Should we take this elsewhere as it is off topic? I really would love to write a reply to this and ask you some questions but I struggle to do so because it isn't exactly what this thread is for. What would you recommend?
Does the Bible teach misogyny?
- Thread starter Jon777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There are all kinds of women that aren't married for one reason or another, would you take away their right to vote?! Not that I had to check but I called it, you aren't married. By the by when I met my husband, he was a liberal. By the time we got married he was 100% conservative. Why? Because I have a brain of my own that God gave me and I discussed political issues and issues about society. Now, he can't believe that he ever used to vote Democrat.
God’s Word makes clear that men and women are equal in value and dignity as image-bearers of God (Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28). At the same time, because of the created order and the effects of the Fall, God has given men the role of headship in the home and in the church (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–25; 1 Tim. 2:12–14). This is not about domination or oppression, but about reflecting Christ and His church—men called to lead in humility and sacrifice, and women called to walk in respect and godly influence.
When society or the church rejects this design, confusion and disorder follow (Isa. 3:12). Yet our hope isn’t in clinging to roles for their own sake, but in Christ who is renewing all things. Until He returns, we honor His order in the way we live, trusting that His design is always for our good and His glory.
When society or the church rejects this design, confusion and disorder follow (Isa. 3:12). Yet our hope isn’t in clinging to roles for their own sake, but in Christ who is renewing all things. Until He returns, we honor His order in the way we live, trusting that His design is always for our good and His glory.
Nothing in Genesis 3:16 suggests that God gave men the role of headship. What it does say is that (now that man is sinful,) he WILL rule over women. It’s a statement of certain consequence, not an expression of God’s will.
Let that understanding permeate your thoughts on this subject and you will see that the traditional view is simply an unfortunate fulfillment of God’s statement to the woman.
I notice you’re leaning entirely on Genesis 3:16, treating it as if it stands alone, while brushing aside the rest of God’s Word. That’s a dangerous path. Scripture must be read as a whole: Genesis 1 shows God made man and woman in His image, equal in worth; Genesis 2 shows the created order with Adam first; Paul repeatedly confirms this pattern not as a cultural suggestion, but as God’s design for life, leadership, and relationships (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:22–25, 1 Tim. 2:12–14).
Genesis 3:16 speaks of consequence, not divine endorsement of domination. Headship is about responsibility, humility, and reflecting Christ not asserting power. To seize one verse and ignore the rest is to twist the Word of God to suit your argument.
Let me speak plainly: if you approach Scripture this way—cherry-picking, elevating your own interpretation above the counsel of God you are walking far from the way Jesus taught. God’s Word is not a toolbox for preference; it is the lamp for life, the guide for heart and mind. Ignore that, and you court confusion and misguidance, no matter how sincere your intentions.
I don’t know why you’re assuming I’m making assumptions when I’m just replying to what you actually said. Your reply only focused on Genesis 3:16, using it like it could contradict everything else I wrote about equality, headship, and God’s design. That’s not really how Scripture works one verse can’t override the bigger picture, and that’s all I was pointing out.
I distinctly remember my first time attending church at about the age of seven. My grandpa Donald, who the town folk called "Red," took me to one up the dirt road from his farmhouse. Somewhere in these threads, I posted a picture of a church that reminded me of it when I saw it, not that I've ever forgotten it. I don't remember much about the sermon, but I do remember quite nostalgically the sense of love and brotherhood, and I suppose that's something enduring so that I can't really ever forget it because it is real and everlasting. Today, in conversation with my pa surrounding the context of the LDS church shooting, I told my pa, "If I were to choose a definitive religion, I'm a Quaker." And He said, "that's the church I grew up in..." I said, "Yea? The one down the street from Grandpa's?" and he said, "Yes, the Friends church!"
Then I marveled at how I actually ended up where I had actually started.
Then I marveled at how I actually ended up where I had actually started.
Maybe women's lack of accountability stems all the way back to this incident? Adam was with her and didn't stop her from eating it. Direct blame was not laid to the woman because man is the responsible one to God, and Adam & Eve were as one before God.
But in the same way that the serpent tricked Eve while Adam's sin was responsible and the woman thought, oh, I'm not accountable then. But she apparently also forgot that all actions have consequences.
And it is the man's fault to this very day, lol.
That's a great idea. Make a voting test, similar to a GED test or a citizenship test. They are graduating young people with diplomas and no common sense or basic knowledge. WHo's the 1st President? I don't know...How much 16 + 9? uh, 14?
They have videos where they go on to college campuses and ask the kids questions. At first I thought it was hilarious but now I just think it's sad.
That one verse is so often misused as justification for much of the other misinterpretations of relevant verses. However, each of the relevant passages can be examined in its own context without reference to Genesis 3:16. I just chose to address one of the verses you mentioned.
Paul affirms the truth that the man was formed first. He does not use it as a basis for anything else except to refute gnostic errors that Timothy had to consider.
Let me speak plainly: we haven't interacted before today, so unless you've been reading my past posts (which I strongly doubt), you don't know anything about me or how I treat the word of God... so don't assume the worst based on a single post.
Yes, it is easy to get off topic. I suggest that you start a new thread. I'm happy to answer questions.
I’m not trying to argue with you personally, I’m just trying to stick with what the Scriptures themselves say. I don’t see Paul only addressing gnostic errors he ties Adam being formed first directly into why he gives instructions on headship and order (1 Tim. 2:12–14, 1 Cor. 11:3). That seems to go beyond just cultural or false-teaching issues. I think we both agree that Genesis 3:16 shouldn’t be misused, but my point is that Paul grounds his teaching in the created order, not just in the problems Timothy was facing. Again you have to read the whole Bible and ground yourself in the entire book not just a few books and scriptures you like.
Yet though both passages cite the creation order, both can be explained very well within their immediate cultural context without resorting to overarching views about it.
Which I have done. What I dismiss is the idea that the created order is a foundational principle for relationships between men and women. As Paul wrote in 1 Cor 11, though the first woman was made for man, every man since comes from woman, therefore both are interdependent.
First I've ever heard about the quakers, I wondered if you where pulling my leg until I read up on the rules of a Quaker church, I've also since learnt that there's also something called Quakerism lol.I distinctly remember my first time attending church at about the age of seven. My grandpa Donald, who the town folk called "Red," took me to one up the dirt road from his farmhouse. Somewhere in these threads, I posted a picture of a church that reminded me of it when I saw it, not that I've ever forgotten it. I don't remember much about the sermon, but I do remember quite nostalgically the sense of love and brotherhood, and I suppose that's something enduring so that I can't really ever forget it because it is real and everlasting. Today, in conversation with my pa surrounding the context of the LDS church shooting, I told my pa, "If I were to choose a definitive religion, I'm a Quaker." And He said, "that's the church I grew up in..." I said, "Yea? The one down the street from Grandpa's?" and he said, "Yes, the Friends church!"
Then I marveled at how I actually ended up where I had actually started.
But I wonder if that's when a Quaker gets you quaking in your boots
