On Women: Scripture and Ontology
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:45:23 — 200.2MB) | Embed
Hosts
Corey J. Mahler
God assuredly knows the purposes for which He made His creatures, the proper ends toward which their lives should be oriented. We can order our lives according to God’s Word and God’s design, and He will bless us, or we can rebel against His Word and His design, and we will suffer. When it comes to the issue of woman and her place in creation, practically the whole of modern society has chosen the path of rebellion.
Women today strive for and grasp at nearly every possible path other than the one designated for them by God. Genesis is clear: Woman was made for man to be a helper for him. This is woman’s telos, this is her purpose, and it is also her only chance at happiness and joy. When we rebel against our nature, we find only misery, suffering, and pain; Feminism is rebellion against the nature of woman — it is the embracing of the woman’s curse in the Fall. As Christians, we cannot be Feminists; rather, we must believe, teach, and confess what God says in His Word about woman, her nature, and her purpose.
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Subscribe to the podcast here.
Show Notes
See Also
Further Reading
Parental Warnings
None.
Support the Podcast
- Recurring Donation
- One-Time Donation
- Mahler’s Amazon.com Wish List
- Woe’s Amazon.com Wish List
- The Stone Choir 2024 Challenge Coin
- [Use coupon code SHIP4FREE for — you guessed it — free shipping (in the US only).]
- Update: The sample coin has been received (click the shop link to view the images).
Comments?
Join the discussion on Telegram, visit the feedback form or comment below.
The way they sneaked in a deliberate mistranslation in the Gender Language of NIV 2011:
http://bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
To sneak in women’s ordination. Women in the Military and even possibly inheriting the Throne of Israel in the Old Testament. I corresponded with this guy who said the following:
“I’m still a long way from finishing with your last batch of questions (thanks again for your continuing patience), but conscience prods me to write to you about the NIV issue you asked about recently. I have since learned – much to my dismay – that Biblica, the organization that owns the NIV, has apparently decided to “stamp out” the 1984NIV and replace it with the 2011 version. I had assumed that this was not much different from the 2005 TNIV, which is only a minor tweaking of the ’84 revision, but in fact the 2011 “revision” is completely different in many places so as to be a whole new version in fact. I finally figured this out after experiencing “problems” over the last few weeks at Blue Letter Bible, my site of choice for online Bible reference. I would search for an NIV passage and not find it; or when I found what I was looking for it seemed as if someone had “monkeyed” with the translation. In every case where I have so far identified a divergence between 1984 and 2011, the latter has been a horrible defacing of what was a pretty good rendering – and in some of these changes, where they are providing a “gender neutral” update, the verbiage is absolutely unreadable as well as ridiculous. Example:
1984NIV:
(7) O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. (8) The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.
2011NIV:
(7) You, LORD, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked, (8) who freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the human race.
I can’t find any statement about it (n.b., Blue Letter has since posted: “The text of the New International Version (NIV) has been updated to the NIV 2011 text.
This was done in accordance with our license agreement with Biblica, the copyright holder of the NIV. For more information go to Biblica’s website.”), but the fact that all the internet sites which have or had the NIV have been forced to replace the 1984 version with the 2011 version and have not been allowed to offer both I find to be a horrible thing – at least I would not want to have to answer for it (though I can anticipate some of their rationalizations).
Even at the Biblica site which used to have a variety of the NIV versions including the incipient 2011, the 2005 TNIV, the Anglicized version, the Reader’s version, and the 1984 version, the last has now disappeared. I think what most upsets me is what disturbed you, namely, the fact that this wholesale change is not obvious at all from the way the revision is described – or not mentioned at all! Speaking of 1984, it reminds me of Orwell’s novel of the same name and how text was changed with no mention.”
https://ichthys.com/mail-Bible-Versions-Translation-ReadingII.htm#NIV1984
They apparently were even trying to erase the NIV 1984 and replace it with the NIV 2011. So as to make their subversion standard.
God could have created us to reproduce asexually like bacteria an nematodes. Yet God made us Male and Female.
Being Male/Female is suitable for an Image of God. Asexuals aren’t by implication.
Hence nudity and sexual intercourse within marriage which is both pleasurable and leading to procreation is clean,honorable and good(Proverbs 5, Song of Songs).
Augustine had such issues with the Male/Female nature of Humanity:
https://www.thebodyissacred.org/origin-st-augustine-sexuality-sin-sex-pleasure/
can you explain the muslims thing more, that you think the punishment for abram listening to his wife that now muslim exist???
And I think youre slightly off about mansplaining although i dont support the term either
Scripture speaks about the nature of the descendants of Ishmael (largely today’s Muslims). If Abraham had not listened to Sarah and produced Ishmael with Sarah’s slave (and, later, Abraham’s concubine), then the nations that are, today, Muslim, would largely not exist.