Untainted Words of God: the Church

People often correlate church and church attendance with your relationship to God. This post discusses the problems with that assumption and how it misconstrues the true foundation of our relationship with God.

Introduction

People often correlate church and church attendance with your relationship to God. People are forever saying that someone is a good person because they go to church every week (usually inferring Sunday, which isn't even the Sabbath). I also hear people say things like "I've turned my life around; I go to church every Sunday!" Well, that's nice, I guess, but did you quit any of the sinful behaviors you were committing before? I've been wanting to do a post on this topic for a while, but I couldn't seem to get the words out; after seeing my Facebook timeline bombarded with with the idea that the Word is synonymous with what the pastor says, I felt moved to finally get it all on paper (or in print, I guess I should say).
Top

Church Attendance

Going to church falls under fellowshipping with other Christians, which the Bible tells us is a good thing (Acts 2:42). However, it isn't a requirement or indicative of someone's relationship to God. The temple, which was the house of the Lord before Jesus' sacrifice, was only accessible to the priests. Observing the Sabbath (mind you the Sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, not Sunday), had very little to do with going to the temple. God forbade heavy lifting, buying and selling, and going after your own desires on the Sabbath. Jesus clarified to point out exceptions in the cases of acts of kindness, emergencies, and worshipping God. Not only is there more to the Sabbath than attending a church, it isn't the crux of faith in either the New or Old Testament. So, why do people think so much of this man made tradition?

In the section below I talk about doting on the pastor's word, and I think that is wrapped up in the idea that church is an indicator of one's relationship with God. The focus is placed on the pastor and the time spent listening to him instead of the time spent with God (praying, reading the word, etc).
Top

Listening to the Pastor

Not everyone who claims to be a pastor is preaching the Word of God. Just because someone quotes a Bible verse and it sounds good to you doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation of the Word. A video of Rickey Smiley^[2][3] has been floating around on my social media lately, and I'm not sure if people caught a critical problem with what he says. The following is a quote from the beginning of his testimony:

Everything that these great pastors is [sic] talking to you about is...is real. I'm not telling people you don't have to go to Bible Study, but go get that word because and [sic] get that foundation because it will bring about a better understanding of everything that you going through. Because if I didn't have that word, if I wasn't listening to Pastor Kevin Bryant every Sunday and Bishop Joseph Walker on the web and listening to things that Pastor Haynes and Pastor Marcus Davidson and Pastor E. Dewy Smith Jr. is [sic] talking about, man I wouldn't know where to stand.

Now, to an extent, I understand what Mr. Smiley is saying. As I said at the beginning of this series, reading the Bible is not like reading Dr. Seuss and it isn't for the faint of heart. The Word of God is hard to understand. However, the pastor's words shouldn't be the foundation for your understanding. If the pastor's explanation is the foundation of how you look at the Bible then you can twist a number of passages to confirm what the pastor has said. The foundation of your understanding should be the Holy Spirit.

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.Job 32:8 KJV

¹⁰But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. ¹¹For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. ¹²Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. ¹³ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ¹⁴ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.1 Corinthians 2:10-14 KJV

Like Paul and the other apostles, the duty of a pastor is to help in understanding what has been read. For those who are not saved, who have no relationship with God, it makes sense that the pastor is who will draw them to Christ. That is the entry point. However, if you are saved and your foundation is not the Holy Spirit, there's something wrong. How are you discerning truth from deception? Are you inspired because the preacher said what you wanted to hear, or is it actually the truth of the Spirit? Mr. Smiley said if he didn't hear the preacher every week he wouldn't know where he stood. The reason he doesn't know where he stands is because he's leaving out the most important parts of the equation: the Holy Spirit and the actual Word (the Bible).

Reactions From Supporters

Screenshot of comment under the video

When Jesus spoke to the masses, He inspired them to follow Him. He inspired them to be better. Now, this doesn't mean people became perfect or lost all their quirks, but if you hear someone's testimony of God, you should be fairly mellow for a little while after hearing the testimony... The picture to the right is a screen shot of a comment thread beneath the video on Mr. Smiley's official fan page. I will start by saying that I have no idea what the initial commenter is talking about; however, the comments that follow are very telling of the people listening to the testimony. The official fan page (which I doubt is run by Mr. Smiley himself) doesn't turn the other cheek or respond with a respectful rebuttal, instead they offer a hostile "shut up." His fans or people who were inspired by the video then continue to berate the commenter, insult their poor grammar skills, and essentially gang up on the user. One user asks "what in the world" the commenter's statement has to do with the testimony. Not only could they have phrased their question better, but they completely brushed the issue under the table. Basically, the original commenter complained that he or she believed Mr. Smiley was promoting violence within Black youth (clearly, something God would not support), and the other commenters said "so what" or "the devil is talking." Why not rebut him supporting violence or suggest that while promoting violence is problematic, his testimony may be step one to him being in a better place? All of the people praising this testimony, and yet they bear no witness to the testimony of Christ. Matthew 7:15-20 tells us that anyone spewing venom is not bearing the fruit of the Spirit.^[1] This tells me that while the testimony given by Mr. Smiley may have inspired those in a similar predicament—and that's wonderful—I can't be sure how much of God actually came through the message when his fans responses are so rude. No one really addressed the comment the user made, instead they attacked what she said because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Remember, just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't mean it isn't true. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us (there's that foundation we don't have to wait to tap into and follows us everywhere, even to the comment section on Facebook).
Top

Fruits of the Spirit—A Semi-Testimony

I know, I know, everyone makes mistakes. As someone with a hot temper, I totally understand how easy it is for someone to rub you the wrong way and find yourself responding in an unGodly manner. When Paul says a good tree doesn't bear bad fruit, I don't think he means that Christians never mess up. I do think, however, that when we find ourselves producing bad fruit, this verse should tell us we are straying from God. When I lose my temper I'm corrupting my whole spirit with that bad fruit. This tells me I need to pray and I need to spend more time with God. I remember this verse so if and when I catch myself exhibiting fruits of a bad spirit, I put myself in check. For instance, the last time I was rude to someone via a Facebook comment, I realized it within the day that I had posted the comment and I went back to apologize.

The reason a good tree does not bear bad fruit is not because it has incapable never done so, but because it has been pruned to perfection. The good tree is devoid of parasites, contaminated water, and unhealthy soil, which allows it to flourish. For me (and apparently the commenters on that thread), one of those bad branches is a smart mouth. Each step I take closer to God, is an inch or so trimmed of this branch of me and the more infrequently I say things I regret. Despite the fact that prayer does bring us closer to God, that isn't the end of the road for pruning our branches, expelling parasites, finding clean water, or relishing in clean soil. We have to remove ourselves from situations and people that cause such branches to flourish. An alcoholic may remove himself from club scenes, a gambler may avoid casinos. For those of us with a temper, we may avoid certain people who are more likely to trigger rage or we may steer clear of certain topics known to make our blood boil. Jesus told us to pluck out our eye if it caused us to sin, and I believe this is what Paul is referring to when he speaks about bearing fruit. If you are following Jesus you will prune your tree until only good fruit can thrive in your branches. Someone who is not trying to follow God will let bad fruit overrun their branches until good fruit is unable to survive your branches.

When it comes to our actions and temperament, we should always strive to reflect God. We are setting an example for those watching us and representing God. UnGodly behavior may not only strain your relationships with people, but it may push them away from God as well.

References

1. Galatians 5:22
2. "Rickey Smiley". Wikipedia; visited January 2018
3. Rickey Smiley Official Fan Page. "Video". Facebook. May 3, 2016

Untainted Words of God: Adam & Eve

There are lots of weird interpretations concerning Adam and Eve. In this post I'll discuss the relationship between Adam and Eve, the treatment of women based on Eve, their race, and the idea that Eve is transgendered

Introduction

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/Blend Images

Why not start at the beginning? Adam and Eve, along with their relationship, form the basis of how people view men and women today. The modern concept of Adam and Eve creates so much discord, from the treatment of women to race, even to gender. I've seen so many ideas and doctrines derived from said ideas that I can't keep track of them all! Nevertheless, I find them all equally interesting and I want to talk about them.

This post is covers a variety of interpretations stemming from Adam and Eve, which means it's also a bit long. You can use the table of the contents to the right to skip around, or to bookmark your place if you need to come back to the reading.
Top

Eve

In a freestyle battle, a poet posits that the reason Black men treat Black women poorly and as side chicks is because they were taught women came from their sides.

You treat the Black woman like a side b****
Well 'cause you were taught she came from your sideB. Dot

He is clearly referencing Genesis 2:21-22:

²¹And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; ²²And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.Genesis 2:21-22

I don't disagree that the poor treatment of women throughout history stems from the interpretation of Eve's relationship to Adam (more-so in connection with the idea that Eve is to blame for sin entering the world, but we'll get to that in a minute). However, I find both the interpretation he references and his subsequent evaluation to be off the mark. In order to make this claim, the poet makes many assumptions:

• How does he know that the Black men who treat women poorly are Christians? I've never met a true man of God that was mistreating the women in his life...
• How is it that this treatment is only damaging the relationship between Black men and women? Why hasn't this effected White people? Or the people of countless other cultures and races that are Christians?
• How does someone being created from your very own flesh automatically translate to mistreatment?

The poet's premise that women are seen as less than and unworthy of men's respect because they are created from the rib of man makes no sense. What makes a mother's love so strong? The fact that the baby came out of her, that the child is her own flesh and blood. Adam says similar words upon realizing Eve has been made from his own body:

²³And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. ²⁴Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Genesis 2:23-24

Adam is ready to leave his family behind to be with the person who has come from his rib. Why? Just as a mother's world shifts to center around her child, his world shifted around Eve. Adam's only family at that point was God, and he did leave God behind for Eve (I'll clarify this point below in the section "Was She to Blame?"). Adam already recognized that they were one flesh, and this is before anyone was told to be submissive to anyone.
Top

Helpmeet

The Bible tells us Eve was created to be a "help meet" for Adam, which sounds submissive for sure and is probably how people came to think that Eve's role was to be submissive from the beginning. However, Genesis 3:16 tells us that part of Eve's punishment is that her husband will rule over her. If that is part of her punishment, it stands to reason that she was on equal footing before. So one has to wonder what was meant by "help meet?"

Merriam Webster sends readers to "helpmate" as the definition of "help meet"^[1] which is defined as "a person who is a companion and helper."^[2] While helper doesn't sound any better in terms of submission, a helper is not necessarily a servant. A companion and a helper could be a partner; after all, partners do help each other.

Nevertheless, this is where I told you knowledge of time periods and original languages is important. We can try to force fit definitions to words like "helpmeet" and "helpmate" to support the idea that woman was created as a maid or argue her to be created as partner, but this is counter productive. We don't want speculation; we want answers. The original Hebrew words translated to "help meet" are ezer and k’enegdo.

Ezer

Ezer, which is translated as "help," is created from root words that mean to save, rescue, and to be strong. According to experts, the word ezer is used 21 times in the Bible and although it is translated as "help", in context 8 of those times (roughly 40%) it means "savior." The other occurrences mean "strength."^[3] When God says He wanted to create a help meet for Adam, He is saying Adam needed someone to be his strength. Ever heard the saying "behind every successful man is a strong woman"?

K’enegdo

K'negedo is only used this one instance in the Bible, however scholars believe it means "exactly corresponding to."^[3] My study Bible lists the English "meet" to mean "complimentary."^[4]
Top

Was She to Blame?

Despite his lyrics, most of the poet's assumption that women are to be treated poorly stems from the blame that is often placed on Eve for the fall of mankind. Like the poet, most feminists have a problem with placing the fall of humanity on Eve. However, in the Bible, the blame isn't placed squarely on her shoulders: all 3 parties (the serpent, Eve, and Adam) are punished for their role in the act.

Let's go back to my point that Adam left God for Eve. When Eve decided to taste the forbidden fruit, she didn't stuff the fruit down Adam's throat. We are told that she offered it to Adam and he willingly ate the fruit. He could have let Eve eat the fruit alone with the expectation that she would die and he'd be fine. He could have ran off to find God in the hopes that God would stop her. However, like most people who are in love, he followed her blindly. Whether he simply didn't want to disappoint her or wether he was afraid to be without her, he knowingly turned his back on God to follow Eve.

¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. ¹³For Adam was first formed, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ¹⁵Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV

Perhaps the harshest passage in the Bible as it relates to women and our plight due to Eve can be found in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This is the root of the idea that women are worthless and should have no rights. However, there's a lot more to the first than meets the eye. Bear with me as we step through the implications of this passage.

1 Timothy 2 Does Not Place Blame on Eve

As I said earlier, Adam willingly ate the fruit, which is confirmed in 1 Timothy 2:14. Now, if you study the books of law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), you will notice that accidental sins were the only sins that were forgiven. We are reminded of this in the New Testament, as well.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinsHebrews 10:26 KJV

When we go back to Genesis 2 and 3, you'll notice that God directly instructed Adam not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. God also created the Garden of Eden before Adam's eyes. We aren't told how Eve receives the news of this rule, whether God tells her after her creation or whether Adam relays the news. What we do know is that Eve seems to be the very last thing created, implying that she never sees the full glory of God creating life. Just as parents expect older siblings to show younger siblings the ropes and senior employees are to show new employees the ropes, God likely expected Adam to be a leader in the Garden of Eden.

When Eve came to Adam with the suggestion that they eat the fruit, she was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14 confirms this). To be deceived is to believe something that is not true.^[4] Therefore, the serpent had convinced Eve that it was OK to eat the fruit and she was not purposefully disobeying God. She was confused and fell prey to false doctrine (there it is, all the way back at the very beginning!). Adam, on the other hand was not deceived. That means he knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit, yet he did it anyway.

Each person had their own fault in the situation. Eve could have waited and asked God directly. This is why she doesn't get off scot-free when the punishments are doled out. However, it was Adam who should have put an end to the action, not because he was a man but because he knew better.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:Romans 5:12 KJV

Sin entered the world through Adam ("one man") because it was Adam who deliberately disobeyed God.
Top

Women Teaching Doctrine

Now that we understand the role of deception in the events that occurred, we can talk about teaching. No one wants false doctrine being taught to the masses. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul says that he doesn't suffer (tolerate) a woman to teach doctrine because Eve was deceived (i.e. confused) about doctrine. While Paul does say that she should learn in silence, he does not say that they are to always be silent. Paul is discussing the issue of false doctrine being taught in the church at Ephesus (read 1 Timothy 1 to get the proper context). It appears to me that Paul is talking about a woman's conduct during something similar to a Bible study. He doesn't want the women to take over (or "usurp") the lead ("authority") from the man who is knowledgeable about the topic.

If I had never experienced the wives of deacons or pastors, and women in the congregation hijack a church service and turn it on its head, I would probably have trouble with the idea presented above. After all, how can one be so sure a similar circus might not occur from men at another church?

There's a little detail that goes unnoticed when reading this passage. In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul says, "let the woman learn in silence." He doesn't say let women be silent, but he refers to "the woman" as though he is speaking of one specific woman. Now "the woman" could be referring to all women, but it could also mean a specific woman. If we continue paying attention 1 Timothy 2:12, says "a woman," which definitely refers to women in general, but then, why didn't Paul say "let a woman learn in silence"? Also, he refers to "the man," not to men in general. Paul doesn't say do not let women usurp authority from men, but rather he says a woman should not take authority from a specific man.^[6][7][8] My study Bible further suggests that this prohibition is from public teaching and cites Acts 18:26, Titus 2:3-5, and 1 Corinthians 11:5 to prove its point.^[5]

Does this mean women can be in charge of a church? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. The passage is definitely speaking on conduct in the church, not at home or at work. Paul is definitely not saying a woman has no rights in her marriage because he says quite the opposite in 1 Corinthians 7 (emphasis added):

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.1 Corinthians 7:4 KJV

I've read a few studies of this passage, and countless books have been written on the topic. I'm listing some articles you can read online for better clarity below.

• "Adam and Eve in Ancient Gnostic Literature" by Marg Mowczko @ New Life
• "Lost in Translation: A Look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15" by Bob Edwards @ The Junia Project
• "Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb" by Gail Wallace @ The Junia Project

Top

Childbearing

In 1 Timothy 2:14, the woman in question is Eve, and presumably in verse 15, we are still talking about Eve when Paul says "she." Paul tells us that the "curse" of childbirth is also her salvation. This is one of the most beautiful paradoxes in the Bible. Part of Eve's punishment is that she will bring forth life in sorrow. However it is through a woman that life continues. It is through Mary that Jesus is born and thus, through a woman salvation is provided to all mankind. God may have cursed womankind to feel pain as we bring life into the world, but He also blessed us with a form of creation that man did not receive. This is part of God's complimentary design—different, but both necessary and important.

My study Bible interprets verse 15 to mean that women are saved even in the role they have (i.e. we don't need to teach to earn our salvation).^[5] Top

Appearance

In opposition to that, the poet (who is quite talented despite his apparent hatred for his Creator) places women on the pedestal of being gods. He references pictures of Adam and Eve where Adam has a belly button to further his point that Adam came from a woman making woman god. Which is crazy, considering the fact that those pictures weren't created until the 16^th century or so. Those aren't real depictions of Adam and Eve!
Top

Race

Adam and Eve are always depicted as a White man and a White woman, but that isn't Biblical either. Very few descriptions of skin color are given in the Bible (a clue that God doesn't care about skin color so much as your heart, motives, and actions). One such description given is of Esau, Jacob's twin brother. Esau is described as being ruddy or red in color. Like everyone else, Esau is a descendant of Adam and Eve, which means that red color must come from their genes...

Basic genetics tells us that a child receives one gene from each parent. Together these genes determine our physical features. Genes are classified as dominant or recessive. For example, let the gene that causes brown eyes, be known as B, which is a dominant trait. Now, let the gene that cause blue eyes, a recessive trait, be known as b. For a child to have blue eyes both parents must pass it the recessive b, otherwise the B trait will dominate. Skin works in a similar fashion, with dark skin being a dominant trait and pale skin a recessive trait. For us to have the range of skin tones we have now, genes for both dark and light skin traits must have existed in Adam and Eve. Note that people of African descent have been known to give birth to albinos or lighter skinned children, but it is unlikely that "fully" White parents will give birth to a dark skinned child. Thus, there are multiple possibilities as to Adam and Eve's physical appearance.

One of them may have been made up of purely dominant traits, with dark brown skin, brown eyes, curly hair, etc., and the other could have been made up of purely recessive traits, with pale skin, blue eyes, and straight hair. Another possibility is that they both could have had a mixture of dominant and recessive traits. We really don't know. The only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that Adam and Eve were not both White. Likely, the first people had combinations of dominant and recessive genes, thus exhibiting dominant traits. Over time the recessive trait would have become more pronounced. At the point of Noah and his wife, this cycle would have restarted. When God divided the people at the tower of Babel, this may have been the catalyst for weeding certain traits from different nations.
Top

Gender

In the media nowadays, there is a lot of discussion about gender. Although the Bible clearly states that Adam is a man and Eve is a woman, people have begun to stretch the words of the Bible to create new interpretations of Eve's gender. In the article Where Would Jesus Pee, Hemant Mehta tackles the question of where Jesus would be expected to go to the bathroom. The question stems from the fact that Jesus does not have an Earthly father, which convinces a multitude of people that Jesus did not receive a Y chromosome, thus making Him biologically female. The commenters further this question by attributing it to Eve, who was born of Adam's rib with no female DNA.

It sounds like a legitimate question until you actually think about it...
Top

Physical Appearance

In both the case of Eve and Jesus, there was no such thing as gender reassignment surgery. I doubt they took hormones therapy either. In the case of Eve, who gave birth to an unknown number of children (we know of at least 3), she was clearly created with a female reproductive system. While Jesus did not father children, the community assumed Him to be a man from birth. When Mary gave birth to Him, she knew He was a boy because of what she saw. If she'd given birth to a female child and tried to pass her off as a male, once puberty hit, it would have been very obvious that something was amiss (His voice, monthly bleeding, inability to grow facial hair, physique, etc.). Further if Jesus Himself was transgender, don't you think He would have left us a clue that it was OK to be transgender? Both Jesus and Eve's physical appearance matched the gender ascribed to them without the aid of surgery or hormone therapy. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that they were biologically the gender ascribed to them as well.
Top

One Parent, One Set of DNA?

The crutch of this argument is that both Eve and Jesus have DNA from only one provider. Well, Adam has DNA from no one in that case. Obviously God, who made us in His image, created DNA for Adam and Eve. He also provided Jesus' Y chromosome (He is Jesus' Father after all). Just as He was able to create Eve from Adam's rib, He was able to create Jesus inside Mary's womb. Just because He did not physically impregnate Mary, does not mean He couldn't have contributed to DNA of Jesus. If Jesus and Eve had no genes from God they would have been a clones of Mary and Adam respectively... What's more is that in the case of Eve coming from Adam, men have an XY chromosome pair so even if Eve received all of her DNA from Adam, she still could have gotten 2 X's. One commenter assert that since Eve was created from Adam's rib, she started as male and the "reassignment" was done by God. However, a rib is not a human being, nor is it gendered. Just as Adam started from non-gendered dust, Eve started from a rib, which is non-gendered. While females may have smaller rib cages on average,^[9] a single rib from the cage does not gender a person. From the moment Eve became a living human, she had the biology of a woman. God did not take a clone of Adam and reassign his male reproductive organs to female ones. If you want to claim that then every man on the planet is transgender because he came out of his mother's womb and thus was created from feminine materials. Sure the sperm allowed the "reassignment" of the fetus to male, but the baby developed and grew from the mother's ovum.
Top

Divine Intervention

For argument's sake, let's say we agreed with the theory that Eve and/or Jesus were actually transgendered. In both cases the transformation or reassignment occurred before the person was brought to life and was done at the hand of God. Therefore, at the moment they became human and by the time they breathed their first breath, they were already biologically the gender God intended them to be.
Top

The Bathroom

Because I can't resist thinking in depth about questions posed, I gave a little thought to the bathroom question. Again, remembering the times, there would have been no bathrooms in either of their life times, not in the sense that we have bathrooms today, at least. Nudity was not encouraged; we see that in the story of Ham's cursing that looking upon his father's nakedness was frowned upon. Thus, I'd wager men didn't pee beside each other and women probably didn't either. Likely bathrooms were non-gendered (like those in our homes) and people provided some sort of occupied/unoccupied signage to avoid embarrassment.
Top

Disclaimer

While I believe that God brings us in to the world as the gender we are meant to be (that includes guiding doctors in their decision for babies born with evidence of both genders), I don't actually care which bathroom people choose to use. As long as you aren't bothering me, I don't care. As a woman, the stalls give us most of the privacy we need. Further, concerns for assault are not limited to women (re: Amy Inita Joyner-Francis) and just like a perverted man could inappropriately film women (re: University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms After Peeping Incidents), so could a lesbian (or even a straight woman who was simply off her rocker).
Top

References

1. "helpmeet". Merriam Webster. 2016
2. "helpmate". Merriam Webster. 2016
3. Heather Ferrell. "The Real Meaning of the Term Helpmeet". Women in the Scriptures. November 9, 2010
4. "deceive". Merriam Webster. 2016
5. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible. pg. 2028-2029. 2014
6. Mowczko, Marg. "Adam and Eve in Ancient Gnostic Literature". New Life. March 2015
7. Edwards, Bob. "Lost in Translation: A Look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15". The Junia Project. September 2013
8. Wallace, Gail. "Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb". The Junia Project. January 2014
9. Bellemare F., Jeanneret A., Couture J. "Sex differences in thoracic dimensions and configuration.". American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 168(3):305-12. August 2003

Untainted Words of God

Interpreting the Bible can be hard... Let's take a moment and talk about interpretations and how the wrong interpretation in the wrong hands can be detrimental.

The church has been screwing with the Word of God for quite some time—since before Jesus, actually. If you know anything about Jesus, you know that He didn't exactly get along with the people in charge. He was constantly calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees for their false doctrine. Even as He strove to correct this, He left us with the warning that the problem of false doctrine was not over, in fact, it would only get worse. You have a few cases where people write their own texts and are clearly teaching outside of the Biblical doctrine, but in most cases they merely taint the word of God with subtlies. Over time, when such subtitles have been engrained into you and society, it becomes difficult to separate them from sound doctrine.

A personal example stems from the issue of Christmas. The first time one of my peers (a Jehovah's Witness) told me Christmas couldn't be found in the Bible, I staunchly disagreed with her. The fact that we were both young (about 12 years old) and underdeveloped in our faith, restricted her from articulating the difference between Jesus' birth and the holiday we call Christmas, which is exactly the point I was missing at that time.

These minor inconsistencies lead people to false interpretations which eventually creates 3 groups of people: those that do not study and choose to believe false doctrine (likely the people Jesus was referring to in Matthew 7:21), those who lose faith when their studies prove the false doctrines (which they believe to be true and idicative of God's Word) are false, and finally, those who are able to maintain faith by studying to find the truth.

²¹Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? ²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.Matthew 7:21-23

I see a lot of people spreading one-sided interpretations through the internet in an attempt to undermine God's power. Like with my friend, these conversations are usually not productive discussions, but merely accusations and selective hearing. Reading, understanding, and interpreting the Bible is like dissecting literature—it's no easy task, and it's not to be taken lightly. People neglect the fact that the Bible, though written by multiple men, is inspired by God; this means the book as a whole is a cohesive document. Topics are discussed across testaments, books, and chapters. To understand what's being said, you have to combine all the texts along with knowledge of the time period, and an understanding of the original language. Like I said, it's no easy feat.

I want to tackle some of these topics from the different angles presented and show how easy it is to lose God's voice when we don't pay attention. I don't claim to have all the answers, but as I become closer in my relationship with God, I've definitely found more clarity than I had originally. For those of you reading who have not chosen to believe in God or His Word, I encourage you to follow along anyway—I encourage you to first view the Bible as a piece of literature, connecting the story from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, seeing how one piece connects to the others. My attempt is not to convince you of God's presence, only He can do that, but to open your eyes to alternatives you might not have considered.
Top