Why no women Biblical authors?

[Haven]

Note: this thread operates under the assumption that the Christian god exists and conservative Christianity is true. For the sake of argument, please limit your criticisms to internal critiques of conservative Christian belief.

The Bible, which contains 66 books (Catholics have a few more), is believed by conservative Christians to be the inerrant, inspired word of God. Despite this, conservative Christians believe that humans wrote the Bible while being guided by God. All of the authors who contributed to the Bible are believed to be men; not a single woman was involved in the process.

Debate questions: Why weren't women tasked with writing the Bible? Why are there no women Biblical authors? Does the Christian god have a bias against women writing his words? Is the Christian god misogynistic for not including women in the writing process?

[TRANSPONDER]

"There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher." So much for "zero girlie prophetesses."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_th ... xt=Anna%20

Yeah. Brief appearance in the NT, because needed for dramaturgy.
Still no godfearing prophecieing gals wide an' far in the OT.

It is exactly the way our ol' pal Transponder, with his as usual bad to unreadable grammatics, spells out.

Both NT and OT have a few handy female enablers. Male - dominated socialestatesand customs can always find a fewfemaleflying monkeys to peddle the message - especially ifg they have been sold it as a Beliefg.

I havd heard an African girl reading out a prepared speech arguing for child labor. I watched a girl in a Hijab arguing for how she felt 'safer' wearing it. Well maybe she did, but my argument would be - do you have the freedom to NOT wear it?

The same applied with Paul's greetings to a few female enablers in Rome. Sure, they can set out the chairs and prepare the tea and buns for the men, but a voice, let alone a position of real Authority in the church, no cover your head, stay at the back and keep quiet . This has been male controlled and dominated all through and it took till the last century to get from where women had the vote and could even be heads of state, to where they could be heads of Churches. Religion fought it all that time. I believe Catholicism still does.

Some NT writers aknowledged that females in the new testament times now had to be sometimes referred to in a the politically correct way.

"Oh great! She greeted Jesus at the temple."

"Oh great! She reads out a prepared speach for child labour."

"Oh great! She defends her Hijab."

"Oh great, Lydia became per chance first christian in europe."

"Oh great! Wenches are allowed to set out chairs for the christian congregation in rome."

Both NT and OT have a few handy female enablers. Male - dominated socialestatesand customs can always find a fewfemaleflying monkeys to peddle the message - especially ifg they have been sold it as a Beliefg.

Bad analogy.
The flying monkeys (of unknown, but understood as rather male gender) were sent out by a female who was main antagonist, against another female who was main protagonist.

OZ series could never replace the bible. Too many female main chars and womens rights.

Looks like a bad argument to me. The subordinate role of women, excepted to help with the tea and buns but not to have a proper role in the group is well known.



The suggestion (if I followed your rather foggy argument correctly) of hostile enablers planted by antagonists seems improbale, uncommon and somewhat pointless.

I should go back to the drawing board on that one.

[LittleNipper]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

[TRANSPONDER]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

Even when I was a kid I could see that girls were as smart and as able as the boys. I also saw they were guided to not to masculine things, even if they wanted to. In the 60's - 70's I had no problem when the first women driving buses were employees, though conservatives though the end of the world had come. I have been delighted to see women piloting airliners.

They cannot compete physically one on one. Though I see no reason why they shouldn't compete in sports where skill rather than strength is the requisite.
I reject the patriarchal, not to say misogynistic, view of the social roles for women and disregard for their worth. I reject the Bible and any other Holy Book as dictating what those views should be, and the social roles predicated on those views. It is just another reason why I reject Christianity and other religions.

[LittleNipper]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

Even when I was a kid I could see that girls were as smart and as able as the boys. I also saw they were guided to not to masculine things, even if they wanted to. In the 60's - 70's I had no problem when the first women driving buses were employees, though conservatives though the end of the world had come. I have been delighted to see women piloting airliners.

They cannot compete physically one on one. Though I see no reason why they shouldn't compete in sports where skill rather than strength is the requisite.
I reject the patriarchal, not to say misogynistic, view of the social roles for women and disregard for their worth. I reject the Bible and any other Holy Book as dictating what those views should be, and the social roles predicated on those views. It is just another reason why I reject Christianity and other religions.

The Bible certainly doesn't degrade women. If anything the Bible places them as needing to be protected and cherished, as CHRIST does HIS CHURCH.

[TRANSPONDER]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

Even when I was a kid I could see that girls were as smart and as able as the boys. I also saw they were guided to not to masculine things, even if they wanted to. In the 60's - 70's I had no problem when the first women driving buses were employees, though conservatives though the end of the world had come. I have been delighted to see women piloting airliners.

They cannot compete physically one on one. Though I see no reason why they shouldn't compete in sports where skill rather than strength is the requisite.
I reject the patriarchal, not to say misogynistic, view of the social roles for women and disregard for their worth. I reject the Bible and any other Holy Book as dictating what those views should be, and the social roles predicated on those views. It is just another reason why I reject Christianity and other religions.

The Bible certainly doesn't degrade women. If anything the Bible places them as needing to be protected and cherished, as CHRIST does HIS CHURCH.

I think you'll find the Bible does undervalue women and regard them as property of their father husband or nobody in particular.If that is shown not so, then these is even less excuse for the leadership of men as espoused by the church and apparently by you "

I have not seen, where and when they are allowed to take on a leadership role, they are any less forthright, direct and steadfast (the uncharitable might say aggressive, pushy and stubborn) as any man, and if you doubt that look at Ms Taylor - Greene's antics recently or on the other side the woman - led hate cult of Woke that is destroying the entertainment industry.

Which means I suppose that men are as good - or as bad - as men, and that means equal, or should be. Even if they are different, cosmetic snipperry aside.

Sorry centurion if you can't parse that, others can. It's the way I write and I'm too old to change my spots now .

[The Nice Centurion]

Which means I suppose that men are as good - or as bad - as men, and that means equal, or should be. Even if they are different, cosmetic snipperry aside.

Sorry centurion if you can't parse that, others can. It's the way I write and I'm too old to change my spots now .

I suppose no one will talk back to you when you state that " men are equal to men ".

But why you should state that " men are different to men by cosmetic snippery " is beyond
my level of manageable contemplation.

Perhaps you are talking about LGTB Nephites who wanted to kill King Noah for forgetting to enact special laws for them?

[TRANSPONDER]

Which means I suppose that men are as good - or as bad - as men, and that means equal, or should be. Even if they are different, cosmetic snipperry aside.

Sorry centurion if you can't parse that, others can. It's the way I write and I'm too old to change my spots now .

I suppose no one will talk back to you when you state that " men are equal to men ".

But why you should state that " men are different to men by cosmetic snippery " is beyond
my level of manageable contemplation.

Perhaps you are talking about LGTB Nephites who wanted to kill King Noah for forgetting to enact special laws for them?

Damn'. I missed that. it should of course have been "women are equal to men". If you can't parse' snippery', that is your problem.

[LittleNipper]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

Even when I was a kid I could see that girls were as smart and as able as the boys. I also saw they were guided to not to masculine things, even if they wanted to. In the 60's - 70's I had no problem when the first women driving buses were employees, though conservatives though the end of the world had come. I have been delighted to see women piloting airliners.

They cannot compete physically one on one. Though I see no reason why they shouldn't compete in sports where skill rather than strength is the requisite.
I reject the patriarchal, not to say misogynistic, view of the social roles for women and disregard for their worth. I reject the Bible and any other Holy Book as dictating what those views should be, and the social roles predicated on those views. It is just another reason why I reject Christianity and other religions.

The Bible certainly doesn't degrade women. If anything the Bible places them as needing to be protected and cherished, as CHRIST does HIS CHURCH.

I think you'll find the Bible does undervalue women and regard them as property of their father husband or nobody in particular.If that is shown not so, then these is even less excuse for the leadership of men as espoused by the church and apparently by you "

I have not seen, where and when they are allowed to take on a leadership role, they are any less forthright, direct and steadfast (the uncharitable might say aggressive, pushy and stubborn) as any man, and if you doubt that look at Ms Taylor - Greene's antics recently or on the other side the woman - led hate cult of Woke that is destroying the entertainment industry.

Which means I suppose that men are as good - or as bad - as men, and that means equal, or should be. Even if they are different, cosmetic snipperry aside.

Sorry centurion if you can't parse that, others can. It's the way I write and I'm too old to change my spots now .

I know that GOD realized that women were in a place of disadvantage where they could be manipulated and abused in a sinful world. And so HE incorporated various laws so that women would be properly provided for. I would submit to you the account of Ruth in the book of the Bible by that name. It is very honestly portrays the disadvantages and some of the biblical laws in place to help women cope. Read the book of Ruth, it's an interesting love story and Ruth is one of the ancestors of JESUS.

[TRANSPONDER]

Men are the head of the family as CHRIST is the head of HIS CHURCH. Men are held accountable and responsible, and so it's not a means of downplaying the role of women. And so likewise, the minister, pastor, shepherd, bishop should be a man who is is the husband of one wife. I'm of the opinion that by allowing women to become church leaders, we presently face the problem that we do today. Women tend not to lead but to be led, and as such they seem to lack the ability to lay down just what GOD reveals in HIS WORD. Women as a whole do not wish to hurt feelings, and frankly allow their hearts to control their views and opinions. Men take a firmer stance and are not swayed by poor me pity stories...

Even when I was a kid I could see that girls were as smart and as able as the boys. I also saw they were guided to not to masculine things, even if they wanted to. In the 60's - 70's I had no problem when the first women driving buses were employees, though conservatives though the end of the world had come. I have been delighted to see women piloting airliners.

They cannot compete physically one on one. Though I see no reason why they shouldn't compete in sports where skill rather than strength is the requisite.
I reject the patriarchal, not to say misogynistic, view of the social roles for women and disregard for their worth. I reject the Bible and any other Holy Book as dictating what those views should be, and the social roles predicated on those views. It is just another reason why I reject Christianity and other religions.

The Bible certainly doesn't degrade women. If anything the Bible places them as needing to be protected and cherished, as CHRIST does HIS CHURCH.

I think you'll find the Bible does undervalue women and regard them as property of their father husband or nobody in particular.If that is shown not so, then these is even less excuse for the leadership of men as espoused by the church and apparently by you "

I have not seen, where and when they are allowed to take on a leadership role, they are any less forthright, direct and steadfast (the uncharitable might say aggressive, pushy and stubborn) as any man, and if you doubt that look at Ms Taylor - Greene's antics recently or on the other side the woman - led hate cult of Woke that is destroying the entertainment industry.

Which means I suppose that men are as good - or as bad - as men, and that means equal, or should be. Even if they are different, cosmetic snipperry aside.

Sorry centurion if you can't parse that, others can. It's the way I write and I'm too old to change my spots now .

I know that GOD realized that women were in a place of disadvantage where they could be manipulated and abused in a sinful world. And so HE incorporated various laws so that women would be properly provided for. I would submit to you the account of Ruth in the book of the Bible by that name. It is very honestly portrays the disadvantages and some of the biblical laws in place to help women cope. Read the book of Ruth, it's an interesting love story and Ruth is one of the ancestors of JESUS.

There is an unwritten Rule of apologetics: you make your own case; you do not send me off to read this or that and expect me to find your answers for you.
You make the case here why God did not (while forbidding slavery) make a Commandment not to treat women as property either. As it is the Biblical rules seem to accommodate the abuse and manipulation of women as the wholly - owned property of men, pretty much as (foreign) slaves were.

I had a quick look to see whether any helpful vids were about., I found one, but it was worthless excuses and doubling down. After accepting the abuse and exploitation the old 'it was the norm for those times' excuse was trotted out.

The debunk has always been 'If God can forbid working on the Sabbath or making graven images, he can sure forbid slavery and abuse of women as property'. The obvious conclusion is that God was fine with all of that, which makes the best bet that it was fine with the people who wrote it, and a god had nothing to do with it.

[LittleNipper]

There is an unwritten Rule of apologetics: you make your own case; you do not send me off to read this or that and expect me to find your answers for you.
You make the case here why God did not (while forbidding slavery) make a Commandment not to treat women as property either. As it is the Biblical rules seem to accommodate the abuse and manipulation of women as the wholly - owned property of men, pretty much as (foreign) slaves were.

I had a quick look to see whether any helpful vids were about., I found one, but it was worthless excuses and doubling down. After accepting the abuse and exploitation the old 'it was the norm for those times' excuse was trotted out.

The debunk has always been 'If God can forbid working on the Sabbath or making graven images, he can sure forbid slavery and abuse of women as property'. The obvious conclusion is that God was fine with all of that, which makes the best bet that it was fine with the people who wrote it, and a god had nothing to do with it.

I do apologize; however, I'm not going to write a book for you when one already exists. And a rather short one at that (4 chapters, easy reading, and not unrewarding) GOD does forbid many things, and yet even today there exists excuses for the convenient murder of the innocent when yet the guilty are allowed to live with additional excuses provided (usually, from the same source material). Some people regard the Bible only when it suits them and not all the time. Slavery still exists today. There are sex slaves, slaves to gambling, drug slaves, and even social religion yet today! And there are those that will use a woman and then encourage her to do what is most convenient for the exploiter. I'm not doubling down as you say. Perhaps you are but, don't realize the implications under a guise of "Freedom" with exceptions...