The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible

The Theological Sexism of the Bible

The Bible is an ancient book written by primitive men with primitive morals, chief amongst them being a thoroughly sexist view of women. Sexism saturates the Bible from beginning to end. It is inextricable because it is entwined with the fundamental theological understanding of God himself who is not only male but a Trinity of males consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This male God stands at the head of a hierarchy of male authority that puts women at the bottom:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

The sexism of the Bible cannot be denied without attacking its fundamental theological view of God and his relation to humans:

  • Male Ruler: God
  • Male Ruler: Christ
  • Male Ruler: Man
  • Female Subject: Woman

This view is confirmed and amplified in many passages. It is the basis of the fundamental analogical relationship between God (Husband) and the Church (Wife):

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Eph 5:22-24)

Wives are to be subject to their husbands in the same way as their husbands are subject to God and this is the biblical image of the relation between God and his people. Peter confirms this view when he says that wives should submit to their husbands and call them “lord” –

For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (1 Pet 3:5-6)

Wives, children, and slaves are all told to submit and obey in a parallel set of commands:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. 20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart. 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:18-22)

The Bible commands women to be subject to their husbands, children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their earthly masters. This is the fundamental and inextricable teaching of the Bible supported by an integrated network of mutually confirming verses that span the entire text from beginning to end.

The Bible begins with sexism. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:11-15)

Women are not allowed to teach because 1) males have primacy because Adam was created first and 2) women are not reliable teachers because they are easily deceived, like Eve. And it completes the picture of the creation myth when it says “woman will be saved through childbearing” (which is the only value they had according to some church fathers, see below). That women must be silent and in submission to men is confirmed and explained as being “in the law” in 1 Corinthians:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Paul appealed to the creation myth again to justify the male hierarchy of authority described above:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (1 Cor 11:3-9)

This verse gave rise to the abominable doctrine that women do not even share in the image of God because Paul said man is “the image and glory of God” whereas woman is merely “the glory of man.” Here is how the highly influential seventeenth century commentator Matthew Henry explained this verse:

The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made.

His interpretation is entirely consistent with the male domination and sexism that saturates the Bible. It is the mainstream view held by most preachers and teachers throughout the Christian millennia. According to Wikipedia, “Famous evangelical preachers such as George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon used and heartily commended” Henry’s work, “with Whitefield reading it through four times – the last time on his knees” and notes that Charles Spurgeon said “Every minister ought to read it entirely and carefully through once at least.” This view dominates church history because it is what the Bible undeniably teaches, as shown below in the section reviewing the sexism of prominent Christian teachers throughout the ages.

The Divine Institution of Sexism of the Bible

There are many examples of explicit and egregious sexism in the laws which are presented as being directly dictated by God himself. The very core of the Old Testament law classes women along with property in the Tenth Commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house [property], thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife [property], nor his manservant [property], nor his maidservant [property], nor his ox [property], nor his ass [property], nor any thing [property] that is thy neighbour’s. (Exo 20:17)

After noting this fact in his article The Marginalization of Women, Christopher Rollston explains that “Ten Commandments were written to men, not women. There’s even more evidence, linguistic in nature. Hebrew has four distinct forms of the word ‘you’ and these are gender and number specific. The form of ‘you’ in every single commandment is masculine singular. The text assumes its readers are men.” We see the same presumption throughout the Bible, as in for example the book of Proverbs in which the reader is addressed as “my son” and is repeatedly warned of the dangers of evil, strange women. The book never addresses the reader as “my daughter.”

Many gross gender-based asymmetries exist in the Biblical laws. The right to divorce is given only to the man, whereas the women is “bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives” (Rom 7:2). Indeed, a man could divorce his wife if he merely found some “indecency” in her (Deut 24:1). And if she fails to bleed on her wedding night, she is presumed guilty of having illicit sexual relations and is stoned to death (Deut 22:13). If a woman intervenes in a fight between males and grabs a man’s testicles, her hand is to be cut off (Deut 25:11). If the “spirit of jealousy” comes over a man, his wife is put through a gruesome trial by ordeal in which she is forced to drink a potion made of septic “dust” from the floor of the tabernacle (which was a blood-soaked slaughter house, Num 5:14). On and on it goes. The Biblical laws are utterly barbaric, irrational, and fundamentally biased against women.

The treatment of virgins captured in war is particularly disturbing. If an Israelite man saw a beautiful woman amongst the captives, he could take her, have sex with her, and discard her like a used rag if she did not please him (Deut 21:11). But he could not sell her for money, because he took the only thing of value a women of that time had, her virginity. This also is the basis of the law that says a rapist must pay the father fifty shekels and take the damaged goods off the father’s hands. Virginity was greatly prized, so if a man’s property was damaged by another there was a price to pay:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. (Deut 22:28-29)

I can’t imagine the horror of being a woman living under the laws of the Bible.

The bias against women manifests in all aspects of the text. Females are literally devalued, in monetary terms, relative to males. When consecrating a person with a vow, the price schedule is as follows (Lev 27:2-7):

Monetary Devaluation of Females compared to Males
% Value
20 – 60 years 50 shekels 30 shekels 60%
5 – 20 years 20 shekels 10 shekels 50%
60 years and above 15 shekels 10 shekels 67%
1 month – 5 years 5 shekels 3 shekels 60%

Likewise, when a female child is born the mother is unclean twice as long as when giving birth to a male (Lev 12:1-5). Space prohibits reviewing more of the evidence here. An extensive analysis is given in my wife’s article The Male Bias of the Bible.

The Fruit of this Sexist Tree

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matt 7:18-20)

The sexism of the Bible saturates everything from its fundamental theological view of God to the most mundane laws governing society. It forms an inextricable fully integrated network of mutually confirming texts that teach that women are inferior to men, that women are of less value than men, that women are the source of sin and deception, and that women must be in constant subjugation under male rule. It was therefore inevitable that the men who believed these words and carried this tradition down through the ages would be corrupted in their view of women. It is impossible that they would not manifest this corruption in their own commentaries on the Bible. Here is a brief sampling of the fruit this tree has produced:

  • Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?) “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.”
  • Tertullian (2nd-3rd c. Church father) In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell.
  • Tertullian “Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags.”
  • John Chrysostom (349-407): “Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman.”
  • Saint Augustine of Hippo, Church Father and Bishop (354–430) “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”
  • Augustine “Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God.”
  • Jerome (345?-420): “If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good.”
  • Thomas Aquinas, Saint, Doctor of the Church (13th c.) As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.
  • St. Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian and Doctor of the Church (13th c.) Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.
  • Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546) “If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth–that is why they are there.”
  • Luther “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”
  • Luther “God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God’s will. ‘Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error.”
  • Luther “Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.”
  • Martin Luther, Reformer “No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise.”
  • John Calvin (1509-64): “Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.”
  • John Wesley (1703-91): “Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born.”

And for a modern example, watch this fundamentalist preacher man who says that he would “never get his theology from a woman” because “it was a woman who damned the whole world to hell. The reason your sorry soul is going to hell is because a women told Adam what God thinks about things.”

An endless river of such citations could be given. The time has come to reject sexism absolutely without any kind of reservation or caveat. It is part of the collective nightmare from which all humanity is striving to awake. The time is now.

History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake. ~ James Joyce
Posted in Biblical Issues
36 comments on “The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible
  1. Bob Jones says:

    Hi. I really appreciate your Bible Wheel observations. It is a bit disappointing that with all your ability to correlate, you missed the point at the beginning (in Genesis) and it went down hill from there. You say that the blame for sin is laid upon the woman, but that directly contradicts what Paul says:

    Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    If that clear statement is not reconciled with the rest of what scripture says, then we can’t say that we know what scripture says. Your many observations of the consistency of the Bible in the Bible wheel scream that the theology must also be consistent.

    But scripture is just like the four points the serpent made. If you read them in the flesh you must agree with the serpent and call God a liar. Adam did not die that day, his eyes were opened, he knew good and evil, he was like God. But if you read it in the Spirit you see it completely different: Adam died spiritually and had spiritually stillborn children (which is why we must be born again), he became spiritually blind, deaf and dead (other than that he was perfectly normal), he only knew evil all day long, and he had only made himself equal to God in his own estimation, having lost everything in the process.

    This dual nature of the scriptures is intentional so that those who wish to rebel can harden their hearts against God and use his word to do so. And those inclined to acknowledge God and give him thanks will find all the reason and more to do so.

    When you read the scriptures as they are actually reconciled with each other you find that there is no excuse for sexism.

    Oh, and you mis-stated the rule of non-contradiction. The part about (in the same sense). You see the Greek logician can’t understand how Jesus can be the Only begotten son, the unbegotten only son and the usurping second son. To the Hebrew mind, contradictions are merely riddles which reconcile in a proper understanding that both are true, when you understand the proper sense.

    Thanks for posting so much useful stuff on the web. I am fascinated with your observations and wish you well.

  2. Hi Bob,

    Thanks for taking time to comment. Your assertion that I contradict Romans 5:12 when I say the Bible blames Eve is very common amongst believers who read my article, but it’s not true. When I made that assertion, I supported it by quoting 1 Tim 2:11-15:

    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    As you can see, it is the Bible, not me, that says “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” The Greek word translated as “transgression” – παραβασις – is the same word used in Romans 5:14 to describe Adam’s sin:

    Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    If those statements contradict each other your problem is with the Bible, not me.

    I agree that “the consistency of the Bible in the Bible Wheel” would indeed seem to “scream that the theology must also be consistent” but unfortunately that appears to be an impossibility. I have been studying the Bible and discussing it with very serious and devout believers for twenty years and the one thing I’ve learned is that equally devoted students of Scripture often come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Why is that? Because the Bible is logically incoherent, simple as that. This is no where more obvious than in the study of eschatology where hardly anyone agrees about anything, and many of the most fervent believers hold doctrines that directly contradict Scripture.

    Now you wrote:

    This dual nature of the scriptures is intentional so that those who wish to rebel can harden their hearts against God and use his word to do so. And those inclined to acknowledge God and give him thanks will find all the reason and more to do so.

    That’s exactly how I understood things when I was a Christian. Here’s how I explained it on my forum back in 2007 when I was still a Christian:

    I am of the mind that the Bible contains everything a believer needs to believe, and everything and unbeliever needs to “unbelieve”. That’s a big part of my understanding of why God’s perfect Word has so many “stumbling stones” scattered throughout. They are good for both the believer and the unbeliever because they enable God to present His perfect word in humble form (like Christ and the kenosis) so its presence in the world doesn’t “force” unbelievers to believe when their heart says “no.” And they stumble us believers who so easily can be lifted up in pride because of this treasure we hold in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. Anyone who has studied the Bible at all knows that its fulness is beyond the capacity of any mortal soul.

    I based this on 1 Peter 2:7-8:

    Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

    Unbelievers “stumble at the word.” I still think this would be fine logic if we were talking about spiritual things that unbelievers stumble over. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about real problems with the morality of God as presented in the Bible. It’s great that you agree that “there is no excuse for sexism” but it is unfortunate that you cannot see that the Bible plainly teaches it. As far as I can tell, nothing you wrote contradicted any of my conclusions. The issue is much too important to be nit-picking over the contradiction between Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 when the whole Bible is saturated with sexism from beginning to end. Why didn’t you address any of the “Big Issues” I raised, such as the fundamentally theological nature of the sexism which presents a male hierarchy of authority with women at the bottom and other similar facts?

    As for contradictions – I have no problem with paradoxes. I studied Quantum Physics in depth. Wave/Particle duality and all that. Indeed, I took some of the more profound paradoxes as good prima facie evidence that Christianity was true because any simpleton could make up a logically consistent superficial religion whereas reality is usually more deep and complex than that.

    Thanks again for taking time to comment. I hope the conversation will continue.

    All the best,


  3. Bob Jones says:

    Hi Richard,

    “I have been studying the Bible and discussing it with very serious and devout believers for twenty years and the one thing I’ve learned is that equally devoted students of Scripture often come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Why is that? Because the Bible is logically incoherent, simple as that. ”

    As I mentioned above, you mis-stated the law of non-contradiction. Until you understand why the part you missed is important, you cannot properly use logic at all. The law of non-contradiction is subject to the error of setting up false dilemmas because the sense of language is never precise. And this is where you have gone awry.

    Your conclusion is that the Bible is logically incoherent. But you have not considered the possibility that you logic is in error. The dilemma that you have set up is that it is either logically coherent or not. It is a false dilemma because there are other options, such as you logic is fallacious because you do not see the different senses in which scripture is written.

    Just because one cannot see an image in those strange pictures that make your eyes cross, does not mean that there is not an image there that many others can see.

    What you discovered in the correlation of the scripture demands that the doctrine also be unified/non-contradictory. The obvious conclusion then is that you don’t understand what it says. Your conclusion from my previous comment is that my argument is with the Bible. This is not so. I am not the one who says that the statements are contradictory. I pointed out the apparent contradiction to make the point that unless a doctrine sums up and includes everything the Bible has to say about it, that the doctrine cannot be considered sound. Since you merely dismiss the verse as being contradictory, no logic can persuade you otherwise. Before you saw the patterns you saw no patterns. Did they spring into existence because you finally saw them? Or were they always there?

    Your inability to see a sound and unified doctrine from the scriptures does not mean that they do not exist. And it is lousy logic to say that because people disagree, that the scriptures are at fault, or that devotion alone should produce understanding.

    The first four verses of John 1 come from the first three words of Gen 1.1. Did you know that “he shall live” is embedded in the word “only” so that when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, he told him that he shall live at the same time? Do you know that the Lamb of God references the fact that he is the creator, not that he is peaceful, or merely the sacrifice? Do you know how Jesus’ experience in the temple when he was 12 fulfilled prophecy?

    Do you know the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy that every man will become pregnant? No one should ever teach on the role of women without understanding that prophecy.

    I am indeed sorry that you have seen the deep richness of the patterns but have missed what they mean because you apply Greek logic to a Hebrew text. I am happy to continue a conversation privately, if you wish.

    Your friend,

  4. Hey there Bob,

    I’m really glad you are continuing in this conversation. I find your comments very intelligent. But I would ask that you quit being so pedantic. I did not state the law of non-contradiction anywhere in the post we are discussing. I am guessing you picked it up from a discussion I had in some other post such as this one where I said it states that “there would be a contradiction if P and Not P.” The fact that I did not bother to go into the detail about the propositions being “in the same sense” does not indicate that I don’t understand that, and it is both rude and absurd for you to suggest such since that would imply that I am an idiot. I didn’t bother stating every detail because anyone with any brains already understands what the law of non-contradiction entails and cluttering posts with unnecessary details makes them ineffective, and pedantic.

    Now you used my supposed ignorance of this most fundamental law of logic to suggest there may be some errors in my logic. There was no need to go that route. Anyone with any brains knows that they could make errors in logic, so the only things worth discussing are the actual errors themselves. I would be absolutely delighted if you could find any errors in anything I have written since only a fool would willingly hold to false opinions. I would truly be in your debt if you could weed any error from my garden of truth.

    Unfortunately, your post contains little for me to examine. You merely assert that I have created a “false dilemma because there are other options, such as your logic is fallacious because you do not see the different senses in which scripture is written.” That’s not true, I am fully familiar with the different senses. Your comment contains nothing for me to answer because you did not state specifically what I wrote that was fallacious. You need to quote something I actually wrote, and show my error. You merely assert generalities like my “inability to see a sound and unified doctrine from the scriptures does not mean that they do not exist.” Correct! But neither does the Bible Wheel imply that it does exist, because the whole concept of “unified doctrine” is your own construct. You don’t know that God did not allow for all sorts of confusion in his word for his own purposes. Appeal to “God is not the author of confusion” does not refute this, because that directly contradicts the mass of confusion that is found in the Bible.

    Your assertion that I have applied “Greek logic to a Hebrew text” makes no sense at all. The NT was written in Greek. And there is no such thing as “Greek” vs. “Hebrew” logic in a strict sense. Granted, there are distinctly Jewish hermeneutical practices, but they were included in the Greek NT. If you think I have erred on this point, please cite a specific example so I can correct myself.

    So here’s what I hope you will do. Quote something I have actually written, and try to show where I have erred.

    Great chatting,


  5. Bob Jones says:

    Hi Richard,

    Thanks for all the name calling based on what you think I implied. If I thought you were an idiot I would say so. But since you apparently believe you are able to read my mind, no further discussion is necessary.

    Be well my friend,


  6. Hey there Bob,

    I’m sorry you interpreted my comment as insulting. They certainly were not meant that way, and I don’t understand how you could come to that conclusion. What names did I call you? I only told you that it was rude for you to imply that I didn’t understand one of the most basic laws of logic.

    Please state exactly what I wrote that implied I thought I could read your mind.



  7. GoogleUser says:


    1 Cor 11:16 “But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we have do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.” in that statement Paul negates his statement above. He does this often. Only two witnesses are need.

    Jer 31:22 “woman must encompass man” Most older translations have “with devotion” at the end. The concept a woman taking care of a man was unthinkable.

    With that said;
    Faith is mans walk with God
    Religion is mans walk with man in regards to God
    When a group men get together they tend to be bias and try to dominate others. To kill in the name of the LORD, though it goes against the top ten. Which is to say that man tends to lean on the permissive will of God, then the will of God

    tsela = rib / side

    tsala = curve

    tsela = tsala

    I have rejected the rib theory > 20yrs. your post pulled me to reopen that study. I can not even come close to the brilliance of Wayne Simpson, so I will just post his work.


    Wayne Simpson

    The study of the Bible is often fraught with preconceptions, not only in our own minds but
    also in the minds of scholars, teachers and theologions who teach us and write the
    reference material that we rely on. Concepts can be so entrenched and cherished that no
    one even thinks to question them. Many such notions have been around for centuries or
    millenia and they seem to be a part of the very foundation on which we base our beliefs.
    Sometimes they do not stand up to close scrutiny. Unfortunately, such ideas can conceal
    the most sublime insights into the scriptures.

    One such notion is the matter of Adam’s rib in the second chapter of Genesis. Everybody
    knows the familiar Bible story about how God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. The
    smallest children are taught this story in Sunday schools across the land. Though many
    scholars find reasons not to take it literally, it is accepted as truth by millions of Christians.
    There is more here than meets the eye. I will show how it has been widely misunderstood
    and how that has caused us to miss some very dynamic teaching. Examine the account:

    … for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep
    sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
    instead thereof; And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
    and brought her to the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
    my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall
    a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
    one flesh. Gen. 2:20-24

    This is really a strange picture if you think about it. Why didn’t God just make woman from
    the ground as He had made Adam. He apparently made male and female of all the animals
    from the ground. And why a rib, instead of a finger or a toe, or an ear. The story seems
    to smack of early Mesopotamian and Greek literature. Ea, the god of wisdom was said to
    be the ear of Ninurta. Athena, goddess of wisdom, sprang from the forehead of Zeus, and
    Aphrodite, goddess of love was said to have come from the sea foam that collected around
    the severed male organ of the god Uranus (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis p. 22).

    In actuality, something far more meaningful is being expressed in this biblical account than
    making a new person out of a small piece of the body of another. If we look closely at the
    Hebrew word for rib we will learn of something quite surprising. The word translated rib
    in Genesis 2 is tsela. This word is used in a number of other places in the Bible and
    its meaning is shown to be quite different than what we have imagined. The only other
    place in the Bible where the english word rib occurs is in Daniel 7:5, translated from an
    altogether different Hebrew word. One Bible translation dares to break with the use of the
    traditional word rib. The Stone edition of the Chumash renders the verse this way:

    ” …and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place.”

    Right away you can see that what God took from Adam was a lot more than a small bone.
    But can this reading be justified? Let us examine other places in the Bible where this
    Hebrew word is used. We find that it is rendered side in a number of places.

    Look at Exodus 25:12. In referring to the rings of gold on the Ark of the Covenant it says
    ” Two rings shall be on one side ( tselo – a variant of tsela) and two rings on the
    other side” Later in verse 14 it refers to the two “sides” ( tselot- the plural form).
    Exodus 37:3-5 shows this same description of the Ark.

    In Exodus 27:7 it refers to “the two sides ( tselot) of the altar” upon which staves and rings
    were attached “to bear it”. Notice that it refers to only two of the altars four sides – the two
    major sides as opposed to the front and rear. Similar usage occurs in Ex. 38:7.
    Then in Exodus 26:20, the Hebrew word ul-tsela is used, meaning “and for the
    side” of the tabernacle. This is the same Hebrew word with two initial letters that have the
    meaning “and for”. In verse 26 we read of one side ( tsela) of the tabernacle and the second
    side ( tsela) of the tabernacle. In verse 35 we see mentioned a table on the south side
    ( tsela) of the tabernacle, referring this time not just to the outer skin of the tabernacle but
    to its south half. Identical usage occurs in Ex. 36:25,31.

    Notice that in each of these accounts there is nothing resembling a rib or pillar like
    structural member. It refers to an entire side, essentially half, of a structure. This is very
    different from the notion of Adam’s rib, but let us continue.

    In I kings 6:34 we see a description of folding doors consisting of two sides or panels
    ( tsalim – the masculine plural form). These two panels were identical, each
    comprising half of the assembly. These were part of Solomons temple. At that time this
    Hebrew word for side began to be used in connection with associated components of the
    sides of the temple. Chambers or side compartments ( tselot) were built along the sides of
    the temple (I kings 6:5-6). Also the planks which formed the sides of the most holy place
    were given the name , batselot, meaning in the sides. Here again we see no hint of the
    notion of a rib or similar superstructure of any kind.

    In Job 18:12 Job refers to “calamities at his side” ( la-tselot) and Jeremiah 20:10
    speaks of “fear on every side”. It would be ludicrous to speak of fear at every rib.

    The only mention which might remotely be construed as anything like a rib is this:

    “As David and his men went along the road, Shimei went along the hillside ( ba-tsela) and
    cursed as he went…”. II Sam 16:13.

    While The New Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew English Lexicon suggests
    that this is the ridge or the rib of the hill. This seems to be interpretive because this
    episode could have taken place on one of the sides of the hill as easily as on the
    ridge of the hill. From the context you simply cannot tell which it was. Because of
    the preponderance of usage of the word side as the translation, it seems likely that
    should be the meaning here as well.

    We conclude from this analysis that there is no real justification to render the word in Gen.
    2:21 as Adam’s rib. Rather, it should be Adam’s side. As a result, a new and bold imagery
    begins to emerge from Gen. 2:21. What is really meant by the use of the word side? Was
    it the side of his torso, like a side of beef? Did it include an arm or a leg? Once we are
    freed from the notion of a rib, what really makes sense here? I suggest that what is meant
    here is virtually an entire side or half of Adams body. There are several Hebrew words that
    express the notion of half, chiefly variants of the verb chatsah, which means to divide.
    This word is most often used to signify halving a weight or volume or quantity of some
    substance, whereas the examples we previously mentioned seem to refer to a side, that is
    a half of an object or structure. That is especially clear in Ex. 20:35, where a table is
    located in one side or one half of the tabernacle.

    Now consider the implications of this. God literally divided Adam in half to create a
    woman for him. This is a much more powerful symbol than merely taking a small bone out
    of his side. Eve was every bit the man Adam was (pardon the pun), in fact in Gen 1:27 it
    says “In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them” suggesting
    complete equality. Eve began, literally, as half of Adam. Even today people sometimes
    refer to their spouse as their other half or their better half and that seems somehow
    appropriate. Of course God closed the flesh to restore Adam to wholeness. Though not
    specifically stated, it is clear God did the same for Eve in the process of fashioning her into
    a woman. How appropriate the language used in Genesis. The words “bone of my bone”
    and “flesh of my flesh” take on new significance. Even the expressions are grammatically

    The traditional mythical interpretation of Adams rib is of very long standing. We do not
    know when it first began, but it is clear that the ancient Hebrews did not understand this
    episode in the way moderns do. When Genesis and Exodus were written, the concept was
    one of Adams side, not his rib. Remarkably, we have the testimony of a Jewish authority
    of about 2000 years ago on this issue. Philo Judeaus addressed the subject thus: “The
    letter of this statement is plain enough; for it is expressed according to the symbol of the
    part, a half of the whole, each party, the man and the woman, being as sections of nature
    co-equal for the production of that genus which is called man.” (The Works Of Philo, p. 796,
    Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts,) emphasis mine. How clear.

    Notice also the Hebrew words usually rendered help meet. This rendering is such an
    anemic translation for what is being expressed. The expression in Hebrew is azer k’negdo.
    In every case in the Hebrew Bible the Hebrew word azer means not just assistance,
    but a significant and substantial kind of help. Look at some examples:

    Ezekiel 12:14 Zedekiah had “all those about him to help ( azer) him, all his bands.” This
    is clearly referring to Zedekiah’s armed men.

    Daniel 11:34 The expression “helped with a little help” in this context seems also to refer
    to military intervention.

    Isaiah 30:5 This verse refers to seeking help in the form of military protection from the
    king of Egypt.

    All these examples refer to substantial and powerful help or protection, the kind you
    could get from armed men, not just a little help or hand holding. Continue:

    Ex 18:4 “for He (God) was my help.”

    Deut. 33:29 “… The Lord, the shield of thy help”

    Deut 33:7 “… Be thou (the Lord) a help to him from his enemies.”

    In these examples, we see an even more powerful type of help from God himself. It is clear
    that this was not just help, but real substancial deliverance, there was nothing puny about it.
    The point is to show that Eve was created as a capable, intelligent, force to be rekoned
    with. She was every bit as qualified and adept as Adam. This was not simply a “Let me
    hold the flashlight for you, Honey” kind of help.

    And the Hebrew word K’negdo is charged with meaning as well. It means more than just
    suitable. It carries the meaning of opposite. She was an opposite to him. This is literally
    what you would expect since she was formed from his other half or side. Perhaps it would
    be better to say she was his complement. The two were made to work and fit together.
    She was opposite in gender, but opposite in many other ways as well. No man can be
    married for any length of time without realizing that his wife thinks and behaves in a very
    different way than he does. She views things very differently, her concerns are quite unlike
    his. Eve was made to be everything Adam was not. She was his complement.

    Now Adam was faced with the realization that he was not unique and he was not alone.
    To find completeness and wholeness he would want to take a wife. This longing for
    wholeness is a popular theme in our modern love songs. Ultimately she is the key to the
    meaning of his life and vice versa. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother
    and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” Gen. 2:24. Neither can be complete
    without the other.

    So this old story that was once a rather bizarre metaphor, a woman created from a rib, can
    now be understood to be a powerful, meaningful and beautiful symbol for the most
    profound relationship in human existence. It is very clear that, in the beginning, God gave
    woman absolutely equal status with man.

    (c)Copyright 1996 by Wayne Simpson
    Distributed by the Biblical Research Foundation
    629 Lexington Road, Sapulpa, Ok 74066

    Reproduction and distribution is permitted provided this copyright notice is left intact on all copies.

    I hope / pray that via My Lord that this helps you in your question…


  8. So this old story that was once a rather bizarre metaphor, a woman created from a rib, can
    now be understood to be a powerful, meaningful and beautiful symbol for the most
    profound relationship in human existence. It is very clear that, in the beginning, God gave
    woman absolutely equal status with man.

    Hey there GoogleUser,

    Thanks for sharing your insights. Unfortunately, the conclusion does not cohere with the general teaching of the Bible. By itself, the idea of Eve being made from the “side” of Adam would cohere with an “absolutely equal status” but that is not what is taught in the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, there is nothing in the rest of the Bible that suggests anything like “absolutely equal status” between men and women. Women are at the bottom of a male hierarchy of authority:

    Male Ruler: God
    Male Ruler: Christ
    Male Ruler: Man
    Female Subject: Woman

    This is established over and over again throughout the text. I see no way to come to any other conclusion. The sexism taught in the Bible is truly inextricable as far as I can see. And that’s how it has been interpreted throughout history by the most prominent Christian leaders and teachers.

    All the best,


  9. cathy says:

    Sexism is/was the result of greek hellinism that crept into Judaism and Christianity both. I’ve read two incredibly awesome books that refute this doctrinal heresy:

    Guardian Angel by Skip Moen, D. Phil. Here is a description from the back of the book: Protector, Nourisher, Boundary-Setter, Spiritual Guide…Every woman knows she was designed for a special role – a role that has been denied to her far too long. In this study of Scripture, Skip Moen re-examines the Genesis account from an Hebraic perspective. This foundation supports a radical revision of contemporary views about women. Women were designed by God to guide, direct and supply the boundary conditions for their men. They were designed by God to be the relationship managers of marriage. They are the ones who are intended to provide strength, shelter and correction. Without understanding these roles, marriages will flounder and gender issues will remain unresolved.”

    God’s Word to Women by Katherine Bushnell. Here is the description from the back of the book: “From Genesis to Revelation, Katherine C. Bushnell provides a thorough exposition of every biblical passage that addresses women. As a scholar of Hebrew and Greek, she studies the passages in their original languages and in their historical context to reveal insights that are sometimes obscured by Bible translators. The book emerged from Bushnell’s lifetime of working for social reform on behalf of women and the misunderstanding of Scripture’s teaching on gender. Scholars have leaned on her groundbreaking work since its first publication in 1921, deeming it one of the best, whole-Bible approaches to the question of women’s role in the church and home.”


  10. Hi Kathy,

    I appreciate the information you are sharing, and am enjoying the discussion we are having on my forum (link). I invite anyone interested to participate there.

    There are some big problems with the idea that the sexism is the result of misinterpreting the Bible. If Christianity has gotten this wrong for two thousand years, what else has it gotten wrong? Can we trust anything in the Bible? And what does that say about God’s ability to guide his church, let alone inspire a trustworthy book?

    It seems to me that modern folks are just trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit our modern moral standards which are so much higher. We see the same kind of effort to reinterpret the creation story to fit with modern science. Some apologists go so far as to say that the Bible actually contains references to modern relativistic cosmology and so rather than contradicting modern science, it proves that the Bible was inspired by a God who knew modern physics 3000 years ago. Obviously, no serious thinker is going to be convinced by such shenanigans.

    It would be very interesting if you were to challenge any specific thing I have written in my article.

    All the best,


  11. Aubrey says:

    Hi Richard, I am the publisher of “End Time Series” containing nine books. I contacted you once or two while we were preparing those books as your Bible Wheel book and your online Hebrew/Greek Bible Gematria Database helped us a lot when we prepare the 6th book of our series.

    Anyway, the sexism of the Bible once troubled my wife a lot 🙂

    I tend to take the male as a type for objective truth and female as a type for subjective truth. Another analogy is the Treasure and Vessel. In my opinion, if the Bible does not show the difference between male and female, I do not think the Bible is considered complete.

    As our 7th book talks about I Ching in the light of the Bible, I tend to think the Male corresponds to the Yang and Female Yin. According to the Chinese interpretation of i Ching, there is Yan in Yin and Yin in Yang. So male/female or Yan/Yin is simply the result of our diachotomy way of looking at things.

    Your post also talks about the traditional understanding of Trinity. My current understanding is that the traditional interpretation of one God as three persons is wrong. I tend to think that the Father refers to the Acting Law of the whole universe, the Son the only person of God, the Holy Spirit the power of God. Note that the Spirit is neutral in Greek.

    BTW, your rejection of Christianity is understandable. Maybe God has a purpose for you to have another, if not the last, encounter with Him again. God bless you as you continue seeking for truth as a free thinker.


  12. Aubrey says:

    Another thought: has anyone thought of this: Adam is the type for fallen angels and Eve is the type for all people to be saved (male or female)? Traditional interpretation only talk about Adam being the type for the Christ and Eve for the Church. It appears that all types in the Bible have a positive side AND a negative side.

  13. Willa Motley says:

    The website has an document called “Discussion on Women in the Church”. It is not very well wrote, but brings a new light to the discussion.

  14. Willa Motley says:

    Dear Richard and Michael
    To add to my post above. I agree with Wayne’s interpretation of the word rib also meaning side. It should say side in a spiritual sense. I think the reason rib was used was because side didn’t make as much sense as a story is being told literally. If you look at the story as an allegory rather than an literal event, man (being made as male and female) has two sides, male and female (in one creature). The literal aspects of a human transferred to the spiritual level. The link above doesn’t talk about the Genesis event, but if you read the whole script you could also infer the meaning stated here of one person having both male and female aspects.

  15. Rose says:

    Hello Aubrey,
    You said: “Another thought: has anyone thought of this: Adam is the type for fallen angels and Eve is the type for all people to be saved (male or female)? Traditional interpretation only talk about Adam being the type for the Christ and Eve for the Church. It appears that all types in the Bible have a positive side AND a negative side.”

    Why do you assume that the Bible is in need of an interpretation or a type? Have you ever thought that maybe the authors of the Bible just made up stories to try and fit with their primitive understanding of the world around them? Some things in the Bible have no legitimate explanation other then they are just made up stories.

    Most Christians begin with the assumption that the Bible is authentic revelation from a deity, without ever questioning the source. Try and think of one bit of evidence that validates anything said in the Bible about its god … you won’t be able to find any. People desperately try and concoct all sorts of reasons and justifications for the claims of the Bible because they want to believe its true, but no matter how hard one tries you can’t make a myth be true.

  16. The website has an document called “Discussion on Women in the Church”. It is not very well wrote, but brings a new light to the discussion.

    Hey there Willa,

    Sorry for the slow response. My day job has been keeping me pretty busy. I read most of the article you linked. Here is the part that seems to sum up your “solution” to the confusion and sexism found in the Bible:

    The Bible is written so that many interpretations can be contrived from it. It was written this way purposefully. It is written to confuse or be contradictory to those with the wrong (earthly or fleshly) mindset. We must have a spiritual mindset to understand the spiritual messages for us to see. These true spiritual messages of the Bible are hidden beneath the surface.

    I understand where you are coming from. It’s not too dissimilar from how I dealt with these kinds of problems in the Bible when I was a Christian. I felt that the evidence for the supernatural inspiration was so strong that it “trumped” all the “little problems” that would trip up other folks. I felt that God had designed the Bible with “stumbling blocks” for unbelievers who would “stumble at the word” (1 Peter 2:8). I liked to think that he had designed the Bible to have everything a believer needed to believe, and everything an unbeliever needed to “unbelieve”. But I never really dealt with the problematic passages, like the sexism we are talking about, at all. I spent all my time online debating the Bible Wheel with other Christians who never brought up these issues.

    Your solution seems to me to be a rationalization designed to protect your beliefs from the truth. You could say the same thing about any religious text, no matter how confused and incoherent and erroneous it may be. The idea that God designed the Bible to be confused also contradicts the Biblical teaching that God is not “the author of confusion” (1 Cor 14:33). And most important, it makes no sense to me to think that the obviously sexist teachings were deliberately put there by a loving and wise God to teach secret mystical truths that would be misunderstood by almost everybody and the source of great suffering, pain, and death to women throughout the history of Christianity! And to top it off, that excuse looks particularly absurd when it is realized that God chose to mimic the things primitive sexist men would have said as a means of communicating his secret spiritual truth.

    Perhaps the greatest problem with your solution is that there is no way for sincere believers to discern between truth and error. If the Bible was designed by God to confuse people, how is anyone supposed figure it out? You say that the truth must be “spiritually discerned” but that’s a literally meaningless phrase because you could take a room with ten people who all claim to have the “Holy Spirit” and they will all come to twenty different conclusions. It really looks like babble.

    As I said, your solution is that it appears to be a grand rationalization you have made up to protect your presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. This is the real problem with “faith based” religions in general. They are based on presuppositions that cannot be proven, and so believers must delude themselves or they will lose their faith. This often leads to a profound corruption of the minds and morals of believers, which is as very ironic since religion is supposed to do the very opposite. If you are not familiar with the dangers of religious rationalization, you might do well to read my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem.

    Thanks for taking time to share you understanding.


  17. Willa says:

    Thanks for taking the time to read, at least most, of the article. The article isn’t written very well.

    On your point of God not being the “author of confusion”, if the Bible does indeed have two meanings, a spiritual meaning and a carnal meaning, does that mean the author of it is one of confusion? I don’t know, maybe.Or maybe it simply means the Word is confusing or confounding to understand. Maybe God is hard to understand and he/she has to use carnal stories to portray something else to our simple earthbound minds, because our simple minds like to see things literally first. Or maybe humans wrote it without any intention of it having hidden possible spiritual messages within the worldly stories. IDK, like God is in everything regardless good or bad. The Bible says the Word is sharper than any two-edged sword. This website says that this can be interpreted to mean “double mouthed”, like a serpent’s tongue but sharper. “He that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword” if you know what I mean. I am not trying to prove this site is right, or that the Bible doesn’t have blood and violence filled stories, just that I think the Bible is like one of those pictures that contains two different things. The one that sticks in my mind is the picture of the old woman (ugly witch) and pretty lady. Some see her as a witch and others see her as a princess. Or you can see it both ways. I had to see ugly witch first (yes the witch as you see the Bible as) before I saw the princess. But this isn’t a good example because the witch looks like a wise old lay when you first see her, but IF you look more closely at her you see the wart on her nose and realize she is an ugly witch. Most people throw the Bible out when they see the wise woman is actually an ugly witch. I know that reasoning probably doesn’t make any sense so sorry. But it the best I can do to explain how the Bible could possibly be if there are indeed two meanings and if there is to be any truth in it at all…..or should we just throw out the witch? We might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Maybe we just throw it out anyway because who cares about the baby if it underneath all that yucky water! I really can’t answer your questions I simply see a baby in that dirty water somewhere. We all see from different perspectives that is for sure. Maybe I’m just seeing the bible holographs but as a actual picture. An alternate perception of them. Just a thought not a statement.

    Anyways, there is another article on the site about butter and honey that gives an example on separating or “dividing” the Word to try and get the “cream” off the “milk” if you are at all interested. If not, I understand you might be barking up the wrong tree.

    Oh need to say this too. In so many words, grand rationalization is what everyone else I have ever met says about the concepts in the website. So thank you for reminding me. But the article on the butter and honey does somewhat answer how someone else could possibly figure it out, if there is indeed anything substantial to figure out. But still you are right again, how do all these people who say they have the Holy Spirit still see it so many different ways? Maybe they have to “rightly divide it”. Is that fair? no, but neither is much of the world. And I presume the Bible is of this world….is it not?.

    oh thanks for listening again. And I know I won’t win here :-). But still interesting

  18. Hey there Willa,

    I agree that the words of the Bible can have many different meanings. I wrote about this in a post on my forum called The Bible is like a Necker Cube. It’s the same idea as the image that can be interpreted as either an young or an old woman. Indeed, I found this image that shows both together in a scientific article called Ambiguous figures – what happens in the brain when perception changes but not the stimulus. Here is the image they used in the article:

    But rather than being a solution to the problems of how to interpret the Bible, this actually creates more problems which are truly insoluble. If the Bible really is like a Necker cube and really does have “two meanings” then there is no “right answer” at all and the book is just an ambiguous pile of words that believers will squabble over for eternity. The real question is why do you think it is anything like the “Word of God” in the first place? In many cases, the reason is because the believers were raised that way before they had developed critical thinking skills. And most people want answers and security and so they are susceptible to religious beliefs.

    In any case, I hope you don’t worry about “winning” one of our discussions around here. I am happy to admit when I’m wrong, because only a fools and knaves would knowingly persist in error after it has been exposed. .

    Great chatting,


  19. Willa says:

    I think you are asking why do I think the Necker Cube is anything like the Bible? Assuming the Bible is a chapter of the “Word of God”. I did not read the article you found on what happens in the brain when perception changed, I did read some of the forum on the Bible as a Necter cube. Comparing the old woman picture with the cube is not perfect either because a 3D cube is a cube no matter how you turn it around, but the picture of the old woman changes to a different person. I still like using the picture of the woman as a separate example than the cube analogy because the old woman can be also seen as a witch. So believers (actually I am not sure what that term means) can argue what religion the old woman belongs to and what she is really teaching. I would say, you and I both she her as an evil witch because she looks like one with her big pointy nose and wart and she talks like one too. But similar to what you said in the forum, “no matter how you slice it”, she can be seen as a witch or an old woman (many interpretations of the same image). In any case religion will continue to argue over the wise old woman and what she is really saying while we just agree it is a witch, all along there is still a princess somewhere. But I should answer the Necter cube analogy too. The way I see the Necter cube analogy may be way off anyone’s base. The Necter cube is a 2D picture portraying a 3D object, the cube. You could say looking at simply the 2D lines of the cube (without seeing the “cube”) is like looking at one interpretation of the Bible (carnal, 2D, worldly) without actually seeing the cube. You are rather seeing lines, rectangles, triangles, and other shapes, of which none of them are very “square”, except the one in the middle (Psalm 119 maybe?). Which gives us a representation (taste) of what all the lines are actually “trying” to say. But once you see the actual cube it doesn’t matter which way you turn it is still a cube (all views are a perfect cube). I like this idea because going back to what you said in the forum about the two views of the cube, “there are two contradictory interpretations”. But really are there in the 3D representation? The two cubes do not contradict each other the way I see them. We all see both views as a cube if you are trying to explain to someone what you are seeing. So a cube is a cube, nothing else. The 2D lines actually give you everything you need to see all sides of the 3D image. Amazing! You just have to recognize that is is not a 2D image after all

    And I was just saying I won’t win, because there really are no real winners in discussions because the one learning could also be seen as the winner. No worries here 🙂 All winners here.
    thanks for pushing the mind

  20. Willa says:

    I have to add that although the two 3D views of the Necter cube are both a cube, one looks like it is below you and the other looks like is it above you. So it is a cube from two different perspectives, one above one below, but nonetheless both cubes. So I think the example above still holds. It is still a cube.

  21. Hey there Willa,

    Thanks for the excellent insights. I agree that the lower dimensional view (2D lines) is a good analogy to “carnal (materialistic) thinking” which fails to see the “body” (3D reality) that is casting the 2D shadow. This is a very rich line of thought which I pursued quite a bit when I was a Christian and it coheres well with Paul’s ideas of the relation between typological prophecy and its fulfillment in Christ. Similar ideas worked well when comparing the 1D canon (a list of books from Genesis to Revelation) with the 2D Bible Wheel, which I called A View from a Higher Dimension. I was particularly impressed by how it helped make sense of the contradictions in the parallel passages in the Gospels. They can not be literally true since they contradict each other, but the contradictions follow the pattern of the Bible Wheel and so that gave me a strong sense that they were intelligently designed. (See my article Insights into the Synoptic Problem.)

    Unfortunately, I don’t see how this “higher view” could help resolve the issues that now convince me the faith is not true. There does appear to be something “special” and “amazing” and perhaps even “supernatural” about the Bible, but it’s also filled with a truckload of crap. I am convinced that the doctrines derived from it simply are not true. There may be “something else” going on, but the traditional ideas of sin and hell and salvation by “faith” cannot be right. Or so it seems to me from my current point of view. We are free, of course, to make up our own doctrines or “spiritual interpretations”, such as Christian Universalism or a Cosmic Christ or whatever, but what’s the point of that? The world does not need another speculative religion, and I’m certainly not inclined to invent one. And so I let it be. It remains a mystery to me. The one thing I know is that it doesn’t really matter what a person believes, in the sense of determining one’s eternal fate. God could not be so petty as to judge according to the religious opinions we hold.

    I really appreciate your insights.

    All the best,


  22. Willa says:

    Well said. All the best to you too.

  23. Willa says:

    Sorry I have to add again so you do know I am sincerely in agreement with you. And to go a little further with what you said, from my perspective, the higher view does not “resolve” the issues that now convince us the faith (traditional/orthodox believe systems) is not true”… it rather DISSOLVES them. The view changes almost every idea mankind has dreamed up from the literal words of the Bible. Does it start a new religion? No, I don’t see it that way. The Bible is about you, it is about me inside, not about some historical person or God in the sky. The astronomical geomatria that you guys have found is astonishing. What does that prove? That the words are not coincidence? I see that the words have meaning too (see “through” the crap), not just the numbers. See past the 2D words. Why does all that crap have to be in there. Well, I don’t really know, it is not my design. Maybe there is a reason for the mystery. Maybe it wouldn’t be here today with the possibility for someone to study it if it wasn’t hidden underneath all that crap. Just a thought. Or maybe for a 3D image to be portrayed from a 2D book the words HAVE TO contradict each other and look like crap (in 2D), just like the cube analogy. There is a shadow of the truth, but it is just a shadow.

  24. Rob Callicotte says:

    God’s design was male with a female by his side (a helper or helpmate…same word used to describe the Holy Spirit by Jesus). Sin screwed this all up. The solution: submitting to one another in the fear of Christ. A man is supposed to love his wife like Christ loved the Church (obvious care) and the woman is to submit to her husband. But, what you see when I use the word submit is different than how the Greek word is defined, which is to support and undergird (opposite of undercut or undermine).

    So, it goes back to the same as designed – partners.

    All the other details can be debated because of the strong cultural biases we see in our present cultural, such as what it meant for women to not teach (mostly cultural, but based in the design) all men. Teaching was seen as a service men did, mostly because of design and partially because of education. This did not keep multiple women from doing great things throughout the Bible’s history unrelated to teaching, which most men don’t do anyway…from what I can see. You’ll see that Aquila and Priscilla taught as a pair (man and wife) and worked together in service as partners. This is the answer to women working in speaking services in the church.

    But, these are details. The reality behind is love. If it isn’t loving and clearly contains hurtful elements, you are likely on the right path to something being wrong. “Love does no harm to his neighbor.” – Paul, the apostle.

  25. Thanks for the recognition. I was just wondering if you had responded or not. So I stumbled on to see your response on the home page reel (whatever you may call it). I may respond back as my time allows. It also gets nit picky and long to respond properly to something already responded to, (If that makes sense.) I may poke around and get an overview of your basis for disregarding the Bible to be God-inspired or God’s Word.

    Hey there James,

    I agree that point/counterpoint can get quite nitpicky, but that’s usually if one side or the other is trying to push an agenda that doesn’t naturally align with the truth.

    I reject the Bible as God-inspired because it has all the properties of a book written by superstitious ignorant people from 2000 years ago. It describes a God with moral and intellectual properties I find inconsistent with the concepts of goodness and intelligence.

    I often grow weary of speaking to the same type of people at my church. For clarification, I am not a pastor, but an active lay person who teaches. But there is great complacency in the Christian church. I often enjoy the challenge of looking at topics, Biblical, theological, apologetics, through other perspectives other than my own. Often, it is the wresting through questions and issues that produces the most growth and perspective rather than just accepting a spoon fed sermon weekly.

    Looking forward to future chats,

    I think we could have some wonderful conversations. I look forward to them too.


  26. I also realize that several retorts or questions that I may ask you that would challenge your beliefs about what the Bible is and what the Bible is not may have already been addressed under other postings.

    Don’t worry about that. If you ask a question that has already been answered, it is very easy for me to answer again. If not, then I will enjoy thinking about a new question. So please speak freely.

  27. Lee James says:

    The error people make is to start out with THEIR version of morality—the fickle and ever-shifting morals of the society they happen to have been born into—and when the Bible fails to meet THEIR transient standards, they discount it as evil.

    But where does man’s authority come from to deem one set of morals as superior to another? One person says orgies and public nudity are perfectly harmless; another feels there is something indecent about such things—but by what standard can anyone claim to have moral supremacy? How can you say “sexism is evil”? How? How? Without a God, we are just animals struggling to survive and there can be no absolute morality, only subjective.

    In fact, moral truth comes from God, who has placed a conscience in the heart of all men. God and His Word are 100% morally good and right, and it is the morals of godless societies which become twisted and perverted.

    God is male. Why? Because He saw the two sexes and picked one? No, because before God invented females, there was NO SUCH THING as “female” and by default every creature was male, including all the angels. The Lord God did NOT invent woman as a rival to man; He made woman FOR man; a complementary union of two people who need one another and function together in different ways, with one in command above the other. (This of course is a spiritual picture of heavenly things which is completely missed on those who do not know God.)

    Man and woman are NOT equal; they are not supposed to be and they are not happy to be. This truth is abundantly clear in human nature: it is natural for the man to be dominant and the woman to be subservient. This has been seen across all cultures across all history: women having longer hair to show their submission—which comes naturally to them.

    It is somewhat ironic that atheists will insist that humans are “only animals”, yet when presented with the fact that men and women have completely distinct roles in the marriage and the family, they maintain that humans are “special” here and should be different to all other animal species.

  28. In fact, moral truth comes from God, who has placed a conscience in the heart of all men. God and His Word are 100% morally good and right, and it is the morals of godless societies which become twisted and perverted.

    The Bible says God says KILL BABIES! Ok then .. slaughtering babies must be ABSOLUTELY MORAL.

    Thank you for your contribution.

  29. Rose says:

    “God is male. Why? Because He saw the two sexes and picked one? No, because before God invented females, there was NO SUCH THING as “female” and by default every creature was male, including all the angels. The Lord God did NOT invent woman as a rival to man; He made woman FOR man; “

    My, oh my, your misogyny is showing. There is a very simple reason why god is male … it’s because he was created in the minds of primitive men who patterned him after their image and likeness. LOL Also, you apparently do not know your biology very well … all embryos start off female till about 8 weeks when the male hormone testosterone kicks in and the embryo starts forming male characteristics if it has a Y chromosome.

    “Man and woman are NOT equal; they are not supposed to be and they are not happy to be. This truth is abundantly clear in human nature: it is natural for the man to be dominant and the woman to be subservient. This has been seen across all cultures across all history: women having longer hair to show their submission—which comes naturally to them.”

    That is true, men and women are not physically equal. Women are superior in many ways, LOL! For starters women can bear offspring. There are also some species of animals where the female can reproduce without the need of a male … it’s called parthenogenesis. 🙂

    Where did you come up with the crazy idea that long hair equates to being submissive? Besides that men and women can grow their hair equally long, plus men have beards so they are naturally more hairy than women. LOL

    Kind regards,

  30. MichaelFree says:

    While the religionist parrots what his evil master told him to say an enlightened and powerful woman just taught and schooled him in truth.

  31. MichaelFree says:

    Their religion has a built-in fear-based mechanism that prohibits them from questioning the morality of the bible God. God herself could show up and tell them that women are to be treated fairly, afforded equal opportunity and equal dignity, and many of the religionists would think that their evil God was testing them.

  32. Their religion has a built-in fear-based mechanism that prohibits them from questioning the morality of the bible God.

    Yep, that’s exactly what is going on. God can say “KILL BABIES” and they say God is good and kind and just. And so words lose all meaning when applied to God.

  33. Josef Sefton says:

    Lee, the length of a woman’s hair doesn’t point to the fact that she is submissive. The ability for a woman to be submissive comes from God. It’s a spiritual blessing, not a result of having short or long hair!

    Men and women are loved equally by God! He doesn’t favor men over women, because God has no favourites. He has however given the man the responsibility of being the spiritual head of the family.
    He is to love his wife as Christ loves those He saves.

    That is a love that is selfless, courageous, gracious, compassionate and forgiving!

  34. Josef Sefton says:

    Explorers for truth, saved man or true Christians are ambassadors of the LORD who saved them. They serve the LORD willingly out of love for Him, for He first loved them.

    A Christian husband can’t love his wife, in a Christlike manner, without God graciously blessing him to do this.

    Truly without the the God of the Bible, man can’t glorify Him.

    Michael, your belief in the goodness of rebellious man will alway be false, for the heart of man is deceitful. He is selfish!
    He is a sinner in need of salvation.

    Studying the words of Jesus show that what you teach is Satanic, for Jesus calls man to repentance, whereas Satan denies that Jesus’ words are valid.

    Satan teaches that man is already good! Beware of him, for He is a liar.

    When will self indulgent, selfish, self reliant, sinful man and sinful woman stop publishing the teachings of the Liar of liars?

  35. Josef Sefton says:

    “Why Doesn’t God Obliterate Evil?”

    “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine.” – 1 Chronicles 29:11

    Have you ever wondered why God doesn’t obliterate the devil and eradicate all sin? If God destroyed evil, God would destroy every opportunity for choice. And if God were to destroy every opportunity for choice, then God would destroy every opportunity for love. Therefore, God would destroy the highest good. For God to destroy evil would be evil.

    God doesn’t destroy evil, instead God defeats evil. How? Calvary and the resurrection! God turns every hurt into a hallelujah. Every defeat into victory!

    Author: Adrian Rodgers

  36. MichaelFree says:

    Your own book says that his words are not valid:

    Jesus said that you can’t be his disciple unless you hate yourself and your family.

    In 1 John it says that whoever hates their brother but says that they love God is a liar.

    Take care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *