You probably don't need to cover your head based on 1 Corinthians

[Theophilus2019]

I've heard it put that the head covering requirement is purely a cultural thing of the time. It was generally regarded as improper for a woman to have her head uncovered, much like in early 20th century Britain. In Paul's time having her head uncovered would be something like a girl attending church in a miles above the knee micro skirt. Today we don't generally think a bare headed woman is disrespectful. It's a specific example of the general principle Paul is making that Christians should dress respectably.

Another point is that as far as I know there are no requirements in the Old Testament for women to have their heads covered when they attended any kind of religious meeting, such as at the reading of the Law in Ezra's time. This is odd as for example Leviticus is packed with minutiae of how God's people should dress, eat, cook etc. In general the New Testament imposed no new dress, food etc. regulations, so it is difficult to see why it should impose one specific rule that women should have their heads covered.

 

[NeedyFollower]

I believe as Christians we've all came across the topic of head covering especially in light of
1 Corinthians 11:13-15. However, I want to bring to light another interpretation of those verses based on scholarship. This is mainly based on a podcast episode by Dr. Michael Heiser here (Naked Bible 86: The Head Covering of 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

If you don't have time to listen I'll summarize so that we can have a discussion. When Paul implied that it is improper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered it's because Paul had a common view at the time that the hair on a female's head was part of her genitalia. This view is based on the medical understanding of his day. It would be improper for woman to display her genitalia (this case hair) when praying to God in the same way a lot of us don't pray to God when naked.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you. I look forward to your responses

EDIT: I've posted two of the articles that speak to that claim (it being genitalia)

Paul’s argument from nature for the veil in 1 Corinthians 11.13-15: A ball instead of a Head Covering

This reference can be very "academic" so I'll post a summary of the main ideas in a next post.

Note: The reasoning for this view is because of the medical knowledge of the time and can be seen in various medical texts from example, Aristotle, Euripedes and
Hippocrates.

I know it was the custom of Israelites prior to taking a non jewish woman as a wife , for her to shave her head . To me anyway , this seems to do with making sure that a hebrew's inclination for taking her as a bride , went beyond her physical attractiveness .
Christians in the first century ( as I understand it ) were a humble people . Both men and women . A submitted people ( both men and women ). It seems to me that the head covering was a demonstration of a meek and humble people . A distinctive people who were separate from the world and did not follow the fashions of the pagans ( many of whom ..apart from the stoics ) clearly esteemed the outward show of putting on apparel and the pursuit of glory . Not unlike some of the merchant class forebears of america from England.
Regarding the notion that Paul was addressing a certain group of peoples , rather than christians in general . This is somewhat true . Many of these people were going through persecution . Losing position , wealth, family and often their lives for their faith . If Paul were addressing christians in America , I think his letters would be closer to Jesus letters to the church in revelations . Repent . Who he loves he rebukes .
An older Muslim man from Jordan told me that before the invention of television, both Christian and Muslim women kept their head covered . Now we are instructed by Hollywood . I think this is probably true . What society esteems is our God .

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

dude....no.

I was able to get through about 20 minutes of that podcast. I couldn't handle the absurdity. the term "paribolaion" does not refer to genitalia. it refers to a covering or veil. thus his whole argument falls flat on it's face. saying that other writers used this term to refer to pubic hair on private parts, he would need to substantiate that Paul was referring to this when he was writing, which he does not.

next...

 

[The Righterzpen]

Hi Dave, of course we would say it's ridiculous to us today. That's because we know better but 2000-years ago this was medical "science".

This sounds to me like something out of an Islamic hadith. (I don't know if it's in the Koran? I know Koranic passages about what exactly is hijab are debated.)

Much of the information that is in the Koran came out of the Talmud; and so yes. I went and looked this up and sure enough; the whole "hair and genitalia" thing is in Talmudic teachings. (There's a lot of weird, gross and blasphemous stuff in the Talmud.)

Here's a link if anyone cares to read some rabbi's opinion.

Hair - שֵׂעָר

All this being said; regardless of what Aristotle, Socrates or anyone else thought or said, the real author of the Scripture is the Holy Spirit. Holy men of old spoke (wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, considering how the Holy Spirit would know how humans are "assembled"; we see some interesting things (misinterpretations and mistranslations) show up in the Scripture.

Hebrew is an interesting language; in that it's a descriptor language and not one of word nuance. The word translated "kidney" in Hebrew comes through a couple of "add ons" to a prime word that means "to be complete, at the end, finished, accomplished" or "spent". Now in some places in Scripture "kidney" is actually a reference to reproductive organs. The second "add on" to the word brings it to mean "an article, utensil or vessel". Its translated anywhere from "armor" to "jar". What it's translated as, is understood by the context of the passage.

"Saul brought his sword to the battle."
"Joseph dawned his robe."
"12 sons came from the bowels / loins of Jacob."
"place the fat with the kidneys upon the alter"

So "vessel" / "vital organ" / "kidney". makes contextual sense as one works through the word "add ons".

Now one of the misunderstandings of the ancient world was the belief that sperm somehow passed through the kidneys. Now if one were to dissect an animal; I could see why they would make that mistake in their understanding of anatomy. The kidneys are connected to the bladder which is the last "organ" prior to exiting the body. Now obviously God knows kidneys create urine.

So the Hebrew being the type of language it was; could be adequately utilized by God (because of its ambiguity as a language of description) and still portray something in "common terms" that later on could be applied medically when humanity had obtained better understanding of how things worked.

For example; (I believe it's in Luke) the account of the angel telling Mary she will bear a son. She asks him how is this possible when she hasn't known a man. Now couched in the angel's response is an explanation that Mary would understand; but also us 2000 years later who know about DNA.

The angel's explanation entails telling Mary that God will use "the stock" of her to create this child. Now you can't see that in the English, but it is implied in the structure of the Greek.

Now she would have understood her stock as her ancestry; particularly being "of one of the tribes of Israel" going back to Jacob and then Abraham. And she knew the promise was to come through a certain "line". Her "stock" or "ancestry" or what we might say today; her DNA.

Now for those who understand how conception medically happens; it gives us a fascinating insight as to how Jesus's body was actually created by the Holy Ghost. Besides being fully God; Jesus was also fully human. A female egg has all 46 chromosomes before its fertilized. Once fertilization happens; the egg releases a polar body of excess DNA. So the Holy Spirit working with the "stock" of Mary that was already present, did not need to "add" DNA. All that would make Jesus fully human was already there.

So there is an example of how understanding of the text can increase over time as humans have greater access to knowledge of how this creation was "put together".

So in all that; obviously the Holy Spirit knows hair has nothing to do with sperm, sex or anything like that; so regardless of what Paul may have been exposed to in the teachings of men, we still interpret Scripture by Scripture and not by some cultural interpretation from 2000 years ago.

 

[Biblewriter]

There is a basic and fundamental error at the root of this argument.

That is that what is found in the Bible is a product of the opinions of mere men.

We are very explicitly told that the scriptures are inspired by God, and the writings of Paul are explicitly called "scripture."

So what we have in the Bible is the word of God, not the opinions of mere men, and is thus totaly unaffected by human opinion and human error.

 

[Christ is Lord]

There is a basic and fundamental error at the root of this argument.

That is that what is found in the Bible is a product of the opinions of mere men.

We are very explicitly told that the scriptures are inspired by God, and the writings of Paul are explicitly called "scripture."

So what we have in the Bible is the word of God, not the opinions of mere men, and is thus totaly unaffected by human opinion and human error.

So how would the Holy Spirit communicate to Paul an understanding of the human body that we have to today that would have been foreign to him back then. Are you aware of the “unscientific” statements that are made in the Bible? I hold the belief that scripture is inspired but I also hold the belief that these are still human writers with an limited understanding of the world when compared to what we have now.

When you say the Bible is not mere opinions of men and I do agree how do you reconcile the unscientific claims in the Bible?

 

[Christ is Lord]

So what we have in the Bible is the word of God, not the opinions of mere men, and is thus totaly unaffected by human opinion and human error.

As I've stated above I believe that the Bible is an inspired book; with that said ask yourself what happens when you make that statement that "the Bible is the word of God, not the opinions of mere men". What happens when unbelievers read the Bible and they find statements that we know to be scientifically incorrect based on our current knowledge? That view of inspiration weakens the Bible in my opinion and makes it open to ridicule by unbelievers. They think to themselves, if the Bible is the word of God and not the writers' mere opinion (with is true to an extent) then this God must be a) toying with them or b) stupid and therefore not real.

I believe more Christians should have a healthier view of the Bible. Yes, it is the word of God however, these are still human authors that have a limited understanding of the world. The Holy Spirit moved upon the hearts of the authors to write down things (he didn't dictate the Bible) he allowed them to freely write and was happy with the ultimate result. And by the providence of God these books were included in the cannon that we have today. You have to also remember when the writer is composing they don't have us in mind as their audience; their audience are people that lived when they were alive. That's another reason why there are certain things in the Bible that seem culturally bizarre to us because we are removed from their culture.

Doesn't that view of inspiration make God seem even more powerful? He doesn't have to dictate the Bible and whisper in their ear every word. Because he is sovereign he moved on the hearts of imperfect human beings that have a limited understanding of "science" to have the ultimate result we have today that many of us hold dear—the Bible.

Finally, that doesn't mean that the theory bought forth in this thread is true and correct. It's just a theory after all because a very cohort one that I believe to be a valid option.

God bless

 

[Biblewriter]

So how would the Holy Spirit communicate to Paul an understanding of the human body that we have to today that would have been foreign to him back then. Are you aware of the “unscientific” statements that are made in the Bible? I hold the belief that scripture is inspired but I also hold the belief that these are still human writers with an limited understanding of the world when compared to what we have now.

When you say the Bible is not mere opinions of men and I do agree how do you reconcile the unscientific claims in the Bible?

The Bible warns us to avoid the claims of "science, falsely so called." Although now retired, I had a long career as a scientist who was a leader in his field. And I can assure you that there is not a single statement in the Bible that has been disproven by anything even approaching any REAL science.

 

[Monna]

It it because of the roles of men and women and upholding those roles. Not culture.

like a red flag to a bull: "Gender roles are cultural constructs." There are cultures that are matriarchal; there are cultures where woman have more than one husband; just as there are cultures that are patriarchal, and cultures that allow a man to have more than one wife (including OT Jewish society). There are cultures in which women ALWAYS cover their hair, even when no men are present.

Ltes remember that God doesn't look on the "outside" of a person, but on the inside. Who is really showing Biblical submission (for I am not sure we have the same understanding of the word in greek that is translated "submit" in English as Paul had when he wrote it) - the woman who wears a head covering, but opposes everything her husband says, or the woman who doesn't cover her head but graciously accepts her husband's final decision in a matter.

For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.

Hmmm... I wonder what Paul made of Genesis 1:27
"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

Is there anyone else here who understand this to mean even females (women!) are created in the image of God? In this account of the creation of mankind, there is no mention of women being made from a man's rib. If you wish to hold very closely to the six day (24 hr day) creation, and the second description of his creation of women, you need to account for the time it took for Adam to search among all the creatures (while naming them) and fail to find a mate suitable for him, time for God to see that Adam needed someone special (Genesis 2:19-22). And then it is hard to reconcile all this happening before the sixth day (24 hours) expired and God rested from his creational work.

 

[Biblewriter]

like a red flag to a bull: "Gender roles are cultural constructs." There are cultures that are matriarchal; there are cultures where woman have more than one husband; just as there are cultures that are patriarchal, and cultures that allow a man to have more than one wife (including OT Jewish society). There are cultures in which women ALWAYS cover their hair, even when no men are present.

Ltes remember that God doesn't look on the "outside" of a person, but on the inside. Who is really showing Biblical submission (for I am not sure we have the same understanding of the word in greek that is translated "submit" in English as Paul had when he wrote it) - the woman who wears a head covering, but opposes everything her husband says, or the woman who doesn't cover her head but graciously accepts her husband's final decision in a matter.



Hmmm... I wonder what Paul made of Genesis 1:27
"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

Is there anyone else here who understand this to mean even females (women!) are created in the image of God? In this account of the creation of mankind, there is no mention of women being made from a man's rib. If you wish to hold very closely to the six day (24 hr day) creation, and the second description of his creation of women, you need to account for the time it took for Adam to search among all the creatures (while naming them) and fail to find a mate suitable for him, time for God to see that Adam needed someone special (Genesis 2:19-22). And then it is hard to reconcile all this happening before the sixth day (24 hours) expired and God rested from his creational work.

Are you implying that what the Bible says may not correct?

 

[Monna]

Are you implying that what the Bible says may not correct?

No. I am pointing out some additional, present day facts, that have applied for thousands of years.
I am also pointing out some anomalies in Scripture (Gen 1 and 2). If both are "correct" then there is something missing in our understanding or interpretation.

(I think we should also be careful with our use of words like "correct" - this is not the same as either "true" or "right" in every context.)

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in response to information he had received, either written or oral, possibly both. He was addressing these issues. We do not have the documents he may have received, or any recording of verbal communication. So there is a lot of room for contextual understanding.

The challenge that you throw out at me, is the same inherently as the challenge Peter made to Jesus, when he implied that Jesus "could" not die ... Peter's understanding of the Hebrew scriptures did not allow the Messiah to die. From his perspective either Jesus was wrong or the scriptures were wrong (God forbid!). In fact it was Peter's understanding of the OT and of the Messiah that was faulty.

We also know that things stated as "laws" in the old testament were turned on their head by Jesus in some cases (some regulations on cleanliness), by specific and explicit revelation in at least one other case (Peter's vision and command to eat unclean food), and by Paul himself (circumcision). Paul's understanding of the gospel message itself changed. He came to Corinth on his second missionary journey, yet he told them they were the first to hear "his gospel." (There are references to at least 6 different "competing gospels" in the NT.) So Paul himself was very much aware of his own need to learn more and of the possibility that his own understanding would change as it grew. Even if he wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration," I cannot believe he was so arrogant that he believed his own letters were Scripture as he wrote them. (He was refering to the OT - which incidentally in his day was not the same as today.)

 

[Biblewriter]

No. I am pointing out some additional, present day facts, that have applied for thousands of years.
I am also pointing out some anomalies in Scripture (Gen 1 and 2). If both are "correct" then there is something missing in our understanding or interpretation.

(I think we should also be careful with our use of words like "correct" - this is not the same as either "true" or "right" in every context.)

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in response to information he had received, either written or oral, possibly both. He was addressing these issues. We do not have the documents he may have received, or any recording of verbal communication. So there is a lot of room for contextual understanding.

The challenge that you throw out at me, is the same inherently as the challenge Peter made to Jesus, when he implied that Jesus "could" not die ... Peter's understanding of the Hebrew scriptures did not allow the Messiah to die. From his perspective either Jesus was wrong or the scriptures were wrong (God forbid!). In fact it was Peter's understanding of the OT and of the Messiah that was faulty.

We also know that things stated as "laws" in the old testament were turned on their head by Jesus in some cases (some regulations on cleanliness), by specific and explicit revelation in at least one other case (Peter's vision and command to eat unclean food), and by Paul himself (circumcision). Paul's understanding of the gospel message itself changed. He came to Corinth on his second missionary journey, yet he told them they were the first to hear "his gospel." (There are references to at least 6 different "competing gospels" in the NT.) So Paul himself was very much aware of his own need to learn more and of the possibility that his own understanding would change as it grew. Even if he wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration," I cannot believe he was so arrogant that he believed his own letters were Scripture as he wrote them. (He was refering to the OT - which incidentally in his day was not the same as today.)

If the Bible does not actually come from God. If it is nothing but the opinions of mere men, then we have nothing. This concept leaves us with zero basis for our faith. And THAT is why Satan pushes it so energetically.

 

[Monna]

If the Bible does not actually come from God. If it is nothing but the opinions of mere men, then we have nothing. This concept leaves us with zero basis for our faith. And THAT is why Satan pushes it so energetically.

The original of the Bible is one thing. Our interpretation of it is quite another.

And Christendom is notorious for the wide variety of groups that seem to claim their own interpretation is the only and correct one. It was happening already in the Book of Acts. Indeed it was an ongoing issue between Jesus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I have not stated that the Bible is wrong. I have merely pointed out the possibility (even probability) that our understanding of it is not complete. That includes mine as well as yours. Paul encourages us to grow in grace. One way to practise grace is to accept that our various interpretations of scripture will quite possibly remain different for a long time, but we can accept one another as disciples on a continuous journey following our Lord Jesus and learning (different things, in different orders, and at different rates) along the way.

 

[~Zao~]

If the Bible does not actually come from God. If it is nothing but the opinions of mere men, then we have nothing. This concept leaves us with zero basis for our faith. And THAT is why Satan pushes it so energetically.

What satan pushes for is unbelief in scripture. The reason that he pushes for it is because it is the only weapon the believer possess. There was a great push for the invalidity of the bible a few years ago and thank God that has passed. But satan still has his agenda in the interpretation. The bible, as we all know, contains writings of God’s agenda, satan’s agenda and then the workings according to their abilities of the men and women who are representatives of the battle between God and satan. Clarification is more than needed. That is what satan pushes against.

 

[Biblewriter]

The original of the Bible is one thing. Our interpretation of it is quite another.

And Christendom is notorious for the wide variety of groups that seem to claim their own interpretation is the only and correct one. It was happening already in the Book of Acts. Indeed it was an ongoing issue between Jesus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I have not stated that the Bible is wrong. I have merely pointed out the possibility (even probability) that our understanding of it is not complete. That includes mine as well as yours. Paul encourages us to grow in grace. One way to practise grace is to accept that our various interpretations of scripture will quite possibly remain different for a long time, but we can accept one another as disciples on a continuous journey following our Lord Jesus and learning (different things, in different orders, and at different rates) along the way.

Interpretation is certainly fallible. And mine is not necessarily correct. But to even suggest that the humans who originally penned the scriptures may have included statements that were not absolutely true and accurate is not acceptable.

 

[Monna]

who originally penned the scriptures

But you/we don't have those originally penned scriptures.
And we DO know that the myriads of old manuscript copies of different parts of the scriptures DO NOT agree with each other 100%. So how do you even know which is the correct manuscript? Then, there is the question of translation: I wonder, Biblewriter, how many languages you know, and if you can EXACTLY translate theological or spiritual concepts from one language to another?

We DO KNOW for example that what we consider the scriptures today, were not compiled by the end of the apostolic period. During the process during which the "final" version of our Bible was determined, there was NOT 100% agreement on what should be included and what should be excluded. Even Paul himself in one of his letters admits that the part he is writing just then is "not from the Lord" but his own opinion. (Was he saying those opinions "were not absolutely true and accurate" or was there a smidgeon of hesitancy/doubt there in his own mind?) Lots of his letters were not included in the NT canon - was he less sincere, or serious, or thoughtful, in those letters than the ones that were included - in spite of the case I have just mentioned? Was he not inspired (in the sense that the Spirit moved him to write them) in those cases?

We DO know that God worked through real world people, with all their linguistic, cultural, and personal baggage - (not one of them perfect except His Son) - and in spite of their weaknesses and even their failures.

 

[NeedyFollower]

No. I am pointing out some additional, present day facts, that have applied for thousands of years.
I am also pointing out some anomalies in Scripture (Gen 1 and 2). If both are "correct" then there is something missing in our understanding or interpretation.

(I think we should also be careful with our use of words like "correct" - this is not the same as either "true" or "right" in every context.)

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in response to information he had received, either written or oral, possibly both. He was addressing these issues. We do not have the documents he may have received, or any recording of verbal communication. So there is a lot of room for contextual understanding.

The challenge that you throw out at me, is the same inherently as the challenge Peter made to Jesus, when he implied that Jesus "could" not die ... Peter's understanding of the Hebrew scriptures did not allow the Messiah to die. From his perspective either Jesus was wrong or the scriptures were wrong (God forbid!). In fact it was Peter's understanding of the OT and of the Messiah that was faulty.

We also know that things stated as "laws" in the old testament were turned on their head by Jesus in some cases (some regulations on cleanliness), by specific and explicit revelation in at least one other case (Peter's vision and command to eat unclean food), and by Paul himself (circumcision). Paul's understanding of the gospel message itself changed. He came to Corinth on his second missionary journey, yet he told them they were the first to hear "his gospel." (There are references to at least 6 different "competing gospels" in the NT.) So Paul himself was very much aware of his own need to learn more and of the possibility that his own understanding would change as it grew. Even if he wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration," I cannot believe he was so arrogant that he believed his own letters were Scripture as he wrote them. (He was refering to the OT - which incidentally in his day was not the same as today.)

Hello Sister ..I appreciate your comments . I agree that a women with her head covered can be unsubmitted to her husband . I can also fully appreciate that women can understandablly be in revolt to the very concept of submission because of the abuses of men who professed faith by the letter but in deed were harsh and demanding . Submission is a hard concept but particularly for men . It stands to reason that there is power in it for it is so contrary to the natural man . Meekness , gentleness or quite frankly ...any of the fruits of the spirit do not come naturally to us and that stands to reason as well .
I do not doubt that when paul wrote to Timothy " From your youth thou has known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus " that he was referring to the Old Testament . ( I don't believe Pauls letters were collected until Onesimus the former slave of Philemon became an elder . )
With that said , apparently Paul did say in 1st Corinthians 14th chapter , verse 37 ..If any man think themselves prophetic or spiritual , let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord . " ...So , apparently Paul believed ..except where notated ..that his writings were commandments of the Lord .
Now whether our interpretations are correct is questionable since we do not follow the guidelines set forth by Paul in most things . ( Let the prophets speak two and three and let the other judge ..for ye may all prophecy , one by one so that all may learn ..etc. ...) It seems the only thing Paul writes with which we agree is that we are saved by Grace through faith , not of works lest any man should boast . Why do we believe one set of words and not another ? Why is there weight to one set of instructions and not another ? From Hebrews " Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some ...etc. " We place a significant importance on that partial verse and disregard many others apparently written by the same person . I find this odd .

 

[~Zao~]

the only thing Paul writes with which we agree is that we are saved by Grace through faith , not of works lest any man should boast . Why do we believe one set of words and not another ?

It’s obvious that Paul was referring to principles that the church accepts as such, not stepping stones to get to the ultimate interpretation, while his others metaphors have further mental and moral steps to take to reach conclusions. Most doctrines have a beginning and an end, earthly things that lead to heavenly understanding. It just that the earthly things represented have no more bearing once the heavenly things are realized because it’s against God’s laws of fulfillment, from my pov. Sure the stepping stones should be discussed but not as a final conclusion.

ETA The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Monna]

I find this odd

likewise.

With that said , apparently Paul did say in 1st Corinthians 14th chapter , verse 37 ..If any man think themselves prophetic or spiritual , let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord . " ...So , apparently Paul believed ..except where notated ..that his writings were commandments of the Lord .

One modern day reading of this would be "if you think that you speak prophetically or spiritually, please acknowledge that what I write is every bit what I receive from the Lord..." Personally, I think his emphasis here, as is his argument in many other places, that he has just as much right as Peter and James and the other 11 apostles of Jesus, to claim apostleship.

At the same time, I have no doubt that in most if not all of the letters he wrote to church congregations that he had founded, he wrote with great care, and with a lot of listening to news he had received from those congregations, and with a lot of prayer. When Elijah announced to Ahab that there would be no more rain until he (Elijah) said so, he spoke by the power of God's promises given in the wilderness before the people even made it to Canaan. He also spoke, in that sense, the commandments of the Lord. That is quite different from writing with the attitude "I am now writing Scripture." He was a Jewish scholar, and knew that there were writings considered very very special in the older Hebrew literature, but which were not yet fully accepted into the inner core of what we call the OT today. His OT did not look like ours. From this perspective, I imagine that he saw and adhered to the rabbinical system of writings being progressively sifted through time and applicability before they were given the full status that we refer to as canon.

It was a couple hundred years later that a group of men (almost certainly no women) got together and tried to agree on what literature was authoritative, and what was not. And they were not in full agreement. But I'm sure that even you believe that there have been Christians through the centuries that have written by the inspiration of God, to teach and encourage fellow believers, in all kinds of circumstances.

However, this is a bit off topic, so I will stop.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you do not believe that the Bible is actually the word of God, why do you even care what it says?