Tricky Bible Quesitons

[regina123]

People tell me The Bible has had a lot gone missing from it. If this is true, why would God allow it to go missing?

Surely if He intended us to see it we would see it. Is it true books of a certain nature(regarding humour etc) were destroyed somehow?

Also, why is it that some things from The Bible are chalked up to being just "old fashioned" and therefore no longer relevant(like wearing a veil to Mass, eating pork and certain other traditions) yet some are still kept as sacred(no pre-marital sex etc.)?

And finally, why does The Bible read like it is being directed at Men at all the time? It reads like a handbook to life for Men. Some parts look to be written for Fathers or brothers or sons more-so than for daughters or wives.

There seems to be a lot about haughty women shaming Fathers and so forth which is, imo, very sexist if I am reading it right. Also, it emphasises how important having a son is and how daughters are a joy but seem to be more blessed if made beautiful for example I think there is a part where God talks of making someones' sons strong or whatever and the daughters beautiful, as though the outside appearance is the main thing and they don't get to inherit anything.

Now if all that is just old traditions no longer relevant in modern society, why would it be in there when God would know full well women in this century would feel a little left out? I know God made Our Lady important and that women play an important role but The Bible does tend to read, to me anyway, that it is being directed to the Sons and Fathers all the time.

It really gets my goat. I don't know what to think and I apologise to Our Lord if I have gotten any of this wrong.

God Bless,+

 

[ChildOfGod20]

the things that are no longer relative are old traditions from the old testament. when Jesus came he made those no longer important. He began to emphasize love instead of ceremonial practices and what not.

And I am a female and I don't feel left out of the Bible. Yes i realize there are a lot of parts that refer only to men but I know that it was just the culture back then. If God had said men and women people wouldn't have taken the Bible so seriously back then. But I think he knew that we would have the intelligence to figure out that their culture was different and that it applies to everyone.

That's my opinion.

 

[tqpix]

Also, why is it that some things from The Bible are chalked up to being just "old fashioned" and therefore no longer relevant(like wearing a veil to Mass, eating pork and certain other traditions) yet some are still kept as sacred(no pre-marital sex etc.)?

Wearing veil to mass, eating pork, etc., are ceremonial traditions that is neither right nor wrong; therefore, they are trivial matters. Stuff like pre-marital sex (PMS), on the other hand, is very important, because PMS would ruin God's original plan, and thus, it would be wrong to commit PMS.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If God is the 'same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow', he must feel the same way about women today. If the answer to your question were revealed at this time it would bring western christianity crashing down. Perhaps it will yet cause the prophecied end-time 'falling away'.

Women over the centuries have asked this question. Believe me, you don't want to know the answer.

 

[daveleau]

God does not put down women. Far from it. Women and men have different roles, but Scripture puts both on the same footing regarding importance. A woman is to honor her husband in that role, but likewise a man is to love his wife as himself, always putting his respect and love for her first. People often concentrate on the first part as being bigoted because of our society's beliefs. But, this is not the case. If man loves his wife the way Scripture describes, then it is an equal partnership with each person uplifting the other, with the man as the spokesperson for the family.

God has not changed. His Word has addressed different audiences with different standards. But, God's message has never changed. It is like the example of the Gospels. We have 4 Gospels that were written for 4 different purposes. Matthew was written to the Hebrew people. Mark was written from Peter's teachings and addressed the people of Rome. Luke was written from a strict historical viewpoint to counter alternate writings of the time (as was Acts written with this same purpose). Both were written to Theophilus to help him understand the Truth of Jesus. John was written for the early heresies that we today call Gnosticism. It wasn't called that at the time, but the beliefs were similar. Each Gospel had a different audience and had different characteristics in the writing. But, the message is the same.

As for the fulfillment of the Law, there were certain aspects of the OT Law that were fulfilled by Christ. These include, but are not restricted to, the eating of Pork (nothing that goes into the mouth defiles, it is what comes from the heart that defiles) or the sacrifice of animals (atoning sacrifice ended with the Ultimate Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.)

Much of the Bible speaks of humanity or man but includes both women and men. Some speaks directly to men, in their specific role from God. Do not confuse this as being sexist or bigoted. Today, our society has changed and women are expected to hand both roles, as are men. This is society's expectation, not God's, as can be seen in Scripture. Do not let this world's standards take you away from God's standards. They are intended to be with love and caring from Him. We (society) are the ones that put a hierarchy on our roles. We (society) define a role's value based on how much money it brings in or how much power one has. This is completely backwards and devoid of Scriptural teaching. Do not let this confuse you as it has millions. Money is not the measure of value, adherence to Scriptural intent in our roles is. Neither is power a measure. Being the leader is on equal footing with being the comforter, helper and raiser of children. There is no greater calling than being the one to shape the life of a child to help God. We are all God's helpers and His workmen. The first step to denying this is to step out of our Scriptural roles as helpers of each other. The next step is the denial of our subservience to God.

God bless you,
Dave

 

[fuzzyh]

Something to consider as well is that women are often included with some statements about men. Throughout proverbs men are mentioned. However, in the Hebrew culture they would have understood it to apply to women as well, when it makes sense. So women aren't excluded although, they have a different role and position in the Bible.

 

[WAB]

the things that are no longer relative are old traditions from the old testament. when Jesus came he made those no longer important. He began to emphasize love instead of ceremonial practices and what not.

And I am a female and I don't feel left out of the Bible. Yes i realize there are a lot of parts that refer only to men but I know that it was just the culture back then. If God had said men and women people wouldn't have taken the Bible so seriously back then. But I think he knew that we would have the intelligence to figure out that their culture was different and that it applies to everyone.

That's my opinion.

And your opinion is verified by Galatians 3:27,28..."For as many of you as were baptized into Christ (see 1Cor.12:13), have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile, same word), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus." (ESV,caps added).

May His peace be your portion....

 

[daveleau]

And your opinion is verified by Galatians 3:27,28..."For as many of you as were baptized into Christ (see 1Cor.12:13), have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile, same word), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus." (ESV,caps added).

May His peace be your portion....

Nicely said.

 

[Psalms101]

And finally, why does The Bible read like it is being directed at Men at all the time? It reads like a handbook to life for Men. Some parts look to be written for Fathers or brothers or sons more-so than for daughters or wives.

QUOTE]

Part of it is becasue ENglish has very few gender-nuteral pronouns (reserved for the third person, none that are second person). If there are no gender-neutral pronouns, then todays society immediately assumes it was sexist. Also, especially during King James' rule (KJV), all legal documents only expressely stated the laws in a masculine voice, although it was understood the laws applied to women as well. Hebrew doesn't have this problem. It does have a second and third person gender nuetral pronoun for singular AND plural. THis answers most of the confusion.

Also, we can see that GOd was not sexist in how He used people. IT is obvious He held women to the same importance as men. IN Proverbs (31 I think), the Bible talks about the ideal wife, and she has as much of a duty in the community as the husband.
Not to mention the fact that GOd constantly used women to spread his word, protect his word, and fulfill all of his intents in our world.

 

[FreezBee]

People tell me The Bible has had a lot gone missing from it. If this is true, why would God allow it to go missing?

Surely if He intended us to see it we would see it. Is it true books of a certain nature(regarding humour etc) were destroyed somehow?

It's unclear, what you are referring to here. The Bible doesn't really exist - what exists is a collection of texts, and that collection happens to go by the name of the Bible. Which collection of texts count as the Bible varies among the major groups of Christians - Protestants accepting the fewest, and Coptic Christians accepting the most. Besides these texts, there are also other texts such as 1 Enoch, that is quoted by Jude, but is not canonical (not included in the Bible). Yest many people like it, because it's got fallen angels and lots of other juicy stuff. It's actually a necessary book for highly speculative Christianity, because the Biblical texts do not tells us much about angels. But you might as well read any other fantasy novel.

Also, why is it that some things from The Bible are chalked up to being just "old fashioned" and therefore no longer relevant(like wearing a veil to Mass, eating pork and certain other traditions) yet some are still kept as sacred(no pre-marital sex etc.)?

Rules come and go, what happened to be in fashion in the 1st century, probably went out of fashin in the 2nd century, but may some day become fashionable again. Humans are like that!

The no pre-marital sex rule is slightly different in that a child born outside of marriage would be a child born outside the law. Think about it this way: marriage and love have nothing at all to do with each other. Marriage has only something to do with keeping the family heritance. Therefore marriage needs to be regulated, so the children will receive the correct property without having that property spread too much or handed over to others. Un-lawful children, what about them? Will they inherit? As not regulated by law, the answer is: no! this is of course only of relevance among property-owning people, so if you don't own anything, just forget about it.

And finally, why does The Bible read like it is being directed at Men at all the time? It reads like a handbook to life for Men. Some parts look to be written for Fathers or brothers or sons more-so than for daughters or wives. [/quotes]

As Psalms101 writes, to some extent it's because English lacks gender neutral words, and maybe there is also much more gender-sensitivity today. Som people are extremely focused on all this gender-business.

Mosaic law has laws specific for men and laws specific for women, so it's not as if women are non-existing. But probably the texts were originally primarily read aloud to men that were then supposed to go home and try to persuade their wives that those rules really were for the best!

There seems to be a lot about haughty women shaming Fathers and so forth which is, imo, very sexist if I am reading it right.

Could you please supply us with an example - I can't really come to think about one. Do you read a lot of femoinist literature? Don't do that - it's about as relevant for Bible study as creationist literature is for natural science.

Also, it emphasises how important having a son is and how daughters are a joy but seem to be more blessed if made beautiful for example I think there is a part where God talks of making someones' sons strong or whatever and the daughters beautiful, as though the outside appearance is the main thing and they don't get to inherit anything.

True, the inheritance was through the male line - therefore it was important to have sons. But if you don't own anything, that's irrelevant, anf you can safely forget it.

A minor point: "beautiful" need not only refer to the outside appearance, but might rely on that the outside would reflect the inside - well, people had weird ideas back then!

Now if all that is just old traditions no longer relevant in modern society, why would it be in there when God would know full well women in this century would feel a little left out?

Do women feel anymore left out than men do? I am male, and I feel left out - official Christianity has no relevance for me!

I don't own anything, so what is all this talk about inheritance of the kingdom of God about?

I know God made Our Lady important and that women play an important role but The Bible does tend to read, to me anyway, that it is being directed to the Sons and Fathers all the time.

Because how would the Sons and Fathers otherwise know that God made Our Lady important and that women play an important role. To me Our Lady is of no importance (isn't she supposed to just be that to Roman Catholics?), and I don't think women play any particular role - why should they?

It really gets my goat. I don't know what to think and I apologise to Our Lord if I have gotten any of this wrong

Don't worry, nobody ever gets it right, and even if so, then be sure that at least someone out there will declare it wrong!

The main value of the Bible is that it can keep people discussing matters, which actually might prevent an outright war, so it's not really, what the Bible says that's important (people will interpret it to say what they want it to say anyway), but that it says anything at all!


- FreezBee

 

[Phatbowser]

None of the Old Testament is obsolete. We should still be following alot of that today. But God abolished some of it because of the downfall of man. God's law was perfect, still is, but man is not perfect. God saw this to be a problem, man does not have the willpower and the sinless ability to follow perfect law. So God had to pass away some of the Old Testament law so that any man that comes to Christ can be saved. If those laws were still in effect, it would be impossible to be saved, but it is still immportant to practice as much of it as your spirit can handle.

 

[WAB]

None of the Old Testament is obsolete. We should still be following alot of that today. But God abolished some of it because of the downfall of man. God's law was perfect, still is, but man is not perfect. God saw this to be a problem, man does not have the willpower and the sinless ability to follow perfect law. So God had to pass away some of the Old Testament law so that any man that comes to Christ can be saved. If those laws were still in effect, it would be impossible to be saved, but it is still immportant to practice as much of it as your spirit can handle.

Your first sentence is correct. The rest is not.

In Ephesians chapter 2, Paul informs us that The Gentiles who were "...aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.", "...have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (vs 12,13).

vs 14... "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is the law of commandments contained in ordinances..."

How did He do this? Colossians 2:14... "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements (the Mosaic law) that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

The Laws of Moses were not optional. Paul tells us in Gal.5:3 that "...every man who becomes circumcised (ritually, in obedience to the law), that he is a debtor to keep the whole law."

That is why Paul writes in Gal.3:24..."Therefore the law was our tutor (pedagogue, or child-conductor) to bring us to Christ."

No one but the Lord Jesus Christ ever kept the entirety of the law without breaking it. Let alone what the Lord said about... if any man looks at a woman to lust after her, he has already commited adultery with her in his heart (mind).

God's Word is settled forever. Even those who do not put their trust in the finished work of Christ on Calvary's Cross for their salvation will not be judged for breaking the Law at the Great White Throne judgement, but for their "works".

Realizing that the true believer is freed from the law is wonderfully liberating. Otherwise, how does one decide which of the 613 laws of Moses plus the Ten Commandments is one required to obey?

Shalom... WAB

p.s. Would like to point out also that "...the downfall of man..." occurred long before God gave Moses the law.

 

[jgonz]

One correction.... The Law was NOT given for salvation purposes. Faith is the only thing that EVER saved anyone in the Bible. The Law was given for instruction on righteous living. Not salvation.

 

[WAB]

One correction.... The Law was NOT given for salvation purposes. Faith is the only thing that EVER saved anyone in the Bible. The Law was given for instruction on righteous living. Not salvation.

Beg to differ. As posted, the law was our "...child conductor to lead us to Christ."

Because no one other than the Lord Jesus Christ ever kept all of the law, that "...instruction on righteous living ." was an impossibility for mankind; and so the law was "nailed to the cross" and serves to point everyone who would know God to put their faith in the finished work of Christ on that very cross.

So the law WAS "...given for salvation purposes." This by pointing to, and leading one to, the One in whom we must put our faith in order to be saved.

 

[jgonz]

No, I respectfully disagree.

The Law was NOT given for salvation purposes. The Law was given for instruction for righteous living, AND as a tutor to bring us to Christ. If the Law was given for salvation purposes, then how was Abraham counted as righteous before G-d? Or Isaac? Or Jacob? It was FAITH.

 

[HOlycroSS]

Well, what about men and women who don't get married- does that change the whole "good wife" role? The Bible says that Men were created first and that women came from men, but were also created by God. MAn was made in God's image, therefore- it makes sense that HE is God that father and that Jesus was male. I really don't see how roles have anything to do with how God created us. We were all meant to serve Him- does that mean then men should serve Him more than Women? I don't think so. I think that Christians take the "man's helper" thing too far. Women are just as prescious as men and should have every right to serve as a man does. Childbirth is the only thing that really sets men apart from women in their roles, but they still should have an equal share in raising the child. If their is no Child to be raised, God's servants should be doing what God called us to do, spread to Good News about Jesus Christ- Praise God