This is a good article. Position sex bible pdf the link for more information.
The book attracted a great deal of controversy and antagonism at its introduction. Stanton’s broader scope which included attacks on traditional religion. Because of the widespread negative reaction, including that of suffragists who had been close to her, publication of the book effectively ended Stanton’s influence in the suffrage movement. In the early 19th century advocates of women’s rights began to accumulate rebuttals to arguments used against them founded on traditional interpretations of Bible scriptures.
Bible passages, or by challenging the original interpretation of the scripture. Bible, and argued that the Bible supported woman’s right to speak aloud her spiritual beliefs. Bible must be faulty—she worked to learn Greek and Hebrew and thereby gain insight into the earlier Bible translations which she believed would contain wording more favorable to women’s equality. 1848 and included two Resolutions which protested against man’s usurpation of rights relating to her position in church and to her role under God. By the 1850s, Mott had become expert at disarming men who used Scripture against her. 1852, and again in 1854, she stood up to debate men who came prepared with Scripture in hand. 1854 convention audience that the Bible proved men were naturally superior to women.
The Church and State have been united, and it is well for us to see it so. Bible, the first new English version in over two centuries. Stanton was dissatisfied with the Revised Version’s failure to include recent scholarship from Bible expert Julia Smith. Whatever the Bible may be made to do in Hebrew or Greek, in plain English it does not exalt and dignify woman. My standpoint for criticism is the revised edition of 1888.
150,000 blunders in the Hebrew, and 7,000 in the Greek. Stanton assembled a “Revising Committee” to draft commentary on the new Bible version. Many of those she approached in person and by letter refused to take part, especially scholars who would be risking their professional reputations. Some 26 people agreed to help. Sharing Stanton’s determination, the committee wished to correct biblical interpretation which they viewed as being biased against women, and to bring attention to the small fraction of the Bible which discussed women.
They intended to demonstrate that it was not divine will that humiliated women, but human desire for domination. The committee was made up of women who were not Bible scholars, but who were interested in biblical interpretation and were active in women’s rights. She left such duties to Susan B. Anthony and instead traveled to Europe for two years. While there she met with women who shared her views, and she gathered critical observations about the place of woman in the Bible. Clark questioned whether Stanton’s liberal views had shocked some in attendance, and Stanton replied: “Well, if we who do see the absurdities of the old superstitions never unveil them to others, how is the world to make any progress in the theologies? Judeo-Christian teaching that women were the source of sin, and that sex was sinful.
Gage wrote that the double standard for morality hurt both sexes. Gage differed from most of the women on the Revising Committee in that she did not feel that the Bible, once interpreted in a more true, original form, would support women’s rights. Scripture, to its advocacy of celibacy and more. Especially troubling to Gage was the story of Adam and Eve. It included a Preface written by Stanton in which she acknowledged that “Both friend and foe object to the title. Nevertheless, she praised the Revising Committee for showing “a more worshipful reverence for the great Spirit of All Good than does the Church. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.
Some were put off just by its prejudicial, sacrilegious title, especially those who did not take the time to read the book. Heavenly Mother, Father, and Son”, and that prayers should be addressed to an “ideal Heavenly Mother”. The Woman’s Commentary on the Women of the Bible”. Stanton countered attacks by women readers, writing “the only difference between us is, we say that these degrading ideas of woman emanated from the brain of man, while the church says that they came from God. The women’s organizations had too varied a membership to agree on anything more complex. Anthony to read to the audiences. Anthony was unhappy at the futility of the effort, a harmful digression from the focused path which led to woman suffrage.
So I hope she will do for me. During the latter part of the year the work has been in several directions much hindered by the general misconception of the relation of the so-called “Woman’s Bible” to our association. As an organization we have been held responsible for the action of an individual in issuing a volume with a pretentious title, covering a jumble of comment without either scholarship or literary value, set forth in a spirit which is neither reverent nor inquiring. Avery called for a resolution: “That this Association is non-sectarian, being composed of persons of all shades of religious opinion, and that it has no connection with the so-called ‘Woman’s Bible’, or any theological publication. Avery’s comments from the official record. On the afternoon of January 28, a list of Resolutions was put to a vote.