More women are religious...WHY?

[O.T.I.S.]

Pandering

 

[Seoul Gleou]

More proof that these are white boys posting … who’s black who doesn’t have religious family at least ???????

are you calling me cac?

lol anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence

 

[Will Ross]

It just how women are they don’t have to be the center of something for them to support it.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

Women like being lied to.

 

[Cat piss martini]

women have seen situations
where they have been saved
over and over rather it be marriage
to a rich man,law's etc.

men aint ever been saved out
here by nothing or nobody at least (black men) aint.
we are the most loathed beings on earth
and were on our own.

 

[Koichos]

the books of judges and the early books of the bible are so hard to interpret and consider in our modern context that their purpose is beguiling

Probably the most enigmatic piece of poetry in the entire N'viʾim (i.e., the four 'Earlier Prophetic Books' Y'hoshuʿa, Shof'ṭim, Sh'muʾel, M'lochim and the four 'Later Prophetic Books' Y'shaʿyohu, Yirm'yohu, Y'hazqeʾl, T'ré ʿAsar) is Z'charyoh and even Rash"i prefaces his commentary to this section of T'ré ʿAsar ('The Book of the Twelve Prophets'; Z'charyoh is number 11) with the extraordinary remarks:

נְבוּאַת זְכַרְיָה סְתוּמָה הִיא מְאֹד כִּי יֵשׁ בָּהּ מַרְאוֹת דּוֹמוֹת לַחֲלוֹם הַנִּיתַן לְפִתְרוֹן וְאֵין אָנוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמוֹד עַל אֲמִיתַת פִּתְרוֹנוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא מוֹרֶה צֶדֶק וּלְפִי הַיְּכוֹלֶת אֶתֵּן לֵב לֵישֵּׁב הַמִּקְרָאוֹת אֶחָד אֶחָד מִן הַפִּתְרוֹנוֹת הַדּוֹמוֹת לוֹ וְאַחַר פִּתְרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל יוֹנָתָן׃​

Z'charyoh's prophecy is rather obscure as it contains visions resembling a dream which requires interpretation; we therefore will not be able to determine the truth of its meaning until the arrival of [the King-Moshiy'ah,] our righteous teacher. But, so far as I am able, I will attempt to reconcile each of the passages successively according to the interpretations that are most like it and following the interpretations of [Tarğum] Yonothon.

So, in spite of his opening remarks, Rash"i is basing his interpretations on one of the oldest and most authoritative sources in existence, the Tarğum of Yonothon ban ʿUzziyʾel (late first century BCE), which was considered sufficiently reliable and authentic in ancient times for it to be used for the continuous translation of the public Scripture readings that form a central part of our communal prayer services.

but if you treat the scriptures as vessels of the name of God. You will treat them with a different understanding. Basically, consider all parts of the old testament with Genesis 2 and 3 in mind.

I was debating with @Koichos a story that gives understanding to this

Sisera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And remember that the spurious chapter-division between the verses numbered 'B'reshıth 2:25' and 'B'reshıth 3:1' is right in the middle of a sentence which conceals a deliberate play on words that is only possible in Hebrew, because the word עָרוּם (plural עֲרוּמִּים, in 2:25) can mean both 'naked' as in 2:25 and 'sly' (or 'cunning' or 'sneaky' or 'crafty') as in 3:1, which explains why the snake behaved as it did.

 

[Koichos]

this is why if you are born to a jewish woman you are already considered jewish

there is a multilayered reason for that

Even so, tribal status (Yisroʾel, Lewi, Kohen) is determined through paternal descent. There are numerous verses throughout the Toroh, the N'viʾim and the K'thuvim which show over and over that a person's tribal affiliation follows that of his father, not that of his mother:

Sh'moth 6:14, 6:25;
B'midhbar 1:2, 1:18, 17:21, 34:14, 36:1;
Y'hoshuʿa 14:1, 19:51, 21:1, 22:14;
ʿAzroʾ 1:5, 2:59, 2:68, 3:12, 4:2-3, 8:1, 10:16;
N'hamyoh 7:61, 7:69-70, 8:13, 12:12, 12:22-23;

and too many references in Div'ré Hayyomim to list here.

 

[MMS]

Probably the most enigmatic piece of poetry in the entire N'viʾim (i.e., the four 'Earlier Prophetic Books' Y'hoshuʿa, Shof'ṭim, Sh'muʾel, M'lochim and the four 'Later Prophetic Books' Y'shaʿyohu, Yirm'yohu, Y'hazqeʾl, T'ré ʿAsar) is Z'charyoh and even Rash"i prefaces his commentary to this section of T'ré ʿAsar ('The Book of the Twelve Prophets'; Z'charyoh is number 11) with the extraordinary remarks:
So, in spite of his opening remarks, Rash"i is basing his interpretations on one of the oldest and most authoritative sources in existence, the Tarğum of Yonothon ban ʿUzziyʾel (late first century BCE), which was considered sufficiently reliable and authentic in ancient times for it to be used for the continuous translation of the public Scripture readings that form a central part of our communal prayer services.


And remember that the spurious chapter-division between the verses numbered 'B'reshıth 2:25' and 'B'reshıth 3:1' is right in the middle of a sentence which conceals a deliberate play on words that is only possible in Hebrew, because the word עָרוּם (plural עֲרוּמִּים, in 2:25) can mean both 'naked' as in 2:25 and 'sly' (or 'cunning' or 'sneaky' or 'crafty') as in 3:1, which explains why the snake behaved as it did.

that is more interesting than most will realize i think the "chapter division" issue

we understand chapters and divisions from the way we are taught to read, but the nature of how Genesis was written is not ordinary in the slightest

to me it is almost "jenga-like" as the interpretation of those words are more important than any other series of words as the words following those three chapter divisions is ultimately stacked on top of them. This is why I still am uneasy with books like enoch and other works from the nag hammadi library...if they were written with a singular interpretation in mind it is no wonder as to why they lead many astray who read them.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Women are more easily influenced by charismatic male figures. A preacher is a prime example of a charismatic man. Some women be rushing to church to sit entranced watching that man speak.

 

[Koichos]

that is more interesting than most will realize i think the "chapter division" issue

we understand chapters and divisions from the way we are taught to read, but the nature of how Genesis was written is not ordinary in the slightest

to me it is almost "jenga-like" as the interpretation of those words are more important than any other series of words as the words following those three chapter divisions is ultimately stacked on top of them. This is why I still am uneasy with books like enoch and other works from the nag hammadi library...if they were written with a singular interpretation in mind it is no wonder as to why they lead many astray who read them.

I think most people would agree that B'reshıth is historical from the 12th chapter onward. As to the earlier chapters, opinions vary from considering all eleven chapters as 100% literal at one end of the spectrum to seeing all eleven chapters as 100% allegorical at the other end—with many views in between. 'You pays your money and takes your choice', as they say. As for Hanoch, I am not familiar with it.