2010 One-Year Chronological Bible Comments

[mwvickers]

onanothernote,

Glad we can have this discussion.  I enjoy it greatly.

On effeminate and homosexual...why did this shift in publication come about?  Could this be due to the shift in society's thinking regarding the thinking of the times?  I realize that the Greek translation says male prostitute/homosexual but why was effeminate used in 1611 and was homosexual used in 1900, probably not?

The shift in publication may be due to a shift in word meaning.  This happens all the time.  For example, in the KJV, it says regarding the resurrection, I believe, that we who are alive shall not "prevent" those who are dead.  Today, "prevent" means to "stop or keep from happening."  In 1611, however, "prevent" meant "precede" or go before.  The meaning of the word changed, and so our usage changed.  It may be the same with "effiminate."  It may be that the word did indeed mean a homosexual then very clearly, but it is not clear today; therefore, it would be proper to change the word we use. 

 

I'm not sure because I don't have a KJV from that time, but given the conservative nature regarding sex at the time, homosexual had the word sex in it and they probably didn't use it.  Even the legs of the piano were covered because they were considered too sexy. 

I was under the impression that this was the case during the Victorian era, in the 1800s, not during the Elizabethan/Jacobean era.  I could be wrong.

 

I just have a thing about society's views, especially politically driven, causing a shift in word usage in the Bible, or any important text.

Again, I don't think the wording changed because of society's views.  I think it changed merely because it is the nature of any language to change.  This happens in every language.  Even Greek has several dialects throughout its history, as words changed meaning over time. 

 

I know homosexuality is against God because it is stated quite plainly in Leviticus 18:22 but no one points to that, they want to point to the actual word "homosexual" as if the word homosexual makes it mean more by its sheer presence.  This to me is as if they only want to obey what is plainly stated in their words, not what has to actually be looked up and read.  If the word has to be there for it to mean something.  Down here there are so many Bible thumping politicians who use the fact that now the word homosexual is in the Bible instead of referring to the Moses's law, which not many pastor's actually preach on instead of just the 10 Commandments though this law hasn't changed nor many of the others there.  They are still picking and choosing what to obey and pointing to it.

Well, I agree that something doesn't have to be blatantly stated to be true.  And yes, we should look at all of the Bible (Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians 6, among others) to see what God's view is about an issue rather than just focusing on one verse.  But the word "homosexual" in some form is actually right for the passage based on today's understanding both of Greek and English. 

 

They forget that it is not their place to judge, but they still feel free to persecute those that are homosexual instead of praying for them and allowing God to be the one to pass judgement.

Well, we have to be a little more careful here. 

First, you are right, we are not to persecute anyone.  But merely disagreeing isn't persecution.  I understand that in the South, often times more than verbal disagreement happens, but I'm just pointing that out.

Second, we have to distinguish between judging as God judges and being judgmental.  Being judgmental (something like "holier-than-thou") is indeed wrong.  But Jesus didn't say not to judge at all.  He said to judge fairly, judge lovingly and caringly, and to make right (or righteous) judgments.  So it is not wrong for Christians to say that something is a sin and is against God if God Himself said it.  The attitude is what matters.

 

The power of semantics is awfully powerful down here, so even the slightest shift in words can move mountains or turn mole hills into mountains.  Words are just letters squashed together until someone assigns meaning to them.

I can see where you are coming from, but the fact is, all words do have meanings assigned to them. That's why words are so powerful, and that's why we have to choose them and use them carefully and wisely.  As someone with a B.A. in English, I take this to heart greatly.

 

Not that long ago "gay" mean happy, but today it means something different.  If I were to have a rainbow on my car problems would be caused due to the fact that I'm single, 29, and not dating anyone right now.  People forget that a rainbow is God's promise, but now it means something different.  Society changed that.

Again, words and symbols change meaning over time.  It's hard sometimes, but it's a fact that is unavoidable. 

 

When did the majority gain so much power?

That's always been the case, I think.  LOL

 

The ability to have groups to discuss the finer points of word meanings and translations and compare them provides a well rounded approach, especially if someone has access to Greek and Hebrew text and knows how to translate them with accuracy.

I agree wholeheartedly. 

With so many different versions of the Bible, I do feel lost when I go in a book store, look at all the Bibles, begin to look at all the different versions and then all the publishers.  This is the chaos I'm referring to, plus confusion over issues like Suzanne pointed out.  This is mental chaos.  I should have been clearer in my chaos.

Understood.  That is why it is good to have a variety of translations and commentaries to compare to.

[onanothernote]

Martin said "The shift in publication may be due to a shift in word meaning.  This happens all the time.  For example, in the KJV, it says regarding the resurrection, I believe, that we who are alive shall not "prevent" those who are dead.  Today, "prevent" means to "stop or keep from happening."  In 1611, however, "prevent" meant "precede" or go before.  The meaning of the word changed, and so our usage changed.  It may be the same with "effeminate."  It may be that the word did indeed mean a homosexual then very clearly, but it is not clear today; therefore, it would be proper to change the word we use."

This I understand because the word "retarded" really means to hinder, to hold back, while today we associate it with someone who is mentally handicap as in mentally retarded per many state definitions of MR.  I have several versions of dictionaries as Webster isn't the only maker of dictionaries.  As a special education teacher, I always search for materials to assist my students in learning, so finding dictionaries that they can understand makes a difference.  I found dictionaries of American English to be the most useful because they use everyday language to define words instead of formal language and English like Webster's and OED.  Not all dictionaries are alike or created equal.  I even wrote a grant to get a class set of 10 dictionaries for my students, which I got.  Everyday modern language with everyday modern examples makes a difference in understanding.  I do understand this when it comes to "updating" the language in the Bible.  For years the only Bibles one could find in churches down here were KJV.  I only had KJV Bibles and could only find KJV Bibles in our small books stores, both of them, in our towns.  We were taught that other versions were not acceptable translations because they were not true to the word (remember I was raised conservative Church of God).  This all changed when I went away to college to find my first female Methodist preacher.  I was in awe of the refreshing spirit and learned of the NIV translation and ease of reading it, but then discovered the switch of wording in homosexual.  This became a Bible thumping point for so many people in years to come especially during elections, when for years prior it was never mentioned when the wording was different in the KJV for all of those people that didn't own the NIV or other versions until after I returned from college.  This I found hypocritical as if they finally read the Bible in those short years and decided that homosexual behavior was wrong, when it had been there all along.  They just needed someone to put the word in there for them to be vindicated in their thinking and homophobia holier-than-thou attitudes.  This attitude is what is most prevalent down here, not "Second, we have to distinguish between judging as God judges and being judgmental.  Being judgmental (something like "holier-than-thou") is indeed wrong.  But Jesus didn't say not to judge at all.  He said to judge fairly, judge lovingly and caringly, and to make right (or righteous) judgments.  So it is not wrong for Christians to say that something is a sin and is against God if God Himself said it.  The attitude is what matters." You are right that in the South more than verbal disagreements happen and physical bashing still occur.  Being different down her can lead to  very dangerous actions.  What once was great prejudice actions between black and whites is now blacks/whites and Hispanics.  The shift of prejudice attitudes is amazing that it shows nothing ever changes in some places or that change is very slow to come about.  Races at church are still segregated into their own Churches because not many people welcome the other into their church. and the same goes for lower socioeconomic people.  There is an area of poverty that has a church whose children are invited to join our church on Wednesday night because we have a Wednesday night supper.  Those children eat for free, but many of the church members don't like them attending because they bring a certain element with them so they watch the children for even the slightest behavior that is wrong or inappropriate and reprimand them at every opportunity, plus the elders make it known at every church meeting that they don't like the whole arraignment one bit.  The church does have its snobs.  This is the kind of judgement that exists all over the place down here and goes on whether people realize they are doing it or not.  I even mentioned to a colleague that the Presidents speech was a good speech that he was giving to the school children and she snapped back "How do you know, he hasn't given it yet."  I quickly informed her that the White House released it on the Thursday before so concerned people like her could read it.  She is one of those snobs that attends my church.  She believes that the President is the Antichrist and makes no bones about telling people.  She also doesn't like the poorer children coming even though she won't come out and say it.  People that make quick snap judgements like that without even apologizing for it, is the judgement I refer to.  Those that still have that holier than thou attitude.  I do feel like a fish out of water down here when it comes to my religious beliefs.

You are right in that homosexual is just a modern update in words and I'm just seeing it in relation to the society that I live in as justifying their holier than thou attitudes.  This is not a conspiracy or any of that, but an updating of words.  Finding dictionaries from the days when effeminate was first used would shed light on to the meaning of the times it was used in given that men should be manly men in most day and a man that was feminine would have been seen as anything but makes sense.

The comment about the piano legs being covered was in reference to times in America not Europe.  The Victorian notions regarding sex in America extended long after the Victorian era in Europe.  Sex in America has always been more of a taboo subject than it has been in Europe.  Still today they find us much more conservative than they are especially with regards to birth control, sex education, attitudes towards living together, relationship, and all of that abortion deal.  They see us as very conservative, at least this is what I have seen in discussion with Europeans while I was at college and in those I have meet n my travels and studies.  This may be the observations and opinions of a few, but it is what I have learned along the way.

[Suzanne]

Well, I made my decision!  Since the beginning of the year I have been reading all three chronological bibles - the two posted at the beginning of this thread and also the Reese Chronological Bible. The first to go was The Daily Bible in Chronological Order. I really wanted to read the Psalms in the events where they occurred. Also, I wanted to read the prophets' warnings alongside the particular kings who they were warning.

I like the Reese one a lot. I never was bothered much that in the Genesis account they have there that it was a 24 hour day. That's their opinion. We will never know for sure until we meet our maker. But I really really like the chronological order of that Bible. It is excellent.  It is in King James Version and so I needed to have a copy of my NKJV because some words came up that I had no clue what they were talking about -- words not in use anymore.

But I am reading this one this year:
 
I would find it too difficult to be reading two at one time. I am really enjoying this Bible. I bought it in both Kindle & DTV. The DTV is beautiful!!! It's one of the prettiest bibles I own (and I own a lot!!). There is so much extra information in it. I'm totally enjoying it.

I am also reading the Halley's Handbook. That is a treasure!!

[Anju No. 469]

Still thinking about this one - would like to get it, but that's a lot of money in my budget this year.  If I do end up opting to have surgery, will definitely get it.

[onanothernote]

Let's not talk budget right now.  That is depressing!

[LauraB]

I'm still here and still reading. I got a day behind, but I'm catching up. I haven't commented much because the first dozen books of Genesis always confuse me, actually that is where I ususally give up but I'm determined not to this year! Once I hit Abraham I feel like there are people I'm able to follow    . This is my promise. I refuse to get bogged down in what I don't understand. I'm off to do the last half of yesterday's reading and todays.
I agree with Suzanne I do really like the NKJV of the Chronoligical bible. I have it on Kindle and paper and the paper one is beautiful. I also have found all the "extra" explination of things very helpful!

[LauraB]

I do have a question about the reading so far. I don't have my kindle in front of me so don't recall the exact verse, but this part of the story has always bothered me since I 1st read it as a child: The story of Lot and the incest with his daughters. Is it just the translations I have read, perhaps, but what reason could there be for none of the writers of the bible feeling the need to address the idea that this happened. There are many other instances in the bible of the people involved expressing anger, sorrow, guilt. All sorts of emotions. But, at least in the versions I've read over the years, (NKJV. NIV, NRIV) none have addressed it (that I recall). Am I the only one who finds this (for lack of a better word) strange.

[Concrete Queen]

The story of Lot and the incest with his daughters. Is it just the translations I have read, perhaps, but what reason could there be for none of the writers of the bible feeling the need to address the idea that this happened. There are many other instances in the bible of the people involved expressing anger, sorrow, guilt. All sorts of emotions.

Do you mean the writer (I think Moses?) or the translators?  I suppose a good commentary would have some insight, but I don't think translators usually add comments, except for clarification or to note alternate translations of a word. 

That story was always odd to me, too. I guess it shows how Lot didn't bring his daughters up to know the Lord, since they didn't think God would provide them with husbands/children.  And the whole father/daughter thing is just squicky.  Someone with a better knowledge of theology than me can probably add more.

On a different note, the thing that kind of cracked me up was Isaac telling the king that Rebekah was his sister so he wasn't killed.  This is the guy whom God promised to make the father of many nations, but he still thinks it's possible that he'd be killed and other men would take his wife...  How dumb is that?

[Suzanne]

Do you mean the writer (I think Moses?) or the translators?  I suppose a good commentary would have some insight, but I don't think translators usually add comments, except for clarification or to note alternate translations of a word. 

That story was always odd to me, too. I guess it shows how Lot didn't bring his daughters up to know the Lord, since they didn't think God would provide them with husbands/children.  And the whole father/daughter thing is just squicky.  Someone with a better knowledge of theology than me can probably add more.

On a different note, the thing that kind of cracked me up was Isaac telling the king that Rebekah was his sister so he wasn't killed.  This is the guy whom God promised to make the father of many nations, but he still thinks it's possible that he'd be killed and other men would take his wife...  How dumb is that?

I agree. Icky, icky, icky! EWWWWW! Major EWWWWW! Sleeping with your father?? Yuck!

I agree that with both the daughters of Lot and Isaac, they displayed a lack of faith, that God would provide for them.

[mwvickers]

I agree. Icky, icky, icky! EWWWWW! Major EWWWWW! Sleeping with your father?? Yuck!

I agree that with both the daughters of Lot and Isaac, they displayed a lack of faith, that God would provide for them.

I agree that it may be a lack of faith in view. 

Though it is disgusting to us to think of incest, there are a few things we must remember.

First, there is no law against it yet Biblically.  That doesn't come until later. 

Second, it was necessary at the beginning.  Think about it.  Adam and Eve were created.  They had "sons and daughters" not numbered in the Bible.  How did the human race come about?  They intermarried with brothers, sisters, relatives, etc.  Eventually, they became separated enough (genetically and geographically) that people no longer needed to intermarry.  In addition, it is usually assumed that the genetic defects that certainly came with the fall began to multiply, so that close relatives could no longer intermarry without great risk in defects to children (perhaps, though not certainly, the reason a law was given later). 

To a degree, if the Biblical stories are taken in a straightforward way, we are all related distantly (back to Noah, and eventually back to Adam). 

[LauraB]

I don't recall any other biblical story that has father and daughter breeding  . Does anyone else? My assumption that is was "wrong" was because they got him drunk on wine to do it. He didn't (apparently) have a choice (or responsibility) in the matter. Yet, I find it odd that there is no documented response, about how he felt about his daughters all of a sudden being "with child". It says in the reading he didn't remember laying with them. Yet, it doesn't say anything about his daughters becoming pregnant without explanation.  I just find it really odd. Or am I missing something.

[Concrete Queen]

I don't recall any other biblical story that has father and daughter breeding   . Does anyone else? My assumption that is was "wrong" was because they got him drunk on wine to do it. He didn't (apparently) have a choice (or responsibility) in the matter. Yet, I find it odd that there is no documented response, about how he felt about his daughters all of a sudden being "with child". It says in the reading he didn't remember laying with them. Yet, it doesn't say anything about his daughters becoming pregnant without explanation.  I just find it really odd. Or am I missing something.

I don't recall any other stories, either.

I do see Lot as equally responsible, though.  They might have gotten him drunk, but I doubt they were pouring the wine down his throat.  I have no doubt he was drinking his troubles away.  I mean, the man's hometown was destroyed, his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the residents of the little village he intended to live in hate and fear him, he's living in a cave, and on top of it all, his daughters won't stop whining!

I also see responsibility in the way he brought them up -- i.e., not trusting in the Lord, nor in reassuring them of God's providence even in the cave.

That said, I'm pretty sure that kind of incest was wrong even then, though maybe  more acceptable then than now, and the daughters are responsible for their actions, too. 

I also would have liked a little more about what Lot thought when he realized his daughters were pregnant by him...

[LauraB]

I also would have liked a little more about what Lot thought when he realized his daughters were pregnant by him...

I do think they are responsible, and he is for how he raised them and for drinking to much. But my biggest shake-my-head about it thing is that it doesn't say he does find out they are pregnant by him, (unless I missed it). He has no response to his daughters out of wedlock pregnancy at all. And I don't think that is was acceptable in their culture for young unmarried girls/women to just "all of a sudden" have an unexplainable pregnancy. Like I said, unless I missed something in my reading, which I may have 

[Suzanne]

Lot must have been absolutely stoned out of his gourd drunk -- completely blotto -- to have not realized what was happening when it was happening, if you get my drift. And for it to happen two nights in a row?  Good grief! Just drinking that much so that it leaves you in that condition where you are that far gone could not have been appropriate.

[mlewis78]

Just blame it on the women.  Ugh.

[mwvickers]

Red and concrete_queen,

I'm sorry.  I wasn't that clear.  My main point was just trying to get past the "eeew" factor of incest first.  I overlooked the rest.  I apologize.

Yes, this would have been wrong.  Wrong for Lot to have been that drunk.  Wrong for his daughters to have chosen that route for getting pregnant.

As for why nothing else was mentioned about Lot's reaction or anything, I think that the NLT Study Bible notes can shed some light on this:

"The daughters' plan worked, and they each became pregnant by their own father. From these two incest-born sons came two perennial enemies of Israel, the nations of Moab and Ammon. Their grotesque wickedness was due in part to their origin.

"Both daughters chose ambiguous names that hinted at their actions without raising the suspicions of those who did not know the stories. Moab sounds like a Hebrew term that means 'from father.' Ben-ammi means 'son of my kinsman.'"

Apparently, the focus on the story was not the act itself or the reaction to the act, but the consequences of the act.  The descendents of the children from this act became some of the troublesome enemies to Israel later.

In addition, as noted, it also points to how much Sodom had affected Lot's family.  Again, the NLT Study Bible note explains:

"The character of Lot's daughters was formed by Sodom's culture more than by their father's heritage, so they had no qualms about having children by their drunk father.... They saw no other way to carry on their line."

One last note from the Archaeological Study Bible adds a positive aspect to this:

"...At any rate, the almost buried faith of Lot reappeared much later in Ruth, the Moabitess who was also the great-grandmother of David and thus a member of the Messianic line (Ru 1:16-18; 4:13-21)."

So Ruth was a descendent of Moab, who came about from this act. So, even in vile deeds that lead to bad results, God redeemed the issue by leading to the birth of the Redeemer Himself.

Hope that helps more.  

Martin

[LauraB]

That does help a lot. Thank you.

[Suzanne]

Thanks, Martin. That helped.

I wonder sometimes what kind of spiritual upbringing the daughters had. When I think of Lot's wife, their mother, it makes me wonder about that. What caused her death is when she looked back in longing at Sodom. Good grief! One would think she would be ecstatic to leave that wicked city. It sounded like a very offensive place. So to my way of thinking, she wasn't appalled by the city's inhabitants and their behavior. What was she telling her daughters at that time?

[marianneg]

I do have a question about the reading so far. I don't have my kindle in front of me so don't recall the exact verse, but this part of the story has always bothered me since I 1st read it as a child: The story of Lot and the incest with his daughters. Is it just the translations I have read, perhaps, but what reason could there be for none of the writers of the bible feeling the need to address the idea that this happened. There are many other instances in the bible of the people involved expressing anger, sorrow, guilt. All sorts of emotions. But, at least in the versions I've read over the years, (NKJV. NIV, NRIV) none have addressed it (that I recall). Am I the only one who finds this (for lack of a better word) strange.

In my armchair the theologian view, it's probably because the writing was so far removed from the incident.  Whereas many books of the Bible were written by people who were directly involved, Genesis is accredited to Moses, who lived centuries after the fact.  Of course the stories had been passed down, but he would have had no direct knowledge of the events except what God chose to reveal to him.

Though it is disgusting to us to think of incest, there are a few things we must remember.

First, there is no law against it yet Biblically.  That doesn't come until later. 

Well....there was no Mosaic law yet, but there must have been standards set.  The people of Sodom had been punished for their wickedness.  And the parent-child relationship is much bigger of a line to cross than siblings.

I do think they are responsible, and he is for how he raised them and for drinking to much. But my biggest shake-my-head about it thing is that it doesn't say he does find out they are pregnant by him, (unless I missed it). He has no response to his daughters out of wedlock pregnancy at all. And I don't think that is was acceptable in their culture for young unmarried girls/women to just "all of a sudden" have an unexplainable pregnancy. Like I said, unless I missed something in my reading, which I may have 

Well, they did come from Sodom, after all.   Seriously, though, I've also wondered what Lot thought when his daughters caught preggers.  I'm pretty sure he must have had some idea what happened.  Like Suzanne said, someone would have to be incredibly out of it in order to not at least have a clue what was going on...

Just blame it on the women.  Ugh.

I love that my God has made women and men moral equals.

[mwvickers]

In my armchair the theologian view, it's probably because the writing was so far removed from the incident.  Whereas many books of the Bible were written by people who were directly involved, Genesis is accredited to Moses, who lived centuries after the fact.  Of course the stories had been passed down, but he would have had no direct knowledge of the events except what God chose to reveal to him.

Good point on that.

Well....there was no Mosaic law yet, but there must have been standards set.  The people of Sodom had been punished for their wickedness.  And the parent-child relationship is much bigger of a line to cross than siblings.

Indeed.  I guess I was really bad at clarifying and making my point earlier.  LOL

I was not condoning incest or saying this incident was okay.  I was merely trying to point out that incest as a whole was not wrong at this time necessarily.  We just don't know.  We know clearly that all incest was declared wrong, I believe, with the Mosaic Law.  Prior to that, it is not clear to what extent it was/wasn't.  "Incest" was a must for the human race to even expand, both with Adam and Eve's children, and with Noah's children later.  Clearly, it wasn't wrong at that point, at least.  Even Abraham's wife, Sarah, was, I believe, his half-sister.  This is also the answer to the age-old question when people try to play "stump the Christian" and they ask "Where did Cain get his wife?"  The answer?  He must have married a sister or relative (remember they lived long lives then, so we don't know how many relatives he may have had).   

Again, what happened with Lot and his daughters was clearly immoral and wrong.  I hope I haven't muddled that up more now.  LOL 

If so, let me state clearly that this act and this account (Lot and his daughters) was wrong.   

[onanothernote]

I always wondered why Moses let the story of Lot be so short when it came to the point of his daughters getting him drunk to get themselves pregnant to carry on their lineage.  This could point to the fact that he was being decent in his writings considering that he did write Mosaic law where incest was illegal.  He didn't elaborate on what became of Lot after that night, Lot's reactions of that night nor to the whole pregnancy, the daughters' pregnancy or anything there after.  Moses was being very decent in his explanation of the fact of life at that time.  This could have been one of those things. 

I never understood that of Lot's life, but then again it wasn't really covered much down here as a conservative issue.  This does explain much of the laws that came afterwards and why women are considered, and still are in much of the world, the root of sexual evils.  You are right in the whole thought of "blame the women".  If everyone (men) could just learn self control this would not be an issue. Duh! 

On the whole who was Cain's wife thing, that is a good point!  Given that much of the begetting in the Bible doesn't really mention the women folk, their either must have been some under some rocks some where or the men folk did some sharing.  I am bothered that none/few of the female children are mentioned in the process.  They only become apparent when they are married off to important men of the Bible or are scandalous women of the Bible.  This is a bad thing for women of the Bible and speaks to how women were viewed in the Old Testament days, thought they do appear to be mentioned more in the New Testament, though we are talking about different social times hundreds of years apart.  Societies do change their view points over the years, this is just one of them.

[marianneg]

I was not condoning incest or saying this incident was okay.  I was merely trying to point out that incest as a whole was not wrong at this time necessarily.  We just don't know.  We know clearly that all incest was declared wrong, I believe, with the Mosaic Law.  Prior to that, it is not clear to what extent it was/wasn't.  "Incest" was a must for the human race to even expand, both with Adam and Eve's children, and with Noah's children later.  Clearly, it wasn't wrong at that point, at least.  Even Abraham's wife, Sarah, was, I believe, his half-sister.  This is also the answer to the age-old question when people try to play "stump the Christian" and they ask "Where did Cain get his wife?"  The answer?  He must have married a sister or relative (remember they lived long lives then, so we don't know how many relatives he may have had).   

Again, what happened with Lot and his daughters was clearly immoral and wrong.  I hope I haven't muddled that up more now.  LOL 

Oh, I knew that you understood it was wrong.   My point was that they clearly did as well.  There were sexual standards, and, if they thought it was ok, why did they have to trick Lot into it?

[marianneg]

I never understood that of Lot's life, but then again it wasn't really covered much down here as a conservative issue.  This does explain much of the laws that came afterwards and why women are considered, and still are in much of the world, the root of sexual evils.  You are right in the whole thought of "blame the women".  If everyone (men) could just learn self control this would not be an issue. Duh! 

So....how is blaming all men any different from blaming all women?

On the whole who was Cain's wife thing, that is a good point!  Given that much of the begetting in the Bible doesn't really mention the women folk, their either must have been some under some rocks some where or the men folk did some sharing.  I am bothered that none/few of the female children are mentioned in the process.  They only become apparent when they are married off to important men of the Bible or are scandalous women of the Bible.  This is a bad thing for women of the Bible and speaks to how women were viewed in the Old Testament days, thought they do appear to be mentioned more in the New Testament, though we are talking about different social times hundreds of years apart.  Societies do change their view points over the years, this is just one of them.

Frankly, that is just not true.  Yes, lineage was traditionally traced through the male line, but there are also many godly women mentioned in the Bible, some of them with rather irrelevant husbands.  Again, I say that I prefer my God who raises women up to be morally equal to men than one that pats women on the head and gives them a pass because they shouldn't be held responsible for their choices.

[mwvickers]

Good points, marianner.

Regarding blaming women, I think one would be hard-pressed to say that the Bible is sexist.  It seems to be that men and women both fail about equally throughout Scripture. 

Did Eve eat the fruit first?  Sure.  But Adam went along with it.  Then both "passed the buck" so to speak.  Both are guilty. 

Did Lot's daughters err in getting him drunk and sleeping with him?  Sure.  But Lot erred, too, by allowing himself to get drunk, and possibly by not bringing his daughters up better (at least by allowing them to be so influenced by Sodom). 

So, do women err?  Yes.  Do they sometimes get blamed for things?   Yes, when they are responsible.  But men are also blamed just as much, if not more, throughout Scripture. 

As far as why the Bible is somewhat silent on women, every culture at the time was silent regarding women.  Women were not usually respected at that time.  Interestingly, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is quite respectful of women. 

Going along with marianner's question on how blaming men is any different from blaming women, I've never understood the feminist mindset.  (I'll probably be stoned for saying any of this, LOL.)  Feminists get upset with sexism, particularly masculinism.  Feminists often cry for equality, yet they often end up just going the opposite direction, and donwplaying men and uplifiting women.  In other words, both masculinism and feminism are sexism.  So let's just stop overemphasizing one way or the other and truly see each other as equals.

There is something that must be considered with that, however.  The Bible clearly states that men and women are equal as far as being made "in God's image."  At the same time, it is clear that God has ordained certain "roles" for men and women that are complementary, rather than completely equal or opposing.  I think I've discussed this before, so I won't rehash it all here.  But let's be careful not to get too caught up in the spirit of the times and forget what the Bible actually says. 

[LauraB]

Well, I appreciate your "logic" to an extent. But we don't live in Biblical times and expectations  have to be modified. We don't live in tents, bury our dead in caves, wander through the wilderness. Very few people provide their own food past going to the grocery store. We don't confine ourselves during menstruation as taboo, or during the time after giving birth. Like it or not, the world has changed, and so have the expectations. God was addressing the people of the time and then the lives of people changed. The morals of the bible are the same, but the lifestyles are different and therefore,  if we like it or not, so do the roles the sexes play. That isn't going against God. That is just the way it is. My opinion is you can follow the moral messages of the bible and still live in the current times.   If someone feels so strongly about following the roles of the Bible then I don't see how they justify not following all of it.Meaning living the lifestyle of the Bible, impracticle, but so is expecting the old roles in such a different time. Morals are universal across most religions. And can be carried across time. Wardrobes, how food is aquired, how builds and provides shelter (and how) are adaptable over time.  A reader can't be a sometimes literalist. JMO