - husbands don't and aren't.
If you're talking about authority in the church, however; you have just, more or less, said that a woman may teach if she has a man with her or if she is wearing a head covering. So presumably a woman may be a curate in a church where her husband is the Minister? Or be a vicar if her husband is also one, or a bishop, or if she wears a hat while preaching?

God gives authority to us, believers, to teach, perform miracles, forgive sins and so on. He calls and equips us to be his witnesses, to make disciples and TEACH people about him and everything Jesus said. Paul did not say, anywhere, that women are exempt from this or that God will never give the gift of teaching to a woman.

I think you are forgetting some important qualifiers here. The biblical world was definitely a sexist culture. Women were put down and kept down. As a product of that society, Paul had real issues with women. There is no doubt about that. A major early Christian work entitled "Paul and the Acts of Teekel" further brings out Paul's animosity toward women. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of the biblical culture and the prejudices of its writers. The OT, for example, in Exod. 21, sanctifies slavery and selling your daughter into slavery. Certainly we wouldn't go for that today. So, as far as the power and status of women goes, I don't see how anyone can trust Paul. The Bible should not be abused and used as an excuse to oppress women today.

 

[Jason Sanders]

You know, I've noticed a surprising tendency among believers who don't believe that the Holy Spirit moves today on the same way today that He did during the time of the apostles- they, almost to a man, all seem to think that women are inferior to men and shouldn't open their mouths in church.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this, just as I am sure there are those who believe in the gifts of the Spirit and still treat women as inferior, but its still an interesting correlation.

Why, it's almost as if the same spirit that denies the gifts of the Spirit is also trying to deny women the ability to speak.

Oh, wait.

It is!

 

[Strong in Him]

I think you are forgetting some important qualifiers here. The biblical world was definitely a sexist culture. Women were put down and kept down. As a product of that society, Paul had real issues with women. There is no doubt about that.

The culture of the NT was certainly a male dominated one- women had almost no rights.
But I don't think it's true to say that Paul had issues with women. It might have taken him a while to relate to them - as a Pharisee his daily prayer would have been "thank you Lord for not making me a gentile or a woman." But clearly he overcame that and had female co workers; in Romans 16 he commends various women for their hard work for the Gospel. In Philippi he found several women gathered in the place for prayer, talked with them and stayed with Lydia after she had been baptised and converted. Lydia was probably one of the founders of the Philippian church.

A major early Christian work entitled "Paul and the Acts of Teekel" further brings out Paul's animosity toward women.

Well it may do, but we don't know that it's accurate. Who wrote it? When? Where did they get their info?
At the end of the day, it's not Scripture, and Scripture shows Paul writing gratefully of the help women gave him in his work; Priscilla, Phoebe, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Euodia, Syntyche, and others, are all named by him personally.

So, as far as the power and status of women goes, I don't see how anyone can trust Paul.

The only problem with that is that if we can't trust Paul on one issue, how do we know we can trust him on others?
It's true that the Bible was written by human beings with their various personalities. The Holy Spirit did not dictate the words or put them into a trance as they wrote, so we see different emphases in their writings. Luke, for example, was a historian and a doctor (Paul's doctor), so we see historical details given in his Gospel. Matthew was writing for Jews - note how many times he says that OT prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.
But I am sure that if the authors had had any real prejudices, or issues that affected the Gospel and their work, the Holy Spirit would have challenged them, exposed and removed them or not allowed them to colour their work. We do have to understand the culture of the Bible, as well as who each of Paul's letters were written to, what the recipients would have understood by his words and why the authors were writing - was it to address false teaching etc? This is exegesis and is important in studying Scripture.

The Bible should not be abused and used as an excuse to oppress women today.

That's certainly true.
This is about application - do we apply everything in Scripture to us today, irrespective of who it was written to, the culture of the time etc etc? In the OT, as I said, women had no rights, and also slavery existed, so selling your daughter into slavery was probably common. The fact that no one, in the west, would do this today, shows that they are not rigid about applying Scriptural practices in our time.

 

[Imagican]

If the Bible is The Word of God, it wasn't written according to the 'feelings' of men. If it was divinely inspired by God, then it is indeed: His Word.

Question:

If one believes in 'one thing' written in the Bible, why would they not believe in 'everything' written in the Bible?

In other words, how foolish to 'pick and choose' what one 'wants' to believe that is written in the Bible. It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. The idea that some of it 'is' inspired and other parts aren't just seems ludicrous to me. If God has the ability to create life, He is obviously powerful enough to preserve His Word.

If it is worthy of us to place our faith in, then it is worthy for us to place our faith in 'all' that is written within it's pages. Or not. And if not, then none of it is worthy.

Unless, or course, we think 'we' are more capable of determining God's will than He.

The idea that Paul was 'not' divinely inspired is to believe that the majority of the NT is incorrect. Why believe in a single word of the NT if the words of Paul could have been placed within it's pages and is incorrect?

The entire purpose of the Bible is a source we can turn to in order to discern the 'truth'. Since we cannot place our faith in 'men', God gave us His Word so that we can 'know' the answers to questions that 'men' cannot be trusted to offer.

I have never read a 'single word' offered by Paul that contradicts what the rest of the Bible offers concerning the roles of men and women and how they pertain to the will of God. From the beginning of the Bible till the end, the Bible makes it perfectly clear. And I have never read a single word in the Bible that would indicate that Paul was 'anti women'.

A 'good leader' does not look 'down' upon his subjects. A 'good leader' does what they are capable of to take care of their subjects. Does what is best for 'all' instead of merely looking out for himself.

But that doesn't alter that a 'leader' is 'the' leader. Possessing the power to make decisions that are final. It would be 'bad followers' that were unwilling to follow as lead by a 'good leader'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[SkyWriting]

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't.

It is. But it is either told by men, in the language of men, or you are reading it exactly as God wrote it.
All the main tenets of Christianity are told by different authors, from different points of view.
Inspired means inspired. "Useful for teaching" only means Useful.

Without scripture, men are still without excuse.

 

[Strong in Him]

If the Bible is The Word of God, it wasn't written according to the 'feelings' of men. If it was divinely inspired by God, then it is indeed: His Word.

It was inspired by the Holy Spirit who spoke through men, human beings. He did not put them into a trance as he dictated it, he did not bypass their personalities or preferences and make sure they all wrote exactly the same thing - e.g. Matthew wrote for Jews and includes many OT prophecies, Mark's Gospel is very short and does not record many miracles, John has almost none and is more theological. Luke wrote in classical Greek; others didn't. The Holy Spirit allowed all these different styles and emphases to remain. Apparently, the book of Revelation contains some grammatical errors, and he allowed those to remain too.

He didn't allow them to make doctrinal and theological mistakes that would affect the Gospel, but he still used their own, human, words to record his revelation. He also allowed the feelings of the writers to come through - in Galatians, for example, you can almost hear Paul's frustration that they are even considering going back to circumcision. He calls them "foolish Galatians", and says he wishes that all the false teachers would go away and emasculate themselves! Did the Holy Spirit inspire him to write that he wanted men to go and cut their bits off? Maybe. But maybe they were just Paul's own words, sentiments and feelings which the Spirit allowed to remain because they served to show his frustration with the ridiculous teaching that the Galatians had received.

Question:

If one believes in 'one thing' written in the Bible, why would they not believe in 'everything' written in the Bible?

In other words, how foolish to 'pick and choose' what one 'wants' to believe that is written in the Bible. It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't.

At the risk of sounding silly, it does depend on how you read the Bible and how you believe what's written in it.

Take the example I've just given; was that inspired? Is it true? Do you believe it and believe you have to do something about it?
Take Jesus' words about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye if they cause you to sin; do you believe them and are they true? I believe it's true that he said them. Am I going to put them into practice? No. What I believe that he meant was that if anything leads us into sin and hinders our relationship with God, we need to get rid of it - no matter how painful that might be. That is absolutely true and I believe that 100%. But I don't believe that Jesus wanted us to literally mutilate ourselves.
Take Paul's personal greetings to various people " give them my love"; "when you come to visit me, bring my books and my cloak"; "tell X to do Y". Do you believe these are true and that Paul wrote and meant them? I do. But that doesn't mean those words are for me - I can't visit Paul and take him his books, for obvious reasons.
Then you have all the OT laws. Do you believe them? They're in the Bible - the Spirit didn't tell the compilers that they could leave them out. Do you obey and keep them? If not then, as with these other examples, aren't you choosing which bits of Scripture to believe and practice?

It's the same with Paul's words about women. Are they a command from God and a universal teaching that applies to all churches everywhere? Or did that church have a particular problem with chatty women or those trying to undermine the authority of their male teachers? If so, it's very possible that the Spirit inspired Paul to write what he did. But if we, in a different culture don't follow them, does it mean we don't believe the Bible? Not at all.

The idea that some of it 'is' inspired and other parts aren't just seems ludicrous to me. If God has the ability to create life, He is obviously powerful enough to preserve His Word.

See above.
Is the Bible inspired? Yes.
Is everything in the Bible for us and written to us? No.
Does this mean that we don't believe the Bible or that it isn't true? Again, no.

If it is worthy of us to place our faith in, then it is worthy for us to place our faith in 'all' that is written within it's pages. Or not. And if not, then none of it is worthy.

Sorry but that's not correct.
Some of the NT letters do contain personal instruction, and these instructions/greetings/comments on church practice are not doctrine. Paul wrote that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair and women to have short hair? Is it? No, not for us. So what do we do about that? Are his words about women wearing a head covering as important and binding as his statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God, for example? Some people may say so and vigorously enforce it. I say they are not; they are different kinds of writing. The statement about God's love is revelation about God - it is true, will always be true and it is doctrine that God loves us with an eternal love which can never be broken. The statement about head covering was a statement made to people at that time, in that culture. However much the culture changes, God's love is still the same.

To be continued - I need sleep.

 

[SkyWriting]

It all can be believed. But we pick how we want to
apply, which parts to our lives, minute by minute.