Bible Study Most difficult/irritating verse you've encountered in the bible?

[Carry_Your_Name]

For me it's 1 Tim. 2:5, and I'm saying this as a straight man.

Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

First, this verse is blatantly misogynistic, it has betrayed all the empowering messages in the bible by reducing a woman's worth to a mere breeder. Even nowadays, more than half a century over the feminist movement and women's suffrage movement, women are still primarily being judged on their childbearing potential before all other qualities and virtues. Children might be a blessing for men, but childbearing is a CURSE for women who are being exploited as vehicles to carry out men's legacy. Rachel in Genesis literally died in childbirth of Benjamin.

I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen. 3:16)

Second, Jesus is the only way to God, only can eternal salvation be achieved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. This is taught by the same apostle Paul to the same Timothy, who was the pastor of the Ephesian church, and I believe this applies to both men and women, not just men. "Salvation in childbearing", either on personal or national level, is fertility worship and false gospel.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

Third, our great commission is to make DISCIPLES, not babies. There is a saying, "God has no grandchildren," it means salvation cannot be passed down through genome, it's a conscious and informed choice made by each individual, just because you and your partner are saved doesn't mean your kids automatically are. From an ecclesiastical perspective, church growth relies on baptizing of the unwashed masses. If you think it is a sacred duty for Christians to breed the future congregation into existence, you're making the same mistake Abraham made by mating with Hagar, it shows a lack of faith. The prevailing pro-natalism teaching in the modern church is essentially conservative political activism against liberal ideology, it reflects the fear and anxiety of demographic shift. If you're eschatalogically oriented, i.e. setting your mind on the kingdom of God beyond the present age, you'd know that eternal life is in resurrection, not in the extension of your genome, that's the Sadducees' belief as they were infamously identified as unbelievers of resurrection. As a matter of fact, most OT prophets such as Isaiah had no biological children, Lord Jesus had none, the twelve disciples had none, Paul and Timothy had none, and so did countless monks and nuns who had devoted their whole lives serving the Lord. "Go forth and multiply", the so called "cultural mandate", will ultimately be fulfilled in Matt. 24:14 and 28:19-20, our mission field is the nations, not the bedroom.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matt. 24:14)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20)

In conclusion, judging by the context of this verse, which is about proper behavior and order in church gatherings, "saved in childbearing" is mostly likely a punitive measure taken upon certain women with disruptive behaviors, as far as I'm concerned, it's an ancient equivalent of "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen". Paul wrote it in response to a particular situation in the Ephesian church, it shouldn't be perceived as a universal rule.

 

[Free]

For me it's 1 Tim. 2:5, and I'm saying this as a straight man.

Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

First, this verse is blatantly misogynistic, it has betrayed all the empowering messages in the bible by reducing a woman's worth to a mere breeder.

Since "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV), to say that 1 Tim. 2:15 is "blatantly misogynistic," is to say that God is a misogynist, is it not? Doesn't it also mean that this particular verse, from your point of view, is actually not "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"?

You may not like what it says, but it says what God wanted it to say. It is acknowledged as a difficult verse, in which case you should be doubly careful in saying it is "blatantly misogynistic."

In conclusion, judging by the context of this verse, which is about proper behavior and order in church gatherings, "saved in childbearing" is mostly likely a punitive measure taken upon certain women with disruptive behaviors, as far as I'm concerned, it's an ancient equivalent of "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen". Paul wrote it in response to a particular situation in the Ephesian church, it shouldn't be perceived as a universal rule.

That likely isn't the meaning of that verse. One possible meaning is that women will experience God's saving work in their lives, or all aspects of salvation, through their role as mothers. Another is that it speaks of the salvation that will come through the birth of Christ.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Since "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV), to say that 1 Tim. 2:15 is "blatantly misogynistic," is to say that God is a misogynist, is it not? Doesn't it also mean that this particular verse, from your point of view, is actually not "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"?

You may not like what it says, but it says what God wanted it to say. It is acknowledged as a difficult verse, in which case you should be doubly careful in saying it is "blatantly misogynistic."

Sir, go find somebody else to hassle with. I've never said God being a misogynist, you're projecting your own, that is your own point of view. If you're being triggered by it, that's not my fault. I don't wanna have another long ugly fight with you, so how about you spare us both the headache. I don't hold any grudge against you just because of our theological difference.

That likely isn't the meaning of that verse. One possible meaning is that women will experience God's saving work in their lives, or all aspects of salvation, through their role as mothers. Another is that it speaks of the salvation that will come through the birth of Christ.

That is fertility worship and persperity gospel. Children, marriage, family are blessings in the same category of other worldly benefits, salvation is in Christ alone, and it comes through the DEATH of Christ, not birth. Christ was crucified for our sins, not born for our sins.

 

[Hidden In Him]

For me it's 1 Tim. 2:5, and I'm saying this as a straight man.

Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Interesting thread. I can't say as I have any most difficult passage... well, maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I think that's the one teaching that throws me a little.

For this, it was taught in a particular social context, where that was the primary role of a wife, whether we would relate to it well today or not. Jobs were hard labor jobs, and women raised the family, so the teaching was that she fulfill her role for the times by the Spirit of God.

The same arguments could be made about the NT teaching on slavery. Today we might view that as a defense of slavery, but it was merely telling slaves how to respond in the role during that time. The same thing for masters. Christ didn't come as the leader of a political movement. He came to redeem mankind as the leader of a spiritual movement that urged all people to operate in the roles they were in in a godly fashion, no matter what those roles might be, so that even in the worst case scenarios good could overcome evil.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Interesting thread. I can't say as I have any most difficult passage... well, maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I think that's the one teaching that throws me a little.

For this, it was taught in a particular social context, where that was the primary role of a wife, whether we would relate to it well today or not. Jobs were hard labor jobs, and women raised the family, so the teaching was that she fulfill her role for the times by the Spirit of God.

The same arguments could be made about the NT teaching on slavery. Today we might view that as a defense of slavery, but it was merely telling slaves how to respond in the role during that time. The same thing for masters. Christ didn't come as the leader of a political movement. He came to redeem mankind as the leader of a spiritual movement that urged all people to operate in the roles they were in in a godly fashion, no matter what those roles might be, so that even in the worst case scenarios good could overcome evil.

Historically, families had been economic production units, women had always been working, chidlren were raised by servants and village folks, and they started to work at young age, and marriages were mostly economic and political arrangements. It started in the industrial revolution, as the economic engine was shifted from families to factories, and along with it, the romantic movement as a reation to the industrial revolution. This shift derailed women's role in production, and thereby reduced them to breeders, babysitters and housekeepers, and the primary motive for marriage was shifted from economic and political reasons to romantic love and carnal pleasure, and from this shift originated the cultural ideal, that "a woman's foundamental role is wife and mother in the family." That's a reminiscence of the white picket fence nuclear families in the prosperous 50s, a nostalgic sentiment incorporated into modern theology, reinforced by comtemporary conservative ideology, and it's still a reigning message in most evangelical churches, it's in the present tense, not past tense in an ancient societal context. Essentially it's a sexual form of prosperity gospel, it feeds the congregation with false hope, especially in today's dating landscape where there's unprecedented hostility between young men and women due to political divide and social media algorithm. This imbues them with a wrong teleological pursuit, which will lead them astray from godly love to romantic love, from agape to eros.

For both men and women, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control, they will develop a deeper relationship with God through Christ. If you also develop a deeper relationship with your spouse, and children are born out of it, those are added benefits, which by no means could supplant your relationship with God.

 

[Free]

I've never said God being a misogynist,

I never said you did. I simply pointed out that it's the logical outcome of what you said. If 1 Tim. 2:15 "is blatantly misogynistic," and since "All Scripture is breathed out by God," then it necessarily follows that God inspired misogyny. Who inspires misogyny other than a misogynist?

you're projecting your own, that is your own point of view. If you're being triggered by it, that's not my fault.

You're the one who seems triggered by 1 Tim. 2:15, not me. My only point is that because you think God inspired a misogynistic verse, then you likely don't understand the verse. I do agree it is a difficult verse, hence much more caution is needed rather than simply claiming it is misogynist.

That is fertility worship and persperity gospel. Children, marriage, family are blessings in the same category of other worldly benefits, salvation is in Christ alone, and it comes through the DEATH of Christ, not birth. Christ was crucified for our sins, not born for our sins.

They are two much more likely interpretations than your interpretation, which is based on erroneously believing the verse is misogynist.

 

[Fish153]

For me it's 1 Tim. 2:5, and I'm saying this as a straight man.

Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

First, this verse is blatantly misogynistic, it has betrayed all the empowering messages in the bible by reducing a woman's worth to a mere breeder. Even nowadays, more than half a century over the feminist movement and women's suffrage movement, women are still primarily being judged on their childbearing potential before all other qualities and virtues. Children might be a blessing for men, but childbearing is a CURSE for women who are being exploited as vehicles to carry out men's legacy. Rachel in Genesis literally died in childbirth of Benjamin.

I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen. 3:16)

Second, Jesus is the only way to God, only can eternal salvation be achieved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. This is taught by the same apostle Paul to the same Timothy, who was the pastor of the Ephesian church, and I believe this applies to both men and women, not just men. "Salvation in childbearing", either on personal or national level, is fertility worship and false gospel.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

Third, our great commission is to make DISCIPLES, not babies. There is a saying, "God has no grandchildren," it means salvation cannot be passed down through genome, it's a conscious and informed choice made by each individual, just because you and your partner are saved doesn't mean your kids automatically are. From an ecclesiastical perspective, church growth relies on baptizing of the unwashed masses. If you think it is a sacred duty for Christians to breed the future congregation into existence, you're making the same mistake Abraham made by mating with Hagar, it shows a lack of faith. The prevailing pro-natalism teaching in the modern church is essentially conservative political activism against liberal ideology, it reflects the fear and anxiety of demographic shift. If you're eschatalogically oriented, i.e. setting your mind on the kingdom of God beyond the present age, you'd know that eternal life is in resurrection, not in the extension of your genome, that's the Sadducees' belief as they were infamously identified as unbelievers of resurrection. As a matter of fact, most OT prophets such as Isaiah had no biological children, Lord Jesus had none, the twelve disciples had none, Paul and Timothy had none, and so did countless monks and nuns who had devoted their whole lives serving the Lord. "Go forth and multiply", the so called "cultural mandate", will ultimately be fulfilled in Matt. 24:14 and 28:19-20, our mission field is the nations, not the bedroom.

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matt. 24:14)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20)

In conclusion, judging by the context of this verse, which is about proper behavior and order in church gatherings, "saved in childbearing" is mostly likely a punitive measure taken upon certain women with disruptive behaviors, as far as I'm concerned, it's an ancient equivalent of "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen". Paul wrote it in response to a particular situation in the Ephesian church, it shouldn't be perceived as a universal rule.

It's actually 1 Tim. 2:15 that you are referring to.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Historically, families had been economic production units, women had always been working, chidlren were raised by servants and village folks, and they started to work at young age, and marriages were mostly economic and political arrangements. It started in the industrial revolution, as the economic engine was shifted from families to factories, and along with it, the romantic movement as a reation to the industrial revolution. This shift derailed women's role in production, and thereby reduced them to breeders, babysitters and housekeepers, and the primary motive for marriage was shifted from economic and political reasons to romantic love and carnal pleasure, and from this shift originated the cultural ideal, that "a woman's foundamental role is wife and mother in the family." That's a reminiscence of the white picket fence nuclear families in the prosperous 50s, a nostalgic sentiment incorporated into modern theology, reinforced by comtemporary conservative ideology, and it's still a reigning message in most evangelical churches, it's in the present tense, not past tense in an ancient societal context. Essentially it's a sexual form of prosperity gospel, it feeds the congregation with false hope, especially in today's dating landscape where there's unprecedented hostility between young men and women due to political divide and social media algorithm. This imbues them with a wrong teleological pursuit, which will lead them astray from godly love to romantic love, from agape to eros.

Why is romantic love somehow antithetical to godly love? Please explain.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why is romantic love somehow antithetical to godly love? Please explain.

One is carnal and modern, the other is spiritual and everlasting.

The righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:4-8)

 

[Hidden In Him]

One is carnal and modern, the other is spiritual and everlasting.

The righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:4-8)

Are you saying sex cannot be godly? I haven't read all your posts on the issue of sexuality, but these last two make it sound like you are saying there is no room for godliness in a sexual relationship.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I never said you did. I simply pointed out that it's the logical outcome of what you said. If 1 Tim. 2:15 "is blatantly misogynistic," and since "All Scripture is breathed out by God," then it necessarily follows that God inspired misogyny. Who inspires misogyny other than a misogynist?

It is blatantly misogynistic when you take it out of the context. And in so doing it's no longer inspired by God. Didn't the devil quote the bible as well? Didn't every false teacher misinterpret God's word?

You're the one who seems triggered by 1 Tim. 2:15, not me. My only point is that because you think God inspired a misogynistic verse, then you likely don't understand the verse. I do agree it is a difficult verse, hence much more caution is needed rather than simply claiming it is misogynist.

All scripture is breathed out by God only in proper scriptural and historical CONTEXT. When scripture is taken out of the context, it can be used to justify anything, including abortion, genocide, socialism, slavery, and in this case, misogyny.

They are two much more likely interpretations than your interpretation, which is based on erroneously believing the verse is misogynist.

No, they are certainly not. The first one contradicts Gen. 3:16, the second contradicts 1 Cor. 15:3.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Are you saying sex cannot be godly? I haven't read all your posts on the issue of sexuality, but these last two make it sound like you are saying there is no room for godliness in a sexual relationship.

It can be godly only as physical consummation of spiritual and emotional union, and nonetheless it's a postlapsarian (i.e. after the fall in Eden) consequence and a necessary evil for population replenishment. The logic is, in God's perfect paradise, there's no death, thus no need for birth to replace the dead; and no birth, no sex; no sex, no marriage. That is the eschatological vision in Matt. 22:30. Until then, in the present age, marriage, sex and childbirth are still the hallmark, which doesn't sound very godly in the context of Matt. 24:38.

In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (Matt. 22:30)
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark ... (Matt. 24:38)

 

[Hidden In Him]

It can be godly only as physical consummation of spiritual and emotional union, and nonetheless it's a postlapsarian (i.e. after the fall in Eden) consequence and a necessary evil for population replenishment. The logic is, in God's perfect paradise, there's no death, thus no need for birth to replace the dead; and no birth, no sex; no sex, no marriage. That is the eschatological vision in Matt. 22:30. Until then, in the present age, marriage, sex and childbirth are still the hallmark, which doesn't sound very godly in the context of Matt. 24:38.

In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (Matt. 22:30)
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark ... (Matt. 24:38)

A “necessary evil”… I’m not saying you’re a Gnostic, but that position runs dangerously close to it on this issue.

Does not the Lord command to keep the marriage bed holy? How can that be done if sex is a necessary evil?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's actually 1 Tim. 2:15 that you are referring to.

Yes, my typo, my bad.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A “necessary evil”… I’m not saying you’re a Gnostic, but that position runs dangerously close to it on this issue.

Does not the Lord command to keep the marriage bed holy? How can that be done if sex is a necessary evil?

It's trouble in the flesh in the present distress. Paul taught us that life is short, the world is passing away, don't be distracted by such carnal desires and cares of the world, focus on God and eternity, be kingdom minded, that's the gist of his advice, which I'm following, and I have no other choice in my circumstance. If I'm gnostic, so is he.

I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor. 7:26-31)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Paul taught us that life is short, the world is passing away, don't be distracted by such carnal desires and cares of the world, focus on God and eternity, be kingdom minded, that's the gist of his advice

Yes, I agree, and I'm aware of the passage. But just because marriage made it so a husband or wife could not simply fast whenever they wanted to does not mean marriage was inherently a "necessary evil." You are eliminating the possibility of sexuality within a Christian marriage being a godly thing. In the same passage he said some are given the gift of celibacy whereas others not. How would it be just for God to foist a necessary evil upon some but not others? There are other scriptures say he who acquires a wife acquires a good thing. If marriage is a necessary evil, then how can this be so?

I'm all for teaching the value of celibacy. But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and denounce the institution of marriage as evil. Again, this is something certain Gnostic sects taught, but not the New Testament writers, who said "marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4).

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, I agree, and I'm aware of the passage. But just because marriage made it so a husband or wife could not simply fast whenever they wanted to does not mean marriage was inherently a "necessary evil." You are eliminating the possibility of sexuality within a Christian marriage being a godly thing. In the same passage he said some are given the gift of celibacy whereas others not. How would it be just for God to foist a necessary evil upon some but not others? There are other scriptures say he who acquires a wife acquires a good thing. If marriage is a necessary evil, then how can this be so?

The glorification of marriage and sexuality within marriage as "godly" is a modern invention, I've explained to you that it started off as a justification for the Protestant monks and nuns who left the monasteries and nunneries for marriage, it progressed over the drastic societal change during the industrial revolution, it emerged as a response to the sexual revolution, and nowadays it's also weaponized by conservative politicians against progressive ideologies. Marriage as a social institution and a cultural custom subsisted throughout history in all civilizations, including cannabalistic tribes in Amazon and Africa, what you call "godly Christian marriage" is just marriage in western custom and tradition, the purpose is the same - childbearing and childrearing to replenish the population, which is a curse and a burden especially on women, per Gen. 3:16.

Marriage by and of itself is neutral, whether it's good or evil soly depends on whether the couple is good or evil, it is a good thing ONLY IF you're equally yoked with your partner in God. Case in point, Esau married two Hittite women, which grieved his parents, (Gen. 26:34-35) is that a good thing? King Ahab married Jezebel who brought in an array of pagan worship, is that good? How about the five marriages of the Samaritan woman? Or the insouciant attitude of the Pharisees toward marriage, as they can divorce for any reason? Or the so called same sex marriage since the 2015 Supreme Court ruling?

I'm all for teaching the value of celibacy. But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and denounce the institution of marriage as evil. Again, this is something certain Gnostic sects taught, but not the New Testament writers, who said "marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4).

I'm not saying that marriage can't be godly, I'm concurring Paul's teaching, that single and childfree is preferred - "he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better." (1 Cor. 7:38) You don't have to worry about keeping "marriage honorable and the bed undefiled" when you don't have a marriage and a marriage bed to begin with, right? Our ultimate destiny is to marry Christ in heaven (Rev. 19:6-8), you don't save yourself for your future husband or wife who may or may not exist, but for Christ, as it is written: "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:2) Earthly marriage is merely a foretaste of this heavenly marriage with Christ, it's like a sample of the real product, a trial run of a subscription service, a trailer of blockbuster movie, it's for the pagans who can't comprehend the intimate, spiritual relationship with Christ. If you already have this relationship, why are you still defending and glorifying earthly marriage? Why are you still driven by your lust of the flesh? Aren't those crumbs fallen off the master's table?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Earthly marriage is merely a foretaste of this heavenly marriage with Christ, it's like a sample of the real product, a trial run of a subscription service, a trailer of blockbuster movie, it's for the pagans who can't comprehend the intimate, spiritual relationship with Christ. If you already have this relationship, why are you still defending and glorifying earthly marriage? Why are you still driven by your lust of the flesh? Aren't those crumbs fallen off the master's table?

You are still downplaying relationship to one another, as if all there is is our relationship to Christ and that's all there will ever be in Heaven. But it's by our love for one another that they will know us, including if not especially through our marriages. And if you say that doesn't need to include sexual marriage, earthly marriage was created to be a reflection of the marriage between Christ and His bride. You cannot have one be holy and the one that reflects it be unholy. It wouldn't be a true reflection. But I suppose we will have to disagree.

Blessings,
- H

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are still downplaying relationship to one another, as if all there is is our relationship to Christ and that's all there will ever be in Heaven. But it's by our love for one another that they will know us, including if not especially through our marriages. And if you say that doesn't need to include sexual marriage, earthly marriage was created to be a reflection of the marriage between Christ and His bride. You cannot have one be holy and the one that reflects it be unholy. It wouldn't be a true reflection. But I suppose we will have to disagree.

Blessings,
- H

Yes, that's all there will be, because earthly marriage will no longer exist, that's what the Sadduccees failed to grasp, they were ridiculing Jesus's teaching of resurrection with the loaded question of "whose wife she will be". "Love one another", on the other hand, is referring to brotherly love, to the comraderie between fellow followers of Christ, not erotic love between a couple, which is supposed to be a private matter not for public display. Jesus taught this exclusively to the disciples, were they married to one another? If earthly marriage were a reflection of the marriage between Christ and his bride, rather than merely a sample or a shadow, then what about the pagan marriages? As I said, marriage as a social institution is found in all human cultures, including indigenous tribes without written language, are their marriages such reflection? What about polygamous marriages or subsequent marriage? Does this mean that monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong cohabitating happily-ever-after marriage is the only clear and bright reflection? Is that taught by the bible - or (early) Disney movies?

My point is, man, indeed marriage was designed as a holy union, like everything else in the original creation, God doesn't make junk. However, humans do, what was ORIGINALLY holy is perverted into UNholy, what WAS good has gone bad, look no further than the 2015 Supreme Court ruling on same sex union, as I mentioned. Marriage was already corrupted during Jesus's ministry, Jesus merely taught that original design of marriage to the Pharisees, it was such a tall order which led to the disciple's conclusion that "it's better not to marry", which Jesus acknowledged as a gift. Today's evangelical churches, on the other hand, don't get it at all. They have been heavily peddling marriage to a level of idolatry, parishioners are more concerned with the prospect of the future union with their deceased family members rather than Christ, that is a reflection of worldly culture with a Christian label, and you're not seeing the problem because you seemed to have been affected by such modern theology.

 

[Free]

It is blatantly misogynistic when you take it out of the context. And in so doing it's no longer inspired by God. Didn't the devil quote the bible as well? Didn't every false teacher misinterpret God's word?

Now you're twisting what you initially said, which was, "First, this verse is blatantly misogynistic." You never said that it is only so when taken out of context. Your claim was clearly that the verse itself is the issue. This is further proven by your (erroneous) conclusion about the meaning of the verse: '"saved in childbearing" is mostly likely a punitive measure taken upon certain women with disruptive behaviors.' It is your view that sees this verse as misogynistic; that God inspired misogyny.

Further to this, you said "Children might be a blessing for men, but childbearing is a CURSE for women who are being exploited as vehicles to carry out men's legacy." That is such a perverse view of what God created as good, as the very means of procreation. When God said "Be fruitful and multiply," he specifically meant through the only means possible--his gift of sex, leading to childbearing, the role which women alone were created to fulfil.

All scripture is breathed out by God only in proper scriptural and historical CONTEXT. When scripture is taken out of the context, it can be used to justify anything, including abortion, genocide, socialism, slavery, and in this case, misogyny.

Of course. It can also be used to justify one's own unbiblical views of things like marriage, sex, and childbearing, instead of seeing them as good gifts from God as the Bible teaches.

No, they are certainly not.

They certainly are.

The first one contradicts Gen. 3:16, the second contradicts 1 Cor. 15:3.

No, they don't. But, you're clearly not willing to understand anything besides what you already believe, so you'll never see it.