Does the Bible only address men?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

BRTD, what does your Bible say about homosexuality?

New Living Translation. What verses are you inquiring about?

[Hatman 🍁]

BRTD, what does your Bible say about homosexuality?

New Living Translation. What verses are you inquiring about?

You know, that one in Leviticus.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah that one is pretty blatant, but we all know about the other stuff in Leviticus and how relevant it is today.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah that one is pretty blatant, but we all know about the other stuff in Leviticus and how relevant it is today.

Plus, God was only addressing the Jews- and arguably, some of those instructions were only until the conquering of Canaan. You don't see people today setting up the Tent of the Meeting and sacrificing rams.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

BRTD, what does it say about Romans 1:26-27?  I have my own interpretation about what Paul was trying to convey in that one, but it's obviously a better passage for the Fred Phelps-types to cite since it's not in the Old Testament.

[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.

And, of course, not just English. Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, anyone?

Olympe de Gouges was actually guillotined for pointing out the obvious issue.*

_{*And for other things as well, but that was a contributory factor.}

[The Mikado]

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.

And, of course, not just English. Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, anyone?

Olympe de Gouges was actually guillotined for pointing out the obvious issue.*

_{*And for other things as well, but that was a contributory factor.}

Olympe de Gouges' Declaration of Rights of Woman and Citizen was paralleled 50 years later by the Seneca Falls Declaration in the US, which parodied a document more familiar to Americans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

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.

And, of course, not just English. Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, anyone?

Olympe de Gouges was actually guillotined for pointing out the obvious issue.*

_{*And for other things as well, but that was a contributory factor.}

But as Ernest pointed out, Hebrew had two genders; hence if it was gendered in the original Hebrew, then this question can't be answered by references to English customs. One would have to show that in the time the OT was written (or NT), the use of the male gender was used to denote both.

I don't understand why people are literalist by default but not when it comes to the Bible. Only two non-fiction documents I know of, besides poems, songs, and things mean to be metaphorical, have a group of people in them who read it literally being herded off into a corner and called 'literalists' as if they have leprosy or something: the Bible and the Constitution.

With the Constitution, I'm okay with it not being read literally, because no Constitution can possibly address all of the legal questions that we have and there's a well-established legal tradition in this country already. I would consider myself of the minimalist school of Cass Sunstein; that is, one can be opposed to judicial activism, which will eventually tear the courts apart with politics, but at the same time not read the Constitution literally.

With the Bible, you are dealing with the writings of people who were divinely inspired. If God meant, 'he or she', would he not have inspired his prophets and scholars to write 'he or she'? It's fascinating that even in the most 'literalist' conservative Biblical churches, passages with male pronouns are frequently cited to police the behavior of both. If they were only said to police the behavior of men, then women wouldn't be responsible for a lot of transgressions, and I think that turns off a lot of conservatives from interpreting it that way.

Now, with the NT, if you take the premise that it was originally written in a gender-neutral language, then that is a different matter.

[kobidobidog]

No. The word men when it is in a verse refers to all of us. God after all does not see male or female. He sees us loving all as one. It is simpler to say men than
Matthew 15 >> 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man or woman, It just says "man" to make it  a better sentence.
King James Version
Mark 7 >> 15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

If we were to add the woman  female or whatever word to the word man, and him the smoothness of the verse would be lost.