Responding to "Top 10 Worst Bible Verse"

I came across a link in Twitter where there is a list of 10 Bible verses that which includes "approval for sexism, genocide and slavery." You can find the list yourself at Top 10 worst Bible passages. I'm reproducing the list in full and I want to respond to each verse in context. Let's see if they really do approve of sexism, genocide, and slavery. My comments are in blue. Another article that this responds to is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6816422.ece

This is the top 10 list in full:

No. 1: St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

The author of the article is correct that this verse is hotly debated. In a commentary I read I discovered the verse is badly translated in the King James Version and many English translations unfortunately follow suit. It should read "But I suffer not wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband." The Greek makes it clear. "Gune" translated woman is contrasted with "Aner" meaning "husband" not man. The context is not that women should be teachers or preachers in churches but that wife should not undermine the authority of their husbands. We would use the word today "emasculation". Any marriage counselor today will tell you that wives should respect their husbands.

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

How can one read verse 3 and skip verse 2 read the whole verse!

¹ Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. ² This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³ Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

The command given in verse 3 was a command to defend Israel against Amalekites aggression. Don't forget that this event happened centuries (more than 400 yrs) after the Exodus under Moses and the Conquest after Joshua.

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

So in ancient Israel, witchcraft was a capital offense. And today it's not. I'm not sure why people think that this is a problem. Sorcery was a crime. Why can't a society execute criminals? As for today, I don't think that God wants us to kill witches. This verse in context was for a theocracy. Unfortunately, today we don't live in a theocracy. This isn't cherry-picking. This is saying that God has granted mercy to all until Judgement day. I haven't the right to take anyone's life if God has allowed them to live.

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

As the article points out that the pslamist is praying for revenge against the Babylonians who destroyed his homeland and enslaved his people. It's not saying that God is pleased at the infants being smashed against rocks. The context is that when the pslamist's enemies are repaid, the ones who willl do to the Babylonians what they did to Judah will be happy when they do it.

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

This a report of what happened and not a prescription for practice or condoned by God in any way.

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

In order to ignore this verse you would have to argue that intercourse with the same sex is just as natural as between men and women. Do we really want to go that far. Ignoring morality for a minute, let's just be clinical. In the face of evolution, and we know the author accepts macro evolution, how could homosexuality be advantageous to us as a species? Simple. It can't be. This does not mean that its the worse possible sin you can do and God doesn't especially hate homosexuality than He hates lying or stealing. God can cleanse us from all sin.

Please note that I have found out that there is a misunderstanding in the above paragraph. Some thought I was saying because of carefully researched evidence that I was saying that there are no good theories about the possibility of evolution explaining homosexuality. I was not. I was stating my opinion that I am not convinced by any of the theories for how macro evolution is compatible with the fact of homosexuality. For anyone who may want to start looking into the evidence themselves, AdamJTP, has given me a couple of links anyone can look at:
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouringmale homosexuality and promoting female fecundity



No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No where in the text is Jephthah commended for his action. This is a report of what happened not prescription for what we ought to do.

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

This whole incident was meant to be a picture of what God would do: sacrifice his own son for our sins. Again no one is told to emulate or copy this action in their own life. Look at what it is. When Isaac asked Abraham where was the lamb for the sacrifice, Abraham told him that God would provide the lamb. God did. When the angel stopped Abraham, God provided a "ram in the bush" then and He provided Jesus at just the right time.

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

This verse does not teach that wives are less valuable or that their needs should not be met. It is amazing to me how people stop at this verse and don't go further. Verse 22 deals with wives role, but verses 23-33 deals with how Husbands should treat their wives. Husbands should love their wives and be willing to do what ever our wives need even if it means giving up our lives.

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Slavery today conjures up the memory and guilt of racism, rape, and exploitation. People who think that the Bible promotes slavery equates ancient slavery with the way Europeans enslaved native peoples when they colonized the rest of the world. They are not equivalent systems except for being the economic basis of the society in which employed slaves. If you look at Ephesians 6:5-8 does tell slaves to obey their masters and tells them its about honoring God and not necessarily their master. Ephesians 5:29 speaks directly to masters of slaves, admonishing them to do right by their slaves and treat them as brothers. Gee...I wonder why they left these out.