What or who was Adam and why women are considered “evil” in the Bible.

Sorry for the half-reply. I got called away.

I wrote:
““It wasn’t until Christ took pity on Mary Magdalene that the idea that women were people too, started to take shape.””
You replied:
“You need to adjust thinking on this point as well.”
In what way?

“That’s the Church of Rome you have in mind. They don’t even get a seat at the table whenever proper scriptural exegesis is the order of dispute.”
Why not? Since they were the first church to come from those who knew Christ, why should they be excluded from any debate on Scripture? One can point to the compiling of the Bible, with the Council of Nicea, but that was essentially where the translation of Scripture originated. What is it that separates them, from any other religion, with the exception that their version of the story was accepted by an emperor, who’s empire spanned the the globe?

I wrote:
““It wasn’t until Christ took pity on Mary Magdalene that the idea that women were people too, started to take shape.””
You replied:
“You need to adjust thinking on this point as well.”
In what way?

***

Careful seekers after the Way, which is to say studious observers and contemplators of the Law of God, understood this point well in advance of Christ’s coming and teaching. There are abundant examples in support of this in the Old Testament. What you object to should be the common practice of misapplication of Biblical Teaching; not to Biblical Teaching itself. That is the point I attempt to make.

***

“That’s the Church of Rome you have in mind. They don’t even get a seat at the table whenever proper scriptural exegesis is the order of dispute.”
Why not? Since they were the first church to come from those who knew Christ, why should they be excluded from any debate on Scripture?”

***

The Roman Rite is an amalgamation of pagan sun god worship overlaid with biblical names and titles. The Church of Rome is actually MUCH older than 2000 years. Meticulous examination of her adornments, her symbols, her liturgies, her architecture, her rituals and her affiliations, leads only to one conclusion. Rome inverts the written Word. Rome changes Scripture, when God has spoken and said that NO MAN or institution of men will ever be authorized to do that. The rabbis do the same thing, incidentally. Talmudic Judaism has exactly as much claim to biblical legitimacy as Rome does. That is to say, none whatsoever.

The Roman Rite is spoken of specifically by God Himself in Scripture, albeit never by name. He doesn’t make things quite that obvious for us because he wants us seeking and thinking. But He makes it very plain, to those who have ears to hear, just what He thinks about the Church of Rome and her practices. And while she is never referred in the Bible as THE Whore, she is referred to as a daughter of The Whore.

“One can point to the compiling of the Bible, with the Council of Nicea…”

Neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with ‘compiling’ the Bible. Nothing at all. That’s an internet meme made popular by Dan Brown and his thieving, lying pen. The theft was a put-up inside job to gain even more media attention for the concocted abomination Brown and Bailey and Baigent and Leigh gave birth to on the world stage. And none of those men came up with their malarkey by themselves.

“….but that was essentially where the translation of Scripture originated.”

What translation? Into Latin? Portions of the Hebrew Old Testament existed for millennia before Constantine, and the New Testament Scriptures were authored in Greek. What translation did you have in mind as being associated with Nicaea?

“What is it that separates them, from any other religion, with the exception that their version of the story was accepted by an emperor, who’s empire spanned the the globe?”

What separates the Scriptures from all other documents is this: The Scriptures are Spirit-breathed. That’s what inspired means. That’s God talking to us in the Scriptures, Bill. In all the others, it is someone pretending to be Him or pretending to speak for Him or pretending knowledge of that other world. The proof of that statement is contained in the Bible itself. More proof than that, we are not owed and are never promised.

“That it really hasn’t changed all that much (as I understand it).”

Changed? It’s disappeared. There is no more Hebrew culture to compare with, save for that fraudulent concoction selling itself to the world in Palestine presently. My point is you don’t understand it. None of us do. It is pure speculation to suggest that misogynistic tendencies were prevalent or even latent in Ancient Hebrew culture.

“They (like all religions) cling to the past in their attitudes, and practices; as though the modern world doesn’t, or shouldn’t exist.”

The modern world shouldn’t exist. Not in its present manifestation. At once we have too much and we lack too much. As a people we are virtually devoid of knowledge.

“The fact of the matter, is that religions are built on a Patriarchal hierarchy. That has not changed.”

And why, according to you, should that be changed? What is inherently wrong or evil about ‘patriarchal hierarchy’?

“However, men have typically asserted that they are, in fact, superior to women.”

This begs the question: What are you protesting? Is it man’s historical treatment of women; or is it the way women should be treated, according to Scripture? The two are not the same. And it should come as no surprise that men DO NOT OBEY the Instructions found in the written Word. Men never have.

“There’s a reason why the Women’s Liberation movement was necessary (I won’t get into my political views on that matter).”

I already know your political views on the matter. Here’s the problem: The environment which created a NEED for an answer to a problem, also created a possible avenue for exploitation by a zealous enemy of the ‘Scriptural Order.’ Problem Reaction Solution. It’s an old tactic, Bill. Women’s Liberation was the wrong answer to a real problem. But the Enemy has never been about solving problems. He’s been about advancing his own agenda and his agenda is to turn the Scriptural Order on its head. He is an inverter, after all. This is PRECISELY the issue I had in mind earlier when I said, ‘ideological movements, the perfidiousness of which (for the moment) has not become obvious to you.’

“…any subsequent translations came from an already edited and rewritten script.”

This is my area of expertise. I can tell you categorically, that the modifications made to the original texts are overall rather minor in nature. The manner in which New Testament Manuscripts proliferated made it nigh on impossible to contain and to alter the entire stream. The various Books of the NT appeared, here and there, and were immediately copied, disbursed and scattered to the four corners of the Earth. The changes came later. But the problem is, we now have Manuscript and Papyri evidence OLDER than the changes. We have MORE than 100 percent of the original material at our disposal presently; not less. The modifications become apparent over a course of inquiry.

“See how easily a simple typo can affect the faith?”

It is true there have been tiny examples of scribal error producing major effects in overall meaning. But the problem with your objection is the immense library of material we have at our disposal for cross-referencing ANY scribal work – flawed or otherwise. One scribe cannot effect the sort of universal mistake you describe with your monk’s errant ‘R.’ The way these Manuscripts proliferated from the beginning makes that impossible, at least on a broad scale.

“Now consider the insane number of versions of the same book. No one can tell me that there haven’t been losses in translation.”

What does this mean: ‘insane number of versions of the same book’? Have you actually examined the types of differences being objected to by critics? The differences are picayune, in almost all cases. In cases where intentional, spurious alterations have been perpetrated, the Manuscript evidence from other streams (and there are myriad streams) makes this immediately apparent. It’s not as if a book was written in a single source and disseminated to the nations. These Books popped up in numerous locations, over the period of about 50 years, and were immediately copied and shared. And the copies grew exponentially, but so did the ‘cleaner generation’ facsimiles nearer the originals. The volume of evidence in this case lends support to those who argue for the endurance of original scriptural content; not the other way around.

“I don’t see why people need the Bible, to tell them to act in such ways.”

Even if you get one or two things right Bill, you’re not going to get all of it right. None of us ever do. We weren’t created to. And the intended lesson in that is expounded at length in the Word.

“If one clings to a fundamentalist view of the OT, they’re clinging to the idea that women are more or less possessions, not a partner.”

No, Bill. If one is consistent, one does NOT harbor any such notion of women being possessions, if one adheres to scriptural principles. That there are examples in Scripture of men treating women as possessions, does NOT make your case. There are many accounts of men violating God’s Instructions all throughout Scripture. We are to differentiate between what man does (most certainly what Israel DID) and what God Instructs His people to do. You are not differentiating between the two.

“I wasn’t there, so I don’t know.”

I wasn’t there either, but I know the Word. Jesus did not marry Mary. It didn’t happen. You might as well say Jesus married Peter, but you don’t know because you weren’t there. I wasn’t there either Bill, but I can tell you Jesus didn’t marry Peter. Speculation rests on evidence. Not? Then it’s brazen and idle speculation of the basest sort.

“I do know that marriage and children was expected of young Jewish men then, as it is now. Either way, I don’t think it really matters.”

It matters in the utmost extreme. If Jesus married Mary, then we have no Savior.

“Aha! Not everyone thinks of the OT in an Instructive capacity, beyond the 10 Commandments, and Sodom and Gomorrah. Many will simply read the story, and act based on any repercussions that came of it, thereby missing the point.”

Is this another example of you confounding and conflating what is written for what is DONE by men? Sounds to me like exactly that.

“Perhaps I’m not getting what your point. If Moses is Jesus, are you saying that Moses was God incarnate, the same as Jesus?”

Moses is not Jesus. Moses ascended the mountain, did he not? Moses was GIVEN the Law by God at the top of the mountain. Moses, Jesus, God. Moses is not Jesus. Moses is not God. Surely you understand my meaning better now?

“That’s fair enough, but you also have to consider that the majority doesn’t see it that way.”

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why you keep doing that. WHO CARES what anyone thinks, Bill? We’re arguing about what is WRITTEN. Men make mincemeat of the Scriptures; no big secret there. Why on Earth do you keep suggesting men’s stubborn mendacity or errant stupidity has any meaningful impact on the Word of God, as it is written? Won’t you please draw a firm distinction between these two elements and stop plunging yourself into this wayward mode of thinking?

“From what I can tell, the majority of those who believe the story, place the blame squarely on Eve.”

Irrelevant.

“And it is a completely valid one. While it’s true, that I continuously question Biblical Teaching, it is usually due to the misapplication you bring up.”

Most relevant and critical.

“When one sees those who call themselves Christian, acting in ways that completely contradict the teachings of the bible, I feel it’s natural to question the source of their beliefs.”

Yes, Bill. Perfectly natural. But there’s a high crime resulting from their lack of right conduct and you are absolutely correct in your assessment of its effect. The crime isn’t yours, but the lingering effect is, unfortunately, yours. My hope in all of our dialogue is to get you to see past the stupid and lawless behavior of ‘Christians’ – many of whom are hypocrites of the worst kind. There are many evil outlaws and criminals who wear the Christian ‘badge.’ It is true. Now imagine that they don’t exist and go to the Word to see what IT SAYS.

“After all, doesn’t one look to the Qu’ran, when trying to figure out why Muslims act the way they do?”

They most certainly do. And no wonder, because the Koran tells Muslims to do some of the things they do. The Koran also tells them in other places NOT to do those same things. It is a terrible mistake to think of the Koran as being on the same level as the Bible. The difference between the two is greater than the difference between night and day.

“Let’s face it, Walter, the cross was a symbol for many religions, prior to the rise of Christianity, so that one was easy.”

When Messiah died, it is written that He made an open show of His enemies. It is therefore most likely that He was indeed hanged on a cross. The cross is a symbol of His Enemy. But veneration of the cross is a direct violation of the Second Commandment. NO IMAGE. The cross is NOT the sign of the Son of Man. That is a fundamental error of Christianity. Messiah’s sign is given to us in the Book of Genesis – not in the Gospels.

“Rome is not the only group, guilty of changing Scripture. All Christian sects have done it, to one degree, or another.”

All Christian sects, you say? I would see your evidence for this claim, if you have any. That’s a bold statement backed by nothing, Bill. Recall above what I said about Manuscript forensics. I can support each and every claim I made above and would be more than happy to do so.

“Then who did?” (have anything to do with compiling the Bible)

The original followers of Messiah did. The Disciples and their taught ones. The Early ‘Ecclesia’ in the first centuries prior to being subsumed by The Borg. They are the ones who determined which books were inspired and which weren’t. Rome came along later and codified that determination, thereby stamping its imprimatur on a decision they had virtually nothing to do with. This Roman approval process began later, at the Synod of Hippo; not (as erroneously and widely reported) at the Council of Nicaea.

“The Latin. I know that the original New Testament was translated originally into Greek, from it’s original Aramaic. See the story about the Abbot, above.”

The Aramaic was BACK translated from the Greek. The New Testament documents were all originally written in Greek. This can be proven by linguistic forensics – the fact, for example, that myriad idiosyncratic artifacts remain in the texts, which are unique to the Greek language. I likewise originally believed the NT was first written in Aramaic. But the evidence overwhelmingly shows otherwise. There are even verses in the Old Testament which support this very conclusion.

“You said that the RCC had no place at the table, when Scripture was being debated. I don’t understand why not. For any progress is to be made, all viewpoints need to be considered.”

All legitimate viewpoints might be considered. But all dissenting lies are nothing but distractions. Why listen to distractions? The Roman Rite is an ENEMY of the written Word. That’s a little more than just an opinion, Bill. That is not an indictment of pew-level Catholics; it is only an indictment of the Monarchical Hierarchy calling itself the Church of Rome. They are Initiates into the Mysteries. They are worshippers of another god. Their opinions about Scripture are irrelevant.

“And we hit the familiar wall. The Bible being cited as evidence of it’s own authority.”

It’s not a matter of citation, Bill. It’s a matter of, that’s where the evidence can be found. A seeker must rise and take his sally into the Word in order to explore the verity of the Word. That’s the only way it can be done. And if a ‘seeker’ wishes to discredit the Word even before he begins, then his journey is already at an end. He will of course find ample ‘reason’ to impugn and indict what is written. Honesty and freedom from all impure motivations are indispensably essential components of a meaningful search.

“I’ll always have difficulty with that one.”

That’s because citations are often pointless, exactly as you accuse them of being. But it’s not a matter of ‘because the Bible said so.’ It’s a matter of ‘the truth is in there, and THAT is the only place you’ll find it.’ You either get in there to explore, or you admonish from without having little concept of what’s inside. And I don’t mean reading the Bible once, though that is a start. I mean studying the Word. The difference is enormous.

“Dictators use that kind of logic. Hell, most of them think that they’re divinely appointed.”

Most of them are. Just not for the reasons they imagine.

“It’s designed to be open to abuses, and boy, do they take advantage.”

So apart from being susceptible to abuses and reminding you of communism, what superior form of cultural framework would you recommend for a society, in lieu of patriarchal hierarchy?

“I protest the fact that the two never seem to line up, particularly with the most “pious” of believers.”

That is a valid protest. Just remember that you are being unjust in your assessments if you translate a portion of the blame for that outcome to the code of Law NOT being followed by the offenders, merely because they claim it as their code. Ignore their claims, as we often should ignore most of what issues forth from men’s mouths, looking rather to their deeds.

“If men and women are equally prone to Scriptural transgressions, why are they not treated equally in terms of leadership capability?”

Here is a question indeed. You continue:

“I asked one of the Priests, under whom I served as Altar Boy; and he replied “That’s how it’s always been”. I was flabbergasted, when I asked a Nun, and she gave me more or less, the same response.”

My response would be this: If you’re looking for universal equality between men and women, why are you looking for it? And while you’re at it, why aren’t you at all concerned with the fact that women alone are the bearers of the offspring? Why aren’t you interested in being consistent? Women are smaller, physically weaker and far more enjoyable to look at than men are. How about that hair and those other accessories? (Do forgive me for that, any ladies reading this exchange – I felt it necessary to drive home this point) Where is equality in all of this? There isn’t any. Men and women were not created to be equal. And the differences which become manifestly apparent upon even a casual consideration, are found to extend into the inner being as well – physically, women are not created to be vigorous brutes, endowed with superior strength. Consider female soccer (is that football for you Canadians?) teams in school and how the knees and other joints of the girls on the teams become plagued by problems FAR more frequently than their healthy male counterparts. High-impact sports are not what the female frame was DESIGNED for. Mentally, women are not created to be placed into leadership positions above men. Consider female prosecuting attorneys, who lack the skills to separate emotion from their strategy as they ply their trade. (Male prosecutors increasingly bleed into the same category, but this is due to an intentional eroding of all boundaries between men and women via social engineering.) The number of female CEOs is likewise scant in comparison with male – and this in an age when equality of the sexes is virtually demanded in the Western World.

Now Bill, this is not said in any attempt to impugn the INTELLIGENCE of women. The overall intelligence of women is almost certainly on a par with the overall intelligence of men. The point is that there are different aspects of intellect which are by design stronger and more prevalent in male than in female minds; and vice versa.

Women were not created to be leaders of men. They were not designed to be leaders of men. This fact will become apparent if we examine the question APART from all of society’s insisted upon notions of universal equality, which notions are blatantly contradictory to the facts of nature and of plain old fashioned observation. If that gets me into trouble with the ladies, or with you Bill, then so be it. But great trouble comes from any insistence that this aspect of our condition be turned upon its head. Even now, Great Trouble is coming.

“It seems that church dogma is forcing women to “stay in their place”. I understand that the church and Scripture are different things, but the attitude has to come from somewhere.”

It is an unfortunate fact of this condition that abuses are likely and common. The abuses should be resisted; the condition should be understood and accepted.

I wrote:

‘Women’s Liberation was the wrong answer to a real problem.’

You replied:

“Most militant movements are. Typically, they become their own worst enemy.”

That’s why I engage you the way I do. You’re not an out-and-out ideologue. You are therefore free to make the correct decisions and able to see more clearly than those who will not be moved from their concrete anchors.

“I agree, completely. However, those who cling to those altered versions of the story, want to believe that their book is the only book, and all others are false.”

All too common. But the excuses are no more. We have at our beck-and-call 24 hour access to virtually limitless information. The Greek and Hebrew languages are no more an impediment to our search than is the fact that certain changes have crept into the tradition. The changes can be exposed easily. It takes a bit of time, but the task of Scripture study set before us is an easy one. It even becomes enjoyable rather quickly. Then it becomes mind-blowing.

“Herein is my problem with the “factionning” of the religions. No one is willing to admit that they may have been lied to.”

What man wants to admit such things? Why does this come as a surprise to you? At some point you really must disentangle yourself from the habit of using everyone’s shortcomings as an excuse, Bill. Men are weak-willed, weak-minded, lazy, greedy, selfish and easy to fool. And? What does that mean for your existence in this world? If the failings of men are an impediment to your search, they are only an impediment because you allow them to be. Will you continue to concern yourself with what men say and do; or will you begin to busy yourself about what God says and does?

“…the fact that it still goes on, with Scripture being used as justification, does.”

See above.

“I do think it’s interesting to think that Christ’s bloodline didn’t die with him. I never got why Christ had to die a virgin, in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled.”

Messiah’s blood was important for another reason – not for being transferred to a prevailing line of Adam-kind. Bloodlines are important in Scripture. Race is important. But the lesson in the Word is that something is MORE important yet; individual conduct and individual belief are what is more important. Before He came to this world He was married to Israel. He wrote Israel a bill of divorce because Israel played the harlot. Then He came here and He died. Now, according to the Law, Israel is free to remarry. But in perfect fulfillment of the Law, she will only remarry her previous Husband. Messiah is The Bridegroom. He will be remarried. Now Bill, if He married ANYONE ELSE in the interim, then the Law is irrevocably violated and Jesus Christ is NOT the perfect Sacrifice needed to atone for man’s sin. As I say, if Jesus ever married Mary, then we are without a Savior. Jesus did NOT marry Mary and He did NOT marry anyone in His time here in this world as the Son of Man. If I’m wrong about that then the Bible goes in the trash. That’s how important the matter is. That’s why enemies of the Word have seeded the idea into the modern psyche. Theory has nothing to do with it.

“My point, however, was that the co-opting of symbols, was merely a way to mitigate resistance from those the church wanted to convert.”

That may have been a fraction of the motive. But co-opting of symbols is a result of the Enemy’s seed-mingling modus operandi. If the unclean is mixed with the holy, the entire mixture becomes unclean. There is NO SUCH THING as mingled Good and Evil. This a key to right understanding. In the very instant that good becomes mingled with evil, the result is 100 percent evil. The good in the mix, if it becomes mixed, is no more good but is tainted; is now unclean. It is become evil. So the very moment foreign contaminants get mixed into the true biblical system, then the system CEASES to be what it was and at once becomes something else. It becomes the work of the god of this world. That’s why we need a Savior in the first place. There is no compromise with evil. There is only atonement and forgiveness. Without atonement and forgiveness…

“A kind of ecumenical Bait and Switch.”

A kind of Luciferian mingling of the seed.

“Absolutely. Cannot the actions of the adherents be a direct reflection of their holy books?”

If we judge the servants of another master, we judge amiss. Those who betray their tradition, those who betray the Instructions of the Most High, will give an accounting for their deeds. More than that we get into trouble if we keep insisting that their misdeeds should be blamed for OUR deeds and actions – especially if those actions involve shunning the Scriptures because of lawlessness perpetrated by those who SAY they are obedient to the Scriptures.

“We’re more than happy to admonish the Koran, based on the actions of Muslims, why not Christians?”

Is it right to apply the same verdict to all cases? Is it right to assume that what holds true in one instance is true in all? Don’t you see the hazard you’ve set yourself up for, merely by asking the question? Existence in this life entails (or at least it should) a CONSTANT assessing and re-assessing of facts and evidence, as those facts and evidence become available to us. If you hear anyone arguing to you that Christians are better people than Muslims, then you’re hearing unworthy conversation.

“I understand, that from a believer of the Christian Scripture’s perspective, the Koran is not the word of God. To Muslims, it’s Allah’s Word, through Mohammed. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.”

Bill, there is such a thing as ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There is a very real, subjective and definitive answer to all of these questions. But the answer is most emphatically NOT to be found in the consistently lawless and outrageous behavior of men.

“I think it’s incredibly relevant, when you consider that (as I said earlier) this story is used as Biblical justification, for the poor treatment of women.”

I’m quite sure I’ve addressed this point to the best of my abilities. If you insist upon blaming bad behavior of men for your assertions or your conclusions now and in the future, then I can promise you an unenviable outcome.

“I’ve just read an email from a good friend of mine, who feels it’s not her place to instruct men, in Scriptural matters. Can you imagine such a ridiculous idea?”

It’s not her place to instruct men in scriptural matters.

“That a woman should just “Shut up, and let the men talk”?”

Women should study to show themselves approved. Then, in a situation where men are wildly out of the Way, the woman might offer counsel. A woman is a man’s counselor. And she can absolutely correct a man. But she should be right when she does so, and not merely expressing a different opinion.

“…it’s religion that shapes minds and attitudes, on a large scale.”

So what. Just what do you think this world is? If you want to know what this world is, then you have to get your answers from the Word of God. Get your answers from someplace else and you’ve guaranteed yourself the inheritor of lies.

“400 flavours of Christianity.”

You’re missing two zeros, Bill. There are more than 40,000 registered 501-C3 organizations calling themselves ‘Christian.’ That was actually my point. They’re not all guilty of the same crimes. They’re just all guilty. All of us are.

“All branches of Christianity are the result of a problem with the Scriptures and Gospels, or the prevailing interpretation.”

So what? Imagine Christianity didn’t exist and you had stumbled upon the Scriptures. Christianity is not worthy of your ire. Christianity is an impediment to you. You hate it. You are probably justified in hating it. You see what Christian behavior looks like. You see what Christian hypocrisy looks like. Bill… So what?

“That makes no sense. Why would the Gospels be written in a foreign language, only to be re-translated into the native tongue, of those who wrote it?”

Isaiah 14:21

In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear Me, saith the Lord.

He had finished addressing Israel as a Hebrew nation. He intended to scatter them to the four winds and to begin addressing them as all nations. Note also how Paul always broke down the two groups – the Jews and the Greeks. That is a method of categorizing the House of David (and by extension, Israel) and the rest of the world.

That, and in a court of law, the case would be called ‘bullet-proof.’ The New Testament Books were all written in Greek. This can be proven. I can prove it to you if you want me to. I’ll do so off-site if you choose, as it would take time to show you the evidence. The translators of the Aramaic ‘Peshitta’ (meaning ‘Straight’) set about their business for the same reasons other translators did. The Peshitta is nowhere near as old as our oldest Manuscripts and Papyri. And it can be shown conclusively that the Peshitta was indeed translated from the Greek, as Greek linguistic artifacts crept into the Aramaic text. We don’t have to look to opinion on this question. It makes perfect sense in light of the Biblical Narrative and the promises God made to His people. It’s what He said He would do.

“I hope that by now, you know me better than that. It’s not my intention to discredit, or impugn the Scriptures. Merely to comprehend them, without the bias that comes from allegiance to the belief system. I see my journey to understanding, as far from over.”

Do you think I would be devoting these many hours to our continuous dialogue if I thought of you as hopelessly self-hobbled?

“If I may ask, which version of the Bible should I start with? I could never decide. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.”

Whichever version is keyed to the concordances you use. For example, the King James Version (KJV) is keyed to the Strong’s Concordance. Keyed to the Strong’s Concordance are the Brown-Driver-Brigs Lexicon and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Therefore, you can look up any word from the KJV in the Strong’s Concordance. And beyond the Strong’s you can continue a word study in those other reference books.

There are errors in the KJV. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Translation is, by its very nature, denaturing to the work translated. But the tools we need for digging through the translation, for studying the Word, are all available to us for free online and also available VERY reasonably priced from Amazon and other booksellers. A copy of (the very large) Strong’s Concordance can be shipped to you new from Amazon for around 23 USD.

If you don’t like the Elizabethan language of the KJV (I rather do like it), then you can opt for a New English Translation (NET) or some similar translation which is keyed to other concordances and lexicons. You could even pick whichever translation you like best, and also have a KJV at your disposal. That way you could cross-reference any questions you have from one translation, into the KJV, and then into the concordances.

A simple answer to your question is, I would indeed recommend the KJV as the best translation. But if you ask 1000 people the same question, you WILL get 1000 different answers. New American Standard Bible (NASB) is another decent translation. I do not like the New International Version (NIV) because it omits certain passages and translates others very questionably.

And ANY question you have pertaining to Scripture, I will always be happy to assist you with as I am able. I believe you still have my good email address, but if you don’t, my burn account is [email protected].

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Walter:
” what superior form of cultural framework would you recommend for a society, in lieu of patriarchal hierarchy?”
One in which EVERYONE has the ability to lead, should they be qualified to do so.

“And while you’re at it, why aren’t you at all concerned with the fact that women alone are the bearers of the offspring? Why aren’t you interested in being consistent?”
In this instance, I find it irrelevant, because that cannot be changed (barring an insane amount of surgery). It is what it is. The reason I people to be equal, is that it would alleviate much of the societal strain, we experience.
Just because women are physically different than men, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to attempt to engage in the same passtimes, as men. Hell, you ever watch women’s hockey? In many cases, it’s better than the men’s games, in terms of speed, aggression, and overall quality of the game. Look, I’m not saying put women in the NHL. They tried it as a publicity stunt, and it failed miserably. Women’s sport is just as good as the men’s, if not better. And yes, we call it soccer here.

“The point is that there are different aspects of intellect which are by design stronger and more prevalent in male than in female minds; and vice versa.”
That’s a fair assessment, and in most cases, I’d have to agree with you. Whether it’s by design, or by conditioning, I really can’t say. It’s not as though there’s a one-size-fits-all answer, for any of this. Yes, there are fundamental differences, between men and women. That’s all they are, though- differences. The problem is thinking of those differences, in terms of advantages and detriments. Different- Not Less.

” That’s why I engage you the way I do.”
And I very much appreciate it. Cheers, Brother.

“If the failings of men are an impediment to your search, they are only an impediment because you allow them to be.”
The failings of men are not so much the impediment to my search, as the are the reason for it. As I’ve said in the past, the basis for my interest in Scripture and faith stem from my interest in human behaviour; as it relates to their faith. To understand why people cling to a book and set of moral principles, that was written thousands of years ago. Beyond that, I want to know why it spawns such divisiveness. I know that I have that block (the mistakes of men), but how the bible can make normally rational people into screaming zealots, is what I’m trying to find out. I just think that having more than a passing knowledge of Scripture and Gospels is the best way to accomplish my ultimate aim.

In the matter of Christ’s bloodline:
I never considered the matter in those terms. It makes sense, now. Thank you, Walter.

“Is it right to apply the same verdict to all cases?”
In any case where one attempts to use their God (regardless of who that God may be) to further an agenda contrary to their God’s teachings, they and their faith should be taken to task. No one who claims to speak for, to, or authoritatively about what God wants, should be exempt from scrutiny; especially if they act in a way that contradicts their book’s teachings.

“If you hear anyone arguing to you that Christians are better people than Muslims, then you’re hearing unworthy conversation.”
On this point, I couldn’t be in more agreement with you. That’s my whole point, though. No one has the right to claim that they are “better” than anyone else. We’re all human. We all say and do stupid things (some more than others). Any conversation in which someone asserts their superiority, is an unworthy one; and for all the blustering that goes on in the BIN, that’s a whole lot of unworthy conversation.

“It’s not her place to instruct men in scriptural matters”
Why not? You said earlier that a woman’s intellect is “at a par” with that of a man. Why could she not instruct me, if I am at a deficit of knowledge, in comparison? She would be doing me a great service, would she not?

” But she should be right when she does so, and not merely expressing a different opinion.”
I absolutely agree. Though in many cases (from what I’ve experienced), many of these Scriptural debates end up coming down to a difference of opinion, or interpretation.

“You hate it (Christianity). You are probably justified in hating it.”
See, that’s where you’re wrong, Walter. I don’t hate it. I’m perplexed by it, as I am with all religions.

” I can prove it to you if you want me to. I’ll do so off-site if you choose, as it would take time to show you the evidence”
I would very much like that. Even if you had links to PDFs, that you could share, It would probably save you a lot of time. Thank you for the kind offer.

As it relates to my question about which bible to start with, I have a New Revised Standard Version at home. How close would that be, to the original Greek Scriptures? I will look into finding a KJV, but I know I’ll have difficulty getting around the whole “re-worked for a King” aspect.

Again, Walter, thank you for your time and help, in what I’m sure is a frustrating dialogue. Cheers, Brother.

Bill;
But you said that men have a need, not a desire.