Religious tolerance

As a matter of interest Soon, how do you feel about the ordination of women?

A few more from the Bible re the inferiority of women:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your …

Ephesians 5:22,24 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord…

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11,12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection…

1 Peter 3:1,5,6 Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, …

Did God not exist before the Bible, then?
Inspired does not mean written.

The Bible was inspired by God. Says the Bible!
But it is rather obvious really. Because if God exists, He is not going to have the Bible, the book that has been around for centuries, and His Holy book, merely written by people.

But it was written by a man, not god, and translated by a man.

The bit about men will rule over women is Genesis chapter 3 verse 16.

However he dismisses half of us as being of less worth than the other half, including you, soon.

I wouldnt say worth less.
And I dont think women are going to be less than men in Heaven.
But the Bible says that because of what happened in the Garden of Eden, that men will rule over women.

As far as I know, all books of the Bibile are written by men.

of course- but here we are talking about clear, deliberate distortions and re-writing under the excuse of translation, to put down and subjugate half the population. Quite different.

And as you said, not 'God's' doing- but man's.

With a book as big as the Bible, and as complex, there are bound to be at least minor differences of opinion between christians.

From 'The real Mary Magdalene' by Eric Lyons:

Where are the passages about her physical relationship with Christ? Where are the hints of erotic behavior? Where is the sexualized version of Mary Magdalene? In truth, the new version of Mary Magdalene is a figment of someone’s imagination.

First, the notion of Mary Magdalene being a former prostitute, apparently made popular as early as the sixth century by Pope Gregory I (see Van Biema, 2003), simply is unfounded. Luke did record an occasion during Jesus’ ministry when a woman “who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37, emp. added) and of poor reputation among the Pharisees (7:39) washed His feet with her tears and hair, and anointed them with oil (7:36-50). And, Luke did place this event in his gospel account just two verses before he introduces Mary Magdalene, “out of whom had come seven demons” (Luke 8:2). But Luke never specifically stated that the woman of disrepute was a prostitute, or that her name was Mary Magdalene. Other than the juxtaposition of the “sinner” at the close of Luke 7 and Mary at the commencement of Luke 8, no connection between the two women exists. What’s more, if one argues that the proximity of the two women is what links them together, one wonders why “Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others” (Luke 8:3) could not also be considered candidates, since they are mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.

If, as indicated by the Hebrew translator, this mis-translation was deliberate to malign womankind- just as in the story of Mary Magdalen too- then it is pretty worrying or serious. But I understand the point soon makes, that it does not detract from God and his (her) message- but indicates how the later (CAtholic) Church- deliberately changed the 'word/s' to further subjugate women.

By the way, I'd be very surprised if it was just the Jesuit priest that thought that.
Aren't you just another single person who thinks like you? I do not know anyone else who thinks like you.

However he dismisses half of us as being of less worth than the other half, including you, soon.

Again, how do you know? Are you just spouting what men tell you?

God cannot be dismissed because one person alive today does not think that one part of the Bible is translated correctly.

Think of a jigsaw.
If one piece is wrong or missing[even assuming it is wrong or missing], should that stop someone from completing it?

God will take us as we are[Just as I am is a favourite hymn of some]. He does not expect us to be perfect - we cant be anyway.
He does not expect us to understand all or indeed much of the Bible sometimes - it isnt necessary.

We come as we are.

No to which point, soon? I do not understand.

Are you a Hebrew scholar like the Jesuit priest granjura talks of?

All you are doing, if not, is talking about translations of the bible, which was the point made by granjura, wasn't it?

No to your point as well durhamjen.
Women are inferior in the church from beginning to end of the Bible.
Angels are refered to as male too. Or him or whatever.

If the Bible is read as a whole, the story of Adam and Eve is very much in keeping with the rest of the Bible.

How do you know, soon?

No annodomini. They are not connected at all. And the Fall wasnt supposed to happen.

soon, I thought that the point of the legend of the Fall was that humanity was given free will.

"I mentioned previously a conference I attended a few years back- given by a senior jesuit Priest who is one of the most famous expert in Hebrew and translation. He explained very clearly how the story of Adam and Eve was totally changed, deliberately it seems, by early translators. In the original Hebrew, several words are used for 'man' and 'mankind', neither of them representing male or female. Therefore the who story of a woman, and women in general, being responsible for the original sin is a pure distortion or even lie- to confirm the inferiority of women in the Church."

Granjura's post of 09.25, soon.

Eloethan. Your first paragraph.
I dont see it as one or the other.

God chose that.
Christians do a lot of His will, not our will. That is just one thing out of many.

x post. My post was in response to dj's.

I am not sure which part of the Bible, or a verse you are referring to. Or are you saying a mistranslation has occured as a theme throughout the Bible?

Are you suggesting soon that the Bible's "big picture" to which you refer, in which men are "the boss", is a good thing?

All religions are open to interpretation, which is why we have so many offshoots of them, with their own specific "rules" that they believe reflect the true meanings of their scriptures. The Bible apparently includes a command from God that people should "abstain from blood" (I don't know the complete wording). Jehovah's Witnesses have interpreted that to mean they should not have blood transfusions but there could be many interpretations.

One of the problems that arises is when people believe that their religion or their particular interpretation of that religion is the only valid one and that they have the right to impose those beliefs on others or shun them and make their lives unbearable.

Personally, I would be quite happy to see the influence of all these religions decrease because I think they cause divisions between and within families, communities and countries and because they encourage a mind set whereby people are more focused on a supposed afterlife than on the present one.

Do you think that translating a neutral word to mean man is a minor mistranslation, soon?
It affects half the population.