Women speak in Bible

[Luce NDs]

Would God essence in such a tome be a mire stinker to the pure powers?

 

[Luce NDs]

God'iva thought ... alas thoughts are denied by God's tome ... thus the somnolence of such entities until awakened to shocking things ... humanist theory? Hoers of another hue ...

 

[Oui]

Operating on the assumption that the Bible contains the revelation of God, first to the people of Israel and later to those belonging to the Son do we expect God to:

a) speak from God's own context forcing humanity to come to grips with something alien or,
b) speak into human context and give humanity a leg up in the understanding department?

I think we will never know because of the unbalanced limitations created within the very foundation of the scriptures. An all powerful God giving only half of humanity "a leg up" frankly reeks of injustice.

Presuming that God speaks in scripture do we expect God to:

a) speak as if all work has been completed even though there is still work to be done or,
b) speak of what will be even as we work towards what will be?

Presuming that God spoke at any one time in any one place do we:

a) expect God spoke as we want God to speak or,
b) accept that God spoke as God chose to speak?

Unfortunately, we have to accept what the authors interpretation was. I think there really is no other choice.

The project mentioned in the opening post is an interesting project in that it lifts up the action and the activity of women. Does it give women their own voice or does it simply point to male authors speaking through the guise of women?

I think it painfully highlights women desperately trying to find something/anything to identify with in the scriptures, however all they found were the crumbs left over from the feast the men ate.

Is that a question that would be a concern to the original audience of is it a question that has become a concern at the close of the 20th century?

The original audience was likely mostly literate males, so it was probably not their concern at the time, which points to the imbalanced man-made origin of the scriptures. This deep separation was so obviously crafted into the texts and development of the religion. I think the female voice has been so routinely ignored or actively silenced for countless generations, but now the truth of our voice makes this issue extremely important.

As we address the question who do we expect is in a position to answer it?

Perhaps only women can answer if we really want to continue to accept the male voice speaking for us, yet again. This time, speaking for our own deepest spiritual decisions.

The conclusions we reach about the question are they informed by the witness we ask the question of or the ideas that support our individual biases?

I think they are informed by the educational process supported by research, which now cannot be ignored. To leave important documents strictly to tradition while ignoring everything that has been discovered about them over centuries would be a true tragedy.

While women voices are not present as the authors of scripture or the arbiters of canon they do now, in this day and age, occupy the place where scriptures are interpreted. In essence they give us the benefit of their eyes as we examine the scriptures. At this level their gender may prejudice others against their work. If it didn't their particular Christian perspective would be enough to open them to rejection and/or ridicule.

So, women are told once again, the standard is male, and women have to interpret the foreign male voice and somehow make sense of it!! This is a much harder task than you think. The female tools do not exist within the texts, and the male tools just don't fit us. This is ultimately why the women doing the original research worked so hard, scratching around for those little leftover crumbs scattered through the texts.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I love the story of the Phoenician woman. But I think the beatitudes are my favourite part of the bible. And John 21:25. All the violent bits are hard to accept, not nice parts, and others often don't find my mental gymnastics to interpret them with good lessons to meet their approval when I discuss them. Some might rather leave them out but they do reflect the mentality of the culture of the time - more than they say about God. So, in that aspect they shouldn't be left out. A lot of the bible is a good guide about what not to do. Just as Jacob struggled with God, so do we - and women have our own type of struggle to contend with.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

To interpret and reinterpret the bible in light of the times or present context is Jewish tradition - and in the same tradition Jesus practiced. So it will mean different things to different people in different times and places. Christians often seem to prefer to stay stuck on one - whatever they're taught in church - differing depending on denominations.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/zet378014.shtml

 

[Luce NDs]

Such is the light of the absence of change --- Steven Harper on his: "we couldn't do that indulgence ... unless we charged more!"

Thus things progress very slowly until crossing the line into abstraction ... sort of out of the present mood!

 

[Luce NDs]

Absolution of what?

 

[Jaebius]

Absolution of what?

Not what Luce, whom

 

[revjohn]

I think we will never know because of the unbalanced limitations created within the very foundation of the scriptures. An all powerful God giving only half of humanity "a leg up" frankly reeks of injustice.

I didn't ask what we knew. I ask what we expected. Are we reading out of scripture or are we reading into scripture?

Unfortunately, we have to accept what the authors interpretation was. I think there really is no other choice.

The authors rarely interpret. They report. We who read what is being reported do the interpreting. And we make choices all the time with the various lenses we apply to the scripture as we read it.

I think it painfully highlights women desperately trying to find something/anything to identify with in the scriptures, however all they found were the crumbs left over from the feast the men ate.

I did not read, from the quoted material of those participating, anything which warrants the qualifiers "painful" or "desperate." The contrast between "crumbs" and "feast" also appears to be far more hyperbole than the article allows.

The original audience was likely mostly literate males, so it was probably not their concern at the time, which points to the imbalanced man-made origin of the scriptures. This deep separation was so obviously crafted into the texts and development of the religion. I think the female voice has been so routinely ignored or actively silenced for countless generations, but now the truth of our voice makes this issue extremely important.

Not likely. The scriptures originate in an oral tradition where the only impediment to accessing the stories would be deafness. They are written later and even that is a function of preserving the story as other cultures and their stories threaten to overwhelm Israel. Even if we were to accept that the female voice has been routinely ignored and actively silenced do we improve that by dismissing and/or demeaning this project?

I think they are informed by the educational process supported by research, which now cannot be ignored. To leave important documents strictly to tradition while ignoring everything that has been discovered about them over centuries would be a true tragedy.

Agreed. I don't think this project is doing that. What discoveries are they ignoring?

So, women are told once again, the standard is male, and women have to interpret the foreign male voice and somehow make sense of it!! This is a much harder task than you think. The female tools do not exist within the texts, and the male tools just don't fit us. This is ultimately why the women doing the original research worked so hard, scratching around for those little leftover crumbs scattered through the texts.

The text is what it is. It is all we have no matter who it's authors might be or their gender.

Which tools are absent from the text?

Which tools are present and how are they exclusively male?

What the women compiled was not anything hidden. It was out in plain sight as plain as any other line of text.

 

[Luce NDs]

Not what Luce, whom

Is absolution, or the absolute possible when living with the people of the lie? This is the domain where truth is painful ... and so it ghost difficult to interpret unless one is very familiar with the process of a' leg aur' ye ... the pain of Uriel ... the drippy domain ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I didn't ask what we knew. I ask what we expected. Are we reading out of scripture or are we reading into scripture?



The authors rarely interpret. They report. We who read what is being reported do the interpreting. And we make choices all the time with the various lenses we apply to the scripture as we read it.



I did not read, from the quoted material of those participating, anything which warrants the qualifiers "painful" or "desperate." The contrast between "crumbs" and "feast" also appears to be far more hyperbole than the article allows.



Not likely. The scriptures originate in an oral tradition where the only impediment to accessing the stories would be deafness. They are written later and even that is a function of preserving the story as other cultures and their stories threaten to overwhelm Israel. Even if we were to accept that the female voice has been routinely ignored and actively silenced do we improve that by dismissing and/or demeaning this project?



Agreed. I don't think this project is doing that. What discoveries are they ignoring?



The text is what it is. It is all we have no matter who it's authors might be or their gender.

Which tools are absent from the text?

Which tools are present and how are they exclusively male?

What the women compiled was not anything hidden. It was out in plain sight as plain as any other line of text.

I believe that the authors did interpret using metaphorical language - handed down through oral tradition, before it ever got written down. It wasn't reporting the way we think of news reports of "who, what, when, where, why and how". They weren't literal historical accounts, they were poetic/ allegorical and parabolic accounts. And it was selective interpreting and reporting since we rarely hear from women in the bible even through the eyes of male authors. They've been written down by men and read into by mainly men for ages - shaping doctrine. That's reflective of the patriarchal culture of the times and then the church, not the reality of God present in women's lives.

I don't think we should dismiss those accounts or this project but we should look for other contributions of the voices of women through the ages. I don't accept that the bible is the best and only holy account of them. The bible was compiled and selected only by patriarchal men. How can it be the only holy scripture? There's bound to be more to it to discover.

 

[Luce NDs]

Women were not Queue'd to speak in the bible due to biblical rules laid out by authoritarian men ...

Thus the ephemeral spirit speaks in the silence of darkness ... since the tome is generally closed to those too busy to read intuit! The genre of fey mail ... flighty lettering ... the sense of absence or abstract goes round!

 

[Luce NDs]

Ever since men have preferred to not know about what women extract from them in dark periods of sensibility ... or when the lights were dimmed in GEO Gaia too ... and God was in the process of maqan night do just as chi wis'ed ...

Thus the creation of separate sects ... or what some call divine comedy as skye high loss of mental powers ... have you noted this trend bout when men loose ID? This is the primal power of Semite a mental lack of Jews/juice ... or when the soldier of fortune is too screwed out to love ... thump screwing as inquisitional solution to those that didn't know about Celestial Powers of Ur overhead ... the pain of truth in informational extraction? --- Mata Hari on sleeping with those with somnolent thoughts that wander in the night ... somnoleaps!

Pop pups?

 

[Luce NDs]

Is the cosmos sexual ... having interludes of ethereal stirring sensation? Leaves some seeing stars ... or is that just watering eyes over what they didn't know about before ...

 

[Oui]

I didn't ask what we knew. I ask what we expected. Are we reading out of scripture or are we reading into scripture?
Personally, I expect equality. Is it limited to black & white? If we read only out of scripture, then we have a male centric view, if we read into scripture its considered opinion/interpretation.

The authors rarely interpret. They report. We who read what is being reported do the interpreting. And we make choices all the time with the various lenses we apply to the scripture as we read it.
Scholars generally agree the old testament came from 4 different sources and time periods, and was subjected to editing and redaction over time, seems like lots of room for interpretation there. "Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels." - Wikipedia.
Doesn't seem like reporting to me, its more like authors interpreting other authors.


I did not read, from the quoted material of those participating, anything which warrants the qualifiers "painful" or "desperate." The contrast between "crumbs" and "feast" also appears to be far more hyperbole than the article allows.
The years of work these women put into the project points to the desperation of women looking for something to identify with in scripture, plus the fact they stated that such research had never been done.
[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Quoted from the article: "About 1.1 million words are quoted throughout the book (Bible).
They later discovered that about 14,000 of those words were spoken by women in the Bible"
They found very little, thus the vast majority of the texts are a "feast", and the women within them are the "crumbs". [/FONT]


Not likely. The scriptures originate in an oral tradition where the only impediment to accessing the stories would be deafness. They are written later and even that is a function of preserving the story as other cultures and their stories threaten to overwhelm Israel. Even if we were to accept that the female voice has been routinely ignored and actively silenced do we improve that by dismissing and/or demeaning this project?
Its not my intention to dismiss or demean the project, its to dig deeper, to explore the roots of the origins of scripture and women's role in that.


The text is what it is. It is all we have no matter who it's authors might be or their gender.
Which tools are absent from the text?
Which tools are present and how are they exclusively male?
What the women compiled was not anything hidden. It was out in plain sight as plain as any other line of text.
Obviously, the texts are what they are, but they can now be viewed in a completely new light with the illumination of knowledge and awareness.
The genuine feminine views of the world/life/death/existence/spirituality/everything are absent. Women had no tools, they were not provided with them.
The male views are all present, their tools were the pen, scroll, education and an entirely male institutionalized support system.
In general, men & women think quite differently about a lot of important life matters.
What would the bible look like if it had been written exclusively by women?

 

[Delightful Life]

might i also add to your notions, Oui, in answer to discusson on "the authors rarely interpret" that even perception is an interpretation -- even before our conscious attention to any event, our neurology & our beliefs, worldview, current mental state, feelings, etc interpret -- add to, subtract from, edit -- anything we experience -- and then when we report, we again interpret -- what we report is an interpretation of the very complex nature of whatever event it was that we have experienced

the notion of "the authors rarely interpret" sounds quite modern to me -- like a journalist or camera...again, i think the reason why someone would think that is not for reality reasons but rather for the care & keeping of their worldview, to trust the authors more, which, therefore, lends to trust of jesus etc etc etc more...

when i think the whole bibble is deeply symbolic, full of metaphor & metaphors aboot metaphors and metaphors aboot metaphors aboot metaphors...its aboot meaning more than actual events (the only reason to worry aboot 'this actually happened' is it helps with the meaning imho -- and to think otherwise buys into the modern biblical literalism BS)

good discussion here...keep it up

and so it goes

 

[Jaebius]

I didn't ask what we knew. I ask what we expected. Are we reading out of scripture or are we reading into scripture?
Personally, I expect equality. Is it limited to black & white? If we read only out of scripture, then we have a male centric view, if we read into scripture its considered opinion/interpretation.

The authors rarely interpret. They report. We who read what is being reported do the interpreting. And we make choices all the time with the various lenses we apply to the scripture as we read it.
Scholars generally agree the old testament came from 4 different sources and time periods, and was subjected to editing and redaction over time, seems like lots of room for interpretation there. "Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels." - Wikipedia.
Doesn't seem like reporting to me, its more like authors interpreting other authors.


I did not read, from the quoted material of those participating, anything which warrants the qualifiers "painful" or "desperate." The contrast between "crumbs" and "feast" also appears to be far more hyperbole than the article allows.
The years of work these women put into the project points to the desperation of women looking for something to identify with in scripture, plus the fact they stated that such research had never been done.
[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Quoted from the article: "About 1.1 million words are quoted throughout the book (Bible).
They later discovered that about 14,000 of those words were spoken by women in the Bible"
They found very little, thus the vast majority of the texts are a "feast", and the women within them are the "crumbs". [/FONT]


Not likely. The scriptures originate in an oral tradition where the only impediment to accessing the stories would be deafness. They are written later and even that is a function of preserving the story as other cultures and their stories threaten to overwhelm Israel. Even if we were to accept that the female voice has been routinely ignored and actively silenced do we improve that by dismissing and/or demeaning this project?
Its not my intention to dismiss or demean the project, its to dig deeper, to explore the roots of the origins of scripture and women's role in that.


The text is what it is. It is all we have no matter who it's authors might be or their gender.
Which tools are absent from the text?
Which tools are present and how are they exclusively male?
What the women compiled was not anything hidden. It was out in plain sight as plain as any other line of text.
Obviously, the texts are what they are, but they can now be viewed in a completely new light with the illumination of knowledge and awareness.
The genuine feminine views of the world/life/death/existence/spirituality/everything are absent. Women had no tools, they were not provided with them.
The male views are all present, their tools were the pen, scroll, education and an entirely male institutionalized support system.
In general, men & women think quite differently about a lot of important life matters.
What would the bible look like if it had been written exclusively by women?

The Bible is what the Bible is. :/

 

[Delightful Life]

and like all good literature, it acts as a mirror for the reader :3
(with people in this case forming fan clubs around which particular reflection they like and call themselves 'Roman Catholic' or 'Southern Baptist' or '7th Day Aventist' or or or)

 

[Waterfall]

Obviously, the texts are what they are, but they can now be viewed in a completely new light with the illumination of knowledge and awareness.
The genuine feminine views of the world/life/death/existence/spirituality/everything are absent. Women had no tools, they were not provided with them.
The male views are all present, their tools were the pen, scroll, education and an entirely male institutionalized support system.
In general, men & women think quite differently about a lot of important life matters.
What would the bible look like if it had been written exclusively by women?

Oui, you're bringing up some very good points. So I searched for examples how God is speaking to women, rather than point to examples of how men interpreted God speaking to them.

For example:
The Bible states we should submit to one another and to God.
When the adulteress is brought to Jesus, does He not point out that it takes two to tango?
God's people are referred to as female....."the daughters of Zion" in the OT
The church is referred to as female.
There are examples of women teaching with authority within the church.

So it makes me wonder, is God sexist or has the Bible been continuously abused by men's interpretations as an effect of living in a patriarchal society?

How often do we women hear sermons about women having authority?

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus the intelligence of the bible gets bounced around "outside the content" ... like a roué bleu or aboriginal Ba'aL the ideal that's beyond us if you can gather what gho-est ... sort of like a genre in classic linguistics ... things we should recall ...

And men like Jacob wrestled with things on the other side ... unknown genres ... or dark unseen jinns/genes! Destroyed some of his wants ... leading to the wandering cobbler as he attempted to cobble thoughts in an environment not suitable to clear thinking ...