Does the Bible only address men?

[Beet]

I've noticed all the instructions in the Bible are written as if they're only addressed to men. Some passages even seem to imply women have no agency, like children; for instances passages such as "whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery".

One logical conclusion is that all of the instructions in the Bible apply only to men; women are free from them. Wouldn't that be amusing?

[memphis]

Paul is pretty clear in his beliefs that women should be quiet

[DC Al Fine]

Some parts of the Bible only address men... just like some parts only address women, youth, seniors, rich, poor etc etc.

[John Dibble]

No, there are times when it addresses women. I would say that it presents a male-centric worldview, especially in the OT.

[Beet]

Some parts of the Bible only address men... just like some parts only address women, youth, seniors, rich, poor etc etc.

Examples of each? I am talking about the mode of speech, not referring to these groups in third person.

[DC Al Fine]

Some parts of the Bible only address men... just like some parts only address women, youth, seniors, rich, poor etc etc.

Examples of each? I am talking about the mode of speech, not referring to these groups in third person.

Men: You already have an example

Women: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."
~Ephesians 5:22

Youth: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."
~ Ephesians 6:1

Old: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:  Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;  not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."
~ 1 Peter 5:1-3
(I know elder can mean leader as well, but in this context, youth are addressed immediately afterwards, suggesting this has more to do with age)

Poor: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
~ Luke 6:20

Rich: "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."
~ Luke 6:24

These were found either by me searching for simple phrases like "children" or from very well known verses like the Beatitudes.

[Beet]

Some parts of the Bible only address men... just like some parts only address women, youth, seniors, rich, poor etc etc.

Examples of each? I am talking about the mode of speech, not referring to these groups in third person.

Men: You already have an example

Women: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."
~Ephesians 5:22

Youth: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."
~ Ephesians 6:1

Old: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:  Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;  not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."
~ 1 Peter 5:1-3
(I know elder can mean leader as well, but in this context, youth are addressed immediately afterwards, suggesting this has more to do with age)

Poor: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
~ Luke 6:20

Rich: "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."
~ Luke 6:24

These were found either by me searching for simple phrases like "children" or from very well known verses like the Beatitudes.

Thanks!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes, there's a great variety in terms of who is addressed.  I think in the Law the men as heads of families and communities tend to be addressed more directly - So you do end up with things such as a lack of any prohibition on lesbianism.

[memphis]

It does make sense for a society in which women were largely illiterate for the writing to address men. Also, it is a huge mistake to think of the Bible as one entity. It is a collection of works just as much as your dvd collection.

[Beet]

In my Standard English Version, Numbers 5 has a passage like this. "When a man or woman commits any of the sins that people commit by breaking faith with the LORD, and that person realizes his guilt, he shall confess his sin that he has committed... But if the man has no next of skin to whom restitution may be made..."

This certainly seems to suggest that when the Bible this book of the Bible uses male pronouns, even when "the man" is specifically specified, it also applies to women.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This certainly seems to suggest that when the Bible this book of the Bible uses male pronouns, even when "the man" is specifically specified, it also applies to women.

Yes, that was extremely common in English until comparatively recently.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The translation my church uses fixes a lot of that. For example 1 John 4:20 which in the NIV is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Grammatically, Hebrew has two genders, masculine and feminine, with the feminine indicated by a suffix, and the masculine used for indeterminate gender.  Ancient Greek on the other hand, had a neuter gender.  Hence while from context, using 'sibling' in 1 John 4:20 would make sense, a literal translation needs to use 'brother'.

[bedstuy]

The Bible was written during a time when people had primitive ideas about gender and women's rights.  So, the people who wrote the Bible reflect a primitive, misogynistic worldview.  We rightly reject that thinking today and

So you do end up with things such as a lack of any prohibition on lesbianism.

That's not really true.  There's a reference to lesbians in Romans where it talks about how God will make you gay if you don't believe in him.  Sure, the authors of the Bible aren't obsessed with lesbians like they're obsessed with gay men.  But, they definitely don't approve in general.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

[bedstuy]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

Uh, no, it's really not mentioned particularly much or out of conjunction with a variety of other issues.

[bedstuy]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

Uh, no, it's really not mentioned particularly much or out of conjunction with a variety of other issues.

Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention gay sex.  And I think it's in there a few other places.  Sodom and Gomorrah, right?  Maybe I just overreact to the fact that anyone would call gay sex an abomination worthy of death.  That and when God commits genocide to punish people for being gay, are just is so evil and crazy it stuck with me when I read the Bible.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

Uh, no, it's really not mentioned particularly much or out of conjunction with a variety of other issues.

Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention gay sex.  And I think it's in there a few other places.  Sodom and Gomorrah, right?  Maybe I just overreact to the fact that anyone would call gay sex an abomination worthy of death.  That and when God commits genocide to punish people for being gay, are just is so evil and crazy it stuck with me when I read the Bible.

That's not the conventional interpretation of the Cities of the Plain story outside certain strands of very conservative Protestantism--which, admittedly, tend to be uniquely strong in the United States and in some cases parts of Africa. (God killing that many people for a violation of guest-right may seem even stranger to us, particularly considering Lot and his daughters' mutually horrible treatment of one another which leaves it unclear why exactly they were supposed to be any better other than being relatives of Abraham's, but this was something that was incredibly serious business in ancient times.) And three or four in the Old Testament and one or two in the New really isn't a terribly high number of reiterations of something by Biblical standards, either, even if we're assuming the usual interpretations into moderns terms of concepts like 'lying as with a woman'. It's understandable, though, why one would focus on something that's personally disconcerting or hurtful. Just because the references are (again, by Biblical standards) sparse and occasionally oblique doesn't mean they're not hard to get past.

[bedstuy]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

Uh, no, it's really not mentioned particularly much or out of conjunction with a variety of other issues.

Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention gay sex.  And I think it's in there a few other places.  Sodom and Gomorrah, right?  Maybe I just overreact to the fact that anyone would call gay sex an abomination worthy of death.  That and when God commits genocide to punish people for being gay, are just is so evil and crazy it stuck with me when I read the Bible.

That's not the conventional interpretation of the Cities of the Plain story outside certain strands of very conservative Protestantism--which, admittedly, tend to be uniquely strong in the United States and in some cases parts of Africa. (God killing that many people for a violation of guest-right may seem even stranger to us, particularly considering Lot and his daughters' mutually horrible treatment of one another which leaves it unclear why exactly they were supposed to be any better other than being relatives of Abraham's, but this was something that was incredibly serious business in ancient times.) And three or four in the Old Testament and one or two in the New really isn't a terribly high number of reiterations of something by Biblical standards, either, even if we're assuming the usual interpretations into moderns terms of concepts like 'lying as with a woman'. It's understandable, though, why one would focus on something that's personally disconcerting or hurtful. Just because the references are (again, by Biblical standards) sparse and occasionally oblique doesn't mean they're not hard to get past.

I don't care what the conventional interpretation of the Bible is because I'm not a Christian.  If I was a Christian, of course I would agree with your interpretation because it jives more with being a sane, civilized person.  But to me, the Bible is an interesting work of literature.  Just from the text, the very conservative Christians have the more plausible interpretation of the story.

The angry mob in that story wants to have gay sex with the angels and Lot says, hey wait, rape my daughter instead.  Later, God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for some reason?    Maybe, I'm misremembering that, but it's definitely bonkers like a lot of that part of the Bible.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Even if we're uncritically accepting the idea that one could be 'gay' or 'straight', as such, in Bible times, the idea that the authors of the Bible are 'obsessed' with gay men, whom they can only be even remotely construed to have mentioned as a class a handful of times, is certainly a new one.

I should have said some of the authors of the Bible and men having sex with each other instead of gay men.  But, gay sex is mentioned quite a few times and there's a definite tendency to say horrible, evil things about people who have gay sex, even though people didn't understand homosexuality way back when.

Uh, no, it's really not mentioned particularly much or out of conjunction with a variety of other issues.

Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention gay sex.  And I think it's in there a few other places.  Sodom and Gomorrah, right?  Maybe I just overreact to the fact that anyone would call gay sex an abomination worthy of death.  That and when God commits genocide to punish people for being gay, are just is so evil and crazy it stuck with me when I read the Bible.

That's not the conventional interpretation of the Cities of the Plain story outside certain strands of very conservative Protestantism--which, admittedly, tend to be uniquely strong in the United States and in some cases parts of Africa. (God killing that many people for a violation of guest-right may seem even stranger to us, particularly considering Lot and his daughters' mutually horrible treatment of one another which leaves it unclear why exactly they were supposed to be any better other than being relatives of Abraham's, but this was something that was incredibly serious business in ancient times.) And three or four in the Old Testament and one or two in the New really isn't a terribly high number of reiterations of something by Biblical standards, either, even if we're assuming the usual interpretations into moderns terms of concepts like 'lying as with a woman'. It's understandable, though, why one would focus on something that's personally disconcerting or hurtful. Just because the references are (again, by Biblical standards) sparse and occasionally oblique doesn't mean they're not hard to get past.

I don't care what the conventional interpretation of the Bible is because I'm not a Christian.  If I was a Christian, of course I would agree with your interpretation because it jives more with being a sane, civilized person.  But to me, the Bible is an interesting work of literature.  Just from the text, the very conservative Christians have the more plausible interpretation of the story.

The angry mob in that story wants to have gay sex with the angels and Lot says, hey wait, rape my daughter instead.  Later, God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for some reason?    Maybe, I'm misremembering that, but it's definitely bonkers like a lot of that part of the Bible.

Those things do happen, and in the order that you're describing, but divorced from the context in which they were written of course they make no sense.

[Beet]

God already decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the angels visited Lot, so I don't see what happened with the mob as the precipitating cause for the cities' destruction. God told Abraham that he received disproportionate complaints about the behavior of the cities, which suggests they were oppressing people from other cities.

[The Mikado]

The standard interpretation of Sodom's fate has to do with its lack of hospitality and rapacious nature towards its neighbors and its own poor, right?  (See the war of four kings against five in Genesis that precedes Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction and Isaiah's condemnation of Israel as following Sodom's greedy, lacking-in-compassion route).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

That's the interpretation I've read in most Jewish, Catholic, and traditional Protestant sources, yes.

[Hatman 🍁]

BRTD, what does your Bible say about homosexuality?