Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[Snow]

Most of the apparent contradictions and difficulties in the Bible have explanations. There are several books written on them. Chances are that the answers to these problems will prove satisfactory to those with confidence in the Bible's inerrancy, less so to those who believe the Bible is inspired, but not always accurate, and even less so to skeptics. Concerning women being silent in the church, the common explication is that women were literally yelling across the aisle to their husbands, during the sermons, asking them what the speaker said/meant etc. So, Paul was telling them to be silent, and keep order, not instituting a men-only teaching rule.

Although that is not the correct answer - it is merely a way to spin the scriptures to make them more palatable to our modern sensibilities.

[Connie]

I didn't call you sick. I called your attitude sick. Now who's stooping to dishonesty.

[Snow]

I didn't call you sick. I called your attitude sick. Now who's stooping to dishonesty.

Hardly a significant distinction - but have it your way... as far as you are concerned, I am not sick, rather I have a sick attitude. Wow - that's so much better.

[Snow]

I'll use this one as an example. While this may have been applicable at the time it was written, we know it certainly isn't today. Woman speak in Church, they even speak at General Conference.

So because we aren't following this one scripture literally in the Bible, does that make our Church untrue? Nope

I get where Snow is coming from.

As it turns out, Paul didn't say that - that women were inferior - it is a later interpolation and contradicts the real Paul's beliefs about women.... which will be a subject of a future thread.

[Maxel]

Well, Snow, you delivered and made good your promise. For that, I thank and commend you. Since I was the one originally challenged, and the one who accepted, I will give each scripture proper due.

In another thread I am being chastised because I don't automatically accept as accurate scriptures that show God ordering murder (including murder of women and children(, rape, stealing, animal abuse, kidnapping, slavery etc.

Can you show me where God commands rape, and how killing women is somehow inherently worse than killing men? Or, where God specifically commands animal abuse (other than the sacrificing or killing of animals- which is really closer to 'slaughter' than 'abuse')? Also, I haven't see anyone claiming that 'automatic' acceptance of God commanding His followers to do those things is preferable- even in 1 Nephi 4, Nephi initially shrank from killing Laban. I point this out because your tactic of making those who disagree with you here as some sort of unthinking automatons tiring and disingenuous.

I responded that everybody rejects some scripture and was then challenged to demonstrate it.

Technically, you offered to put forth a list and I accepted that offer- I personally see this as more of a challenge for those defending the scripture as inspired, as the onus is wholly on us to make sense of it. I want to remind that we must remember the tacit implication of this challenge:

-You must show scriptures that not only are 'rejected' in the manner that we reject some of the Bible as uninspired (such as the Apocrypha), but in the manner that you yourself have rejected 1 Nephi 4- you must give us examples where the prophets lie to us, in scripture, for an evil reason. I believe this should be a fair requirement because my original comment that spawned this 'challenge'- that you exhibited a "blatant disregard for the revealed word of God" based on your refusal to accept this Book of Mormon account because of the "faulty" accounts in the Bible- was speaking to a disregard for a section of scripture based on the belief that the prophets are lying to us, or that written events never really happened- not because there was an error in translation or transcribing, and not because what we have received is symbolic. You must convince me- and anyone else- that there are falsified accounts in scripture that have bypassed prophetic stewardship over them (as you have claimed happened in 1 Nephi 4); accounts that were penned by the prophets themselves; accounts that were perpetuated and allowed to stay part of the holy record despite prophetic editing and translation.

On to the scriptures in question.

1 Timothy 3:2... Bishops must be married and to one woman only.

I don't see a problem here. If you are referring to the fact that previous LDS bishops have had more than one wife while living in polygamous relationships, I simply point to the fact that God sometimes commands His people to do one thing; at other times He commands them to do another. The very fact that polygamy existed as an inspired institution among the early Saints proves this fact- unless you want to label early Mormon polygamy as uninspired and adulterous.

1 Cor. 14: 34-35... Women are to remain silent at church. If they want to know something they are to talk to their husband, to whom they are subjected, at home.

I think this is more of a cultural thing. In the emerging church, I could imagine seeing the preachers being limited to the ecclesiastical authority so as to stave off false doctrine. I don't know for sure, and would love to hear more about the situation.

1 Cor 11 7-14... A man is shamed if he has his head covered while praying

... A woman must cover her head while praying.

Growing up; I was taught that all should remove their hats and coverings while praying. I don't quite have an answer for this- but it doesn't really resound as false doctrine- merely a different practice for a different time that does not violate my understanding of God or the Gospel. I have a feeling that understanding more about the cultural understanding and symbolism of the time will help shed light on the issue. For some reason- and maybe this has been ingrained into me- I don't think women wearing bandannas and other similar head coverings (with no brims) need to remove said coverings while praying. I don't quite know why- that is, however, how I've always felt, and I'm sure it's related to the hair-length regulations.

--- Woman was created FROM man and FOR the man and while man is the glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.

I accept this, but I think we need to look at it symbolically. We are told- for whatever reason- that Eve was created from Adam's rib. Just as we come unto the Father through the Son, so does a man's wife come unto God through the man. However, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the sight of the Lord. And personally, I would love to have a wife to glory in.

--- A man with long hair is shamed.

I assume 'long hair' is relative to the culture. However, I agree- I think men with long hair look bad; some might say 'shameful'. Hard doctrine.

Ephesians 5: 22-24... women are submit to husbands in everything.

Agreed. However, we should keep in mind the words of Brigham Young- "I have counseled every woman of this Church to let her husband be her file leader; he leads her, and those above him in the Priesthood lead him. But I never counseled a woman to follow her husband to hell…I am sanguine and most emphatic on that subject.…" (Lightplanet; from Priesthood and Church Government, P. 90).

Epheisans 6: 5-9... Slaves are to obey their masters the same as they are to obey Christ.

From D&C 134:12:

"We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude."

It seems clear that the Church should not interfere in the lives of a slave without his master's consent- I would point to this as a clear example of the will of the master superseding the will of the slave.

Hebrews 7: 1-3 Melchizedek had no beginning and no mother or father.

Hebrews 7:3, in which the pith of the controversial statement appears, reads:

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

This seems to be referring to Melchezidek's current state as a resurrected, perfect being ("made like unto the Son of God"). In his resurrected state, he would have had "no father and no mother" (i.e., his body was not born the normal way, through a mortal woman), would not at the time have any descent, would not have had a beginning of days (as matter and spirit are eternal, and being resurrected is the perfect reuniting of matter and spirit) nor end of life- and he will abide as a priest of the Most High God 'continually' (until the end of time).

That is how I interpret this scripture. It is far from perfect- but it's how I've come to interpret it.

1 Cor 7 Celibacy is preferable to marriage.

Two things I keep in mind:

1- The very first phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:1: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me"- what were those things?

2- The answer to question one; in the chapter heading by Bruce R. McConkie- "Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions".

To one called on a mission- I agree celibacy is preferred to marriage. However, if a man is married and called, and could not refrain from celibacy on his mission, it seems Paul is suggesting that a man "have his own wife" (v. 2).

Col 1:23 and Rom 10:17-18 The gospel was preach to every living creature on earth 2000 years ago.

I'm not a fan of Paul's writing style; and I must admit the context of the two aforementioned scriptures confused me. If you have further exegesis I would love to hear it, but I look to two clues:

1- In both instances, Paul is speaking about faith and the saving power of faith. He specifically mentions the importance of hearing the Gospel proclaimed.

2- Immediately after mentioning the importance of hearing the Gospel (or receiving the message), Paul declares that the Gospel was preached to 'every creature'. Reasonably, can we assume that dogs and cats need the Gospel preached to them? No. Personally, I equate 'every creature' to 'every person'- and I wholeheartedly believe that every person will have the Gospel preached to them, either in this life or the next. I see no time constraints put on the idea of the Gospel being preached to 'every creature'.

Matt 26:52 Everyone who uses a sword will be killed by a sword.

The actual wording is a bit trickier than your rendition here, and context is important.

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." This bit of wisdom is given immediately after Peter has drawn a sword and smote off the ear of "a servant of the high priest's" (v. 26)- an offensive action (despite Peter's protecting of Christ- I assume another lesson here is that, generally, using force to protect one who does not want protection is a sin). I understand Christ as saying "he who seeks to harm others will be harmed themselves" or (more specifically) "they who seek to take another's life will have their lives taken by others". In this saying of Christ's, I see an indictment against needless violence and even anger- yet I see nothing fundamentally wrong.

1: Sam 21 Elhanan killed Goliath - or that David slew Goliath

In 2 Samuel 21:19 it says that Elhanan slew Goliath's brother. I don't see the problem here.

Matthew 1 and/or Luke 3 - the genealogies of Christ.

I heard somewhere- I believe it was in an audio recording of Jesus the Christ- that one is a genealogy of Joseph, and the other the genealogy of Mary- I remember much more time being given to the matter than a simple "one is of Mary the other is of Joseph", but I don't remember details. Not being a genealogist myself and wholly unfamiliar with the methods of ancient Jewish genealogy, I am content to let the matter lie at that.

-seemingly endless contradictions between various accounts in scripture, when only one could be true.

I assume the main contradictions are to be found in the various accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. To that, I have no real answer other than- so? Not only are the accounts written from memory and secondhand information, but they are written for different audiences and would emphasize different portions of the Savior's acts. Are you referring to other contradictory accounts as well?

-the flood story as related in the Bible.

What's wrong with it?

-the talking donkey

See above- what's wrong with the talking donkey? I'm quite content with the idea of a talking donkey.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some notes about the above examples:

-The proposed purpose of this exercise was to show me (and the community at large) scriptures that I/we reject in the same manner that you reject the account in 1 Nephi 4. So far, I haven't seen anything that implies the authors blatantly lie to us- which is what the original accusation against Nephi (which spawned this whole thread) basically consists of.

-I read the Bible through the lens of Articles of Faith 1:8- the entire need for new scripture was that extant scripture wasn't clear enough- for whatever reason- to convey the fullness of the Gospel of Christ. Notice that the Book of Mormon is not given the requirement to be "translated correctly"- the prophetic assumption is that it was given to Joseph Smith as wholly inspired (later grammatical corrections are of no import in this matter); "is [wholly] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

-When taking the scriptures in context and reading them (especially the Bible) through the lens of modern revelation and understanding, I find no qualms with the above stated scriptures. We must approach the scriptures through the proper theological lens, or we are apt to misunderstand them- as so many millions have throughout history, and even now do.

[Jim108]

I agree.... I guess you do not see my point and that is ok I just thought you might..

Peace

I do see your point and I love you for it, it is just not where I am, Jim

[Jim108]

Uh - no.

No one knows how many authors there were - for example, 13 or the 27 New Testament books are attributed to Paul - however it turns out that he only wrote 7 for certain, 3 are disputed, and the other 3 were forgeries by someone else in Paul's name.

As for the old testament, the traditional account has Moses writing the whole Pentateuch - first 5 books of the Bible. However, most scholars now understand that is incorrect. The Pentateuch probably has about 3 separate authors whose separate stories were woven together by a redactor.

As for the timing, the traditional accounting has biblical authorship spanning about 1390 years, not thousands. However, that dating is probably in error and the number is closer to about a 1000 years' span... except, the OT was a fluid document, being edited and redacted and probably didn't reach it's final form until about 450 BCE.

I wont argue how many authors, lets just there were many, Jim

[Guest]

Hardly a significant distinction - but have it your way... as far as you are concerned, I am not sick, rather I have a sick attitude. Wow - that's so much better.

Snow, there is a very big distinction between the two.

When you're a parent, you get to learn to distinguish the two because it is very essential to admonishing children. For example, when my then-2-year-old learned how to turn off the TV with the remote control, you couldn't keep the TV on for more than 2 minutes before he starts gunning for the remote to turn it off. I learned from books, family, and friends to always say, "That BEHAVIOR is so bad! Don't do it again!" instead of saying, "Bad baby!".

About your questions on the contradictory nature of the Bible, I have to say, you can make the Bible a more interesting read than looking for ways to support your desire to take it ala carte. I myself cannot sit down and read the Bible nor the Book of Mormon from one chapter to the next, from one verse to the next as it makes me fall asleep. I do scripture chains where I look for a specific topic - say, Repentance, and read each and every scripture reference to it. A lot of times, I focus on one scripture personality - like John the Baptist for example, and read up on him from the Bible and from talks by the Prophets. I find it very effective. The latest one I just read up on is the black skin color. I read up on it from Cain and Abel to the Book of Mormon and D&C and General Conference talks.

The way you're doing it, reading about skin color is enough for you to post that particular verse up on this forum to "challenge" and call God racist. When you put everything in context accounting for history and culture and add to it modern revelation, you end up with the complete picture instead of just one verse that is misplaced in historical, cultural, and prophetical reference.

I was reminded by a cousin of mine who is now a Born Again Christian. She read to me the verse that says you must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. And then asked me to convert to Born Again Christianity. Ooookkkayyy... Yeah, right.

It is pointless to address your challenges line by line, verse by verse, especially when your intention is to provoke dissent. The Scriptures are to be taken as an entirety. It is not intended to be read like a classroom science textbook. It is a historical reference and needs to be taken as such but with the unique quality of being divinely inspired. It is not intended to be read line by line independent of the whole. And it is not intended to be read without the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore, next time you pick up the scriptures, pray first. I promise you it will make a marked difference.

[Maxel]

In Snow's defense-

He's not posting this to sow dissent, confusion, or corruption. This is in response to a side conversation he and I had on a different thread- I link the two pertinent posts in my first post on this thread. He is trying to prove a point in an honorable way (starting a new thread as opposed to hijacking another); I don't think it's fair to say he's provoking dissent- although, without knowing what spawned this thread, it might be easy to come to that conclusion.

[Snow]

Snow, there is a very big distinction between the two.

When you're a parent, you get to learn to distinguish the two because it is very essential to admonishing children. For example, when my then-2-year-old learned how to turn off the TV with the remote control, you couldn't keep the TV on for more than 2 minutes before he starts gunning for the remote to turn it off. I learned from books, family, and friends to always say, "That BEHAVIOR is so bad! Don't do it again!" instead of saying, "Bad baby!".

That great - if I were a 2 year old, I'd appreciate the difference. However in this case the point of the poster was simply to denigrate me.

It is pointless to address your challenges line by line, verse by verse, especially when your intention is to provoke dissent. The Scriptures are to be taken as an entirety. It is not intended to be read like a classroom science textbook. It is a historical reference and needs to be taken as such but with the unique quality of being divinely inspired. It is not intended to be read line by line independent of the whole.

That's a nice thought but frankly without foundation. The books of the Bible weren't authored with the intent of being taken as an entirety. There was no entirety until 1000-1500 years after the first words were written down. Most, maybe even all, books were not authored to become scripture - that is the author didn't know that they would later wind up in the canon of scripture.

And it is not intended to be read without the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore, next time you pick up the scriptures, pray first. I promise you it will make a marked difference.

And why do you assume that I don't read the scriptures prayerfully and that I am not guided by the Spirit in understanding the meaning and context?

[Guest]

That great - if I were a 2 year old, I'd appreciate the difference. However in this case the point of the poster was simply to denigrate me.

That might be his purpose for using the word "sick". I wouldn't have said it that way myself. And I completely understand why you took offense to it.

I was just addressing the difference between "You are sick" and "Your attitude is sick". This difference is universal and does not just apply to a 2 year old. It is applicable from toddlers, to the workplace, to professional debate.

That's a nice thought but frankly without foundation. The books of the Bible weren't authored with the intent of being taken as an entirety. There was no entirety until 1000-1500 years after the first words were written down. Most, maybe even all, books were not authored to become scripture - that is the author didn't know that they would later wind up in the canon of scripture.

I did not say that it was AUTHORED to be taken as an entirety. It definitely was not. But as a divinely inspired book, its compilation with the required companion of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation is to be read as an entire set and not just line upon line, chapter upon chapter. And you're still talking about it like a science textbook.

Okay, I'll give you an example of what I mean. In the book of Genesis, God created the earth in 6 days with man right there at the end of the week. If that was to be taken as is, without the benefit of scripture as an entirety, you can just forget any scientific discovery of natural evolution and throw Darwin out as a nutcase. But we all know that Joseph Smith, in the restoration of the gospel, has clearly stated that modern science still coincide with the book of Genesis in such that all of the laws of nature are God's laws and everything evolves according to God's purpose.

Did the author of Genesis intend for it to be read in conjunction with Joseph Smith's revelations? I didn't think so.

And why do you assume that I don't read the scriptures prayerfully and that I am not guided by the Spirit in understanding the meaning and context?

Because, I might be wrong, but I highly doubt that a Spiritual study of the scriptures will lead you to throw out verses ala carte and title your post "disbelieving the Scriptures".

[Guest]

In Snow's defense-

He's not posting this to sow dissent, confusion, or corruption. This is in response to a side conversation he and I had on a different thread- I link the two pertinent posts in my first post on this thread. He is trying to prove a point in an honorable way (starting a new thread as opposed to hijacking another); I don't think it's fair to say he's provoking dissent- although, without knowing what spawned this thread, it might be easy to come to that conclusion.

Thanks Maxel! Yeah, I didn't realize there was a "background" to this post. If you can read my responses with the knowledge that I have not read the other threads prior to this one, I would be grateful. Please throw out any responses I made that completely shows my ignorance of the purpose of the thread...

Snow, Maxel, I would like to say that it is not my intention to "admonish" or "one-up" or "argue" the scriptures or your understanding of it. I am merely expressing the "way I see it"... Sometimes, a written post changes the "flavor" of it when there is no "tone of voice" and "facial expression" to accompany the delivery. We are all here to learn. And I'm sure I have much to learn from y'all.

[Islander]

This is an old argument. There is the text and the context. The biblical references relate to a very specific subject and circumstances. I am away from my home computer today and too late and too tired to respond to Snow's argument point by point but I'll try some:

Corinth was a port city with a long history of lascivious and lewd practices. The Apostle Paul is providing counsel of how Christian men and women are to be different in dress, appearance and behavior.

Imagine a forcing a Tongan man to wear western style pants to go to church. They wear a tupenu (looks like a skirt) and that is fine in Tonga. The counsel for us in California, for example, to wear slacks to officiate in the priesthood does not constitute a condemnation of the dress code in Tonga.

As far as some of the rest, do some research about what the word translated "glory" could mean in the Greek original, for example. You must study the context of the passages in question and their meaning:

"to live by the sword" means to resort to violence to solve problems or establish authority. In the course of such lifestyle you are likely also to die by the sword...in sum, without detail and dedicated study of these scriptures you may never truly understand them.

[prospectmom]

though the condescending tone of most of his posts can make them unpalatable even if they are true.

__________________

How can you read tone Connie???? that seems your perception......

[Moksha]

Quote:

1 Timothy 3:2... Bishops must be married and to one woman only.

I don't see a problem here. If you are referring to the fact that previous LDS bishops have had more than one wife while living in polygamous relationships...

I would assume this was not referring to LDS Bishops, but rather that it was referring to the Bishops of the Seven Churches of that time.

[pam]

As it turns out, Paul didn't say that - that women were inferior - it is a later interpolation and contradicts the real Paul's beliefs about women.... which will be a subject of a future thread.

But is that not one of the points Snow? Many would take that scripture they way it is published as literal. Many would take and use it to show that someone of old said and meant woman are inferior. Which is hardly the case.

[Vort]

In another thread I am being chastised because I don't automatically accept as accurate scriptures that show God ordering murder

This is false by definition, and thus absurd. No one (no thinking person, anyway) has ever claimed that God ordered murder.

(including murder of women and children(, rape, stealing, animal abuse, kidnapping, slavery etc.

Please provide scriptural examples of God ordering rape.

A few thoughts I find relevant to your original post:

Something that is "true" is "straight"; that is, it points us toward God. The scriptures are "true" in that sense. They are also "true" in the sense that they are a (reasonably) faithful record of God's dealings with his people.

Insisting that the scriptures abide by 21st-century standards of scholarship is unreasonable and ultimately futile.

Studying scriptures is much different from doing aerobics. Studying scriptures can give us a window into the mind of God. Taking a combative approach to scripture study largely negates the benefit they provide.

[prisonchaplain]

Although that is not the correct answer - it is merely a way to spin the scriptures to make them more palatable to our modern sensibilities.

Or maybe fundamentalists have spun "Women keep silent in the churches" to their own ends? Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) Equipping men and women, in church, home and society – Member discounts on books and other resources, help with chapters and finding an egalitarian church - Serving by Giftedness, Not by Gender - Galatians 3:28.

[Connie]

That great - if I were a 2 year old, I'd appreciate the difference. However in this case the point of the poster was simply to denigrate me.

Oh the hypocrisy!

I guess you're not familiar with Christ's example of loving the sinner and hating the sin. But then, you don't read the scriptures to find what you can apply to yourself and your own life, that would be too boring for your competitive nature.

How can you read tone Connie???? that seems your perception......

Well, in this case, i have Snow's own confession to back me up.

"The problem would be if I were condescending IN PLACE OF rebutting your argument. Generally I am condescending on top of what ever else I am saying. It's like an added bonus."

You can find it at post #103 on this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/20208-1-nephi-4-11-a-11.html

Though in the case of me in this thread, he just went straight for condescending.

[JohnnyRudick]

Joseph Smith

Hebrews 7:3 For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

KJB

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like

unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Joseph Smith points out that the above verse in the King James Bible is referring to the priesthood of the believer not the necessarily the believer.

I have been setting back.

Was going to try to hit each of these verses Snow has dragged forth but as usal I see all of you are doing so well.

Keep it up guys.

I would like to add to all of this, most likely will get blasted for it,

I believe the truthfulness of each ov the verses in question.

Weather we follow then to day is beside the point.

I still believe them to be Gods word to man in the day they were given and still gods word to man in the context given.

Yes Snow.

I believe account of the creation and the flood and the account that Goliath and his father had a hard death.

I believe both genealogies of Jesus Christ.

One of His mothers and the other of His earthly adopted father.

His adopted fathers standing in the account of Luke.

I have no problems with the KJB.

Yeah. I know;)

Bro. Rudick

[prospectmom]

Reguardless... you have your opinion and he has his.... my objection is when you called him or what he did sick......... you have a right to your opinion but name calling is so beneath us all on this site... thats all ....... You can say I do not agree with you... that would be more appropriate now wouldn't it. We need to keep personal atttacks out of it after all this is just healthy debate and that is what Snow loves to do....... :]

Peace

[JohnnyRudick]

How can you read tone Connie???? that seems your perception......

When you read a lot of one person's writings you can "read tone".

Some refer to it as "reading between the lines" but you can after a while see the "tone" "color"?, of a person's character.

Bro. Rudick

[prospectmom]

I guess but I have seen many times on this forum folks reading more in to what was posted than what was ment.. I have been guilty of it also and am now trying not to jump to conclusions about people.....

On this thread I know Snow needs no help from me he is very capable of handling the situstion..... the name calling was what really bugged me....

[Connie]

It was not name calling, as i have already explained. I have not attacked Snow personally. I have attacked his ideas, yes. That is not the same thing.

The only reason i used that word is because that is how i feel about that particular attitude. It is my own personal opinion. I figured that was obvious.

[Hemidakota]

In another thread I am being chastised because I don't automatically accept as accurate scriptures that show God ordering murder (including murder of women and children(, rape, stealing, animal abuse, kidnapping, slavery etc.

I responded that everybody rejects some scripture and was then challenged to demonstrate it. So - here are some scriptures that some people typically reject:

1 Timothy 3:2... Bishops must be married and to one woman only.

1 Cor. 14: 34-35... Women are to remain silent at church. If they want to know something they are to talk to their husband, to whom they are subjected, at home.

1 Cor 11 7-14... A man is shamed if he has his head covered while praying

... A woman must cover her head while praying.

--- Woman was created FROM man and FOR the man and while man is the glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.

--- A man with long hair is shamed.

Ephesians 5: 22-24... women are submit to husbands in everything.

Epheisans 6: 5-9... Slaves are to obey their masters the same as they are to obey Christ.

Hebrews 7: 1-3 Melchizedek had no beginning and no mother or father.

1 Cor 7 Celibacy is preferable to marriage.

Col 1:23 and Rom 10:17-18 The gospel was preach to every living creature on earth 2000 years ago.

Matt 26:52 Everyone who uses a sword will be killed by a sword.

1: Sam 21 Elhanan killed Goliath - or that David slew Goliath

Matthew 1 and/or Luke 3 - the genealogies of Christ.

To this list one could add:

-seemingly endless contradictions between various accounts in scripture, when only one could be true.

-the flood story as related in the Bible.

-the talking donkey

-etc

Yes and each one can be explained. Hey! We will learn to talk to animals in the next state - Terrestrial state.

Observation and assumption of the writer is at stake here.