"God's" Opinion of Women


When I was an active Christian minister and missionary, I noticed that women were generally more zealous church workers than men. As I learned more and more about the Bible, I began to wonder why. In my younger days, I had often heard preachers cite the elevated status of women as one of the wonderful achievements of the Judeo-Christian religions, but this was not what I was seeing in my own private Bible studies. I was finding instead a shockingly disdainful attitude toward women in a book that had been presumably written by divinely inspired men.
Time would fail me if I tried to cite every biblical example of contemptuous attitudes toward women, so I will have to limit myself to just a few. King David's affair with Bathsheba while her husband Uriah was away on military duty produced an embarrassing pregnancy. David first tried to conceal his indiscretion by bringing Uriah home on furlough apparently so that he would sleep with Bathsheba and later think that the child was his. When Uriah's loyalty to his unit proved so strong that he refused to indulge in the pleasures of a conjugal visit, David sent him back to the front with a letter ordering the commander of his unit to put Uriah in "the forefront of the hottest battle" and then withdraw so that he would be killed. The order was executed, and when word of Uriah's death reached David, he took Bathsheba and added her to his harem ( 2 Sam. 11).

If there is such a thing as contemptuous conduct, then David's actions in this matter certainly qualify. One would think that if this deed called for divine wrath, David would have been the rightful target of it. But the Bible tells us that God chose to punish David only by inflicting pain and death on the members of his family, beginning with his wives. Nathan the prophet, sent to reprimand David for his sin, delivered this message from God: "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he will lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" 2 Sam. 12:11). One could imagine that this would not have been a pleasant thing for David to witness and would have in that sense constituted "punishment," but we must look past that to the fact of what God was threatening to do. David had sinned grievously, but God was going to punish him by having some unnamed "neighbor" rape his wives "before all Israel and before the sun" ( v12). According to the story, David repented and so his wives were spared the indignity of public rape, but that is beside the point. The fact that David's god would even threaten such a thing raises serious doubts about the Bible's claim to be the verbally inspired word of an omnibeneficent deity. Certainly, this story in no way reflects the "elevated status" that preachers say the Bible has brought to women. If it does, I have to admit that I can't see it.

*see link for further details*

(SOURCE)

Thanks for that GW. Yep, we all know that the Bible is a mysoginistic ego-trip for the males of our species. Some more case-studies of women in the Bible to help you show how women never have the upper hand

*Disclaimer: The following post may contain traces of saracasm*

Rahab – let's face it, she was a prostitute. This made her doubly worse (a profession frowned upon by biblical standards, far from Godly). What's more, she wasn't even an Israelite, she's destined to be a perfect example of the mysoginy inherent in the Bible. Rahab in the Bible helped the Israelite spies hide from certain death while in Jericho, as the city patrols chased them (such male-domination here). Being a foreigner, a prostitute and a woman, she really was the lowest of the low. Shortly thereafter, while the entire town of Jericho was plundered, Rahab and her family were spared – And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live – Joshua 6:17.

Abigail – she was the wife of a very rich man, named Nabal - being the good woman she was, and obeying the mysoginistic views, she kept silent and said nothing and has nothing to do with this story. King David, while fleeing from Saul (this was before David became King), came to the house of Nabal, who could provide David and his men with food and supplies and more. However, Nabal was “harsh and badly behaved” (1 Samuel 25:3). David was refused! However, Abigail goes behind her husbands back (how dare she) and secretly provided David with the supplies he needed. But no wonder, this just proves that women can't be trusted, and David expressing thanks and adoration to Abigail, and revenging himself on Nabal was just a later feminist-addition to the text.

Deborah - according to the Bible she was callously raised up by God to save the Israelite people. How demeaning is such a role for women, really. Saviours from oppression, pfft.

Esther – Yet another case of male testosterone showing how inept and unequal women are - the book of Esther chronicles Esther’s rise to be Queen, and her steely resolve keeping the Nation of Israel together and whole just so the men could enjoy it.

And these are just examples from the Old Testament - I can find many more where Jesus typically subjugates women in keeping with the Biblical themes (Jesus speaking to women as equals is just a misrepresentation).

LOL sweet memories of you PA...back in the day...when you and Sheri held a debate over this.............it was fun to watch also...LOL...those where the days here on UM LMAO....

My thoughts...God loves us women...he gave a lot of us the gift of bringing new life into the world...AMEN..

Yes, sarcasm included. But it doesn't deviate the attention away from the fact of gods opinion of women. Apologists are amusing. They defend the bible says what it says, as the irrefutable word of god. Until it says something people aren't able to accept.

I belive god loves women, its the church leaders who are scared of them and repress them.

What is the fact of God's opinion of women? I never saw it actually proven in that article, it was just that person's opinion.

Well if people believe the bible is the word of god, and scripture regarding women are presented in an article addressing gods opinion of women, then the scripture would present the fact, that the mal treatment of women, by ordinance of god, is in the article and in the bible. So there you have it.

Apparently that's not enough since PA also used Scripture (God's word) to show that God's opinion of women seems to be significantly different from that presented by the article.

I would posit that the fact that several women are named in Jesus's genealogy, despite the fact that in the male-dominated society he was born into that was not an accepted practice would indicate that God's opinion of women is different from the tribe He chose to call His people.

LMAO yeaaaaaaaaaaa

if i were you i wouldn't stress it... in the other thread... GW kept giving things PURPOSELY out of context to prove her point...

at one point even provided the whole chapter... except for the final verse... lol... which by itself killed the whole point she was trying to make... oh well...

i guess some people will only see what they want to see... they want to say... God doesn't like women... even though the Bible says the opposite and there are many examples of women who obeyed God and were blessed by doing so...

Ruth
Manoah' wife


just two that i could think of off the top of my head that weren't already mentioned...

And the article presents scripture (gods word) to support it's contention about gods opinion of women, which seems to be significantly different from that presented by PA.

Interesting topic for sure. But the whole thought process of the OT theology especially because that is where most people go when they argue the point of a "loving God". The Ot administration was harsh and it has to do with the state of mankind being on the level of beasts rather than state man being in the image of God prior to Man's spiritual demise. This is why there is such a shift in attitude from the OT and the NT. But if I were a woman I would boycott calling myself a woman because it means "from or out of man".

Yes, but then when you substitute, "Chic" , you get angry letters from birds and that can get quite ugly, actually.




Oh my dear moonpie, truth is that the Woman definition you are speaking about is a parlance particular to the interpretations levied by a biblical dictionary. It has no merit in and of itself, given the biology would prove that man is from out of woman!

The catholic church still wont let women be anything but nuns.

Hi GoddessWhispers:

I read the article and thought it was very interesting. Thank you for starting this thread. I've have wondered myself why this kind of text was written and permitted in the Bible. I have a very good friend who years ago had been verbally and physically abused by her husband. She had two children and refused to leave her husband despite the years of abuse. I used to try to talk her into leaving and going to a shelter but her response would always be "It says in the Bible the only reason I should leave my husband is if he commits adultery." But then the church told her "God would never want this to continue? He would never want you to stay with someone like this?" But she asked them "Where in the Bible does it say that?" The truth is that it doesn't mention that in the Bible.

There are several things like this that I question about the Bible, about the men of the Bible and their written works, and how this all fits into Christianity. Is there any actual written word from God/Jesus that exalts women, that makes them feel as equals to men, that makes them feel important and for them not to continue to endure abuse in any form?

I just have to say that I've seen how in many other cultures women are still back in the past, where abuse is abundant, and women are seen as lower class citizens. One of my Christian friends from another country told me recently how happy and proud she was that she and her husband just celebrated their 30th anniversary; and yet, every time I see her she tells me how her husband every other day calls her "ugly, fat, lazy and dumb." She said "In my country and in my church, divorce is a very bad thing." I felt like telling her 'Welcome to the 21st century, my dear. Hold your head up high, beautiful lady."

Well, take it all the way back to genesis, when Eve was made as a "companion" for poor "lonely" Adam. Kind of an afterthought there, similar to entertainment. Oh and then the stupid woman Eve, got tricked by the talking snake, because women are sooo weak both mentally and physically, and then God punished her by making childbearing painful.

Oh, not only that, but if she gives birth to a male child, a woman is only unclean for 7 days compared to 14 days for the birth of a female child. And if they get raped, they either have to marry the guy, or be stoned to death depending on whether or not they scream out properly enough, and of course there's money involved there too. The list goes on, I read the dead sea scrolls, which are similar to the OT in some cases, except there are even more neverending guidelines about the filth of women.

Women can't talk in church, women can't be preachers, women are not to be teachers of men, women are way too prone to becoming emotionally excited and out of control, -and that's all in the new testament. Women have to submit to their husbands because they know what's best, after all a talking snake would never trick a man because they are just too thmaht to be tricked by a talking snake. Interesting that a woman tricked a man, even though she was decieved by the talking snake.

Eve-"It's ok Adam, eat the fruit, the talking snake said it would be ok......"
"Cool, a talking snake" Adam smiled "sounds good to me!" chomp

Yeah, but you see that right there is just proof that the snake was a better conversationalist. I mean, we're talking the first man here, ladies!

Good point!

Isis2200,

It must have been difficult to watch your friend suffer so. I think if someone holds faith in an empathetic higher power, they should consider that what claims to guide one's personal understanding of that power, is a Patriarchy. When those that write books claiming it gods word, write that god believes the channel for life into this world, is inferior.

And that's where textual criticism enters the discussion. Often people believe that critique of a written passage is criticism of those people that have an affinity for the passage. As if it's a personal attack, to address what's on the page. When, in the case of religious writings, exists so as to lead people from critical thought, into faith in contextual parables and allegories. And that's not the case. The people have the power to disobey the words. The words stand as themselves as a vehicle to compel trust only. And as such it is subject to criticism for being of that intent.

So when a woman reads something in a book that tells her she must accept being disrespected, as a child of god, by the man that owns her in gods eyes, she might consider that what is speaking those words is a Patriarchal dogma, that compels one to believe that is sacred. Or, a sacrament, unto the god that created the woman. From the essence of gods first child on Earth, was she born. From that rib, at the center of mans form, was she grasped in the hand of god and made into be-ing. She wasn't made from his leg bones, or his feet. She wasn't made from his skull. She was made from the cage at his center, wherein the heart and some say soul, is housed. She is his equal in the spirit of that which made them both.

See, that's how context can be read in the book of creation of her kind, when she takes a beating and as such is a godly creation, abused. So if one believes woman is also created in the image and likeness of god, then that abuse is sacrilege. And that is against god, to. So best the abused woman leave the assaults, so as to preserve the child of god, that she is.


“You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Peter 3:11-12 NIV) *You don't abuse the lords creation. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Love of self precludes violence upon ones self.

“The Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7) Words on a page that abusive men, that are also those that merely interpret the meaning to condone (enable) abuse, excusing why a woman must endure it, according to the bible, are known in their hearts by god. Spousal abuse isn't godly. The biblical passage that you said she cites, prohibiting her divorcing her husband unless he commits adultery, is because the husband broke the covenant of monogamy to his wife. But no where in the vows of marriage does it say a woman must endure the assault of her husband. One can not make that covenant in a State sanctioned marriage. And they can not imply that covenant exists and not admit that the god that commands it supports spousal abuse. And if that is not her idea of god, then she owes it to herself, in worship of that deity, to leave what is a sacrilegious environment.


Context! Doesn't just have to side with the Patriarchy! If she stays because of what she believes in the book, she can read it in another way and be set free by the book. Because there are enough cases on file to prove, if a woman doesn't free herself from spousal abuse, the abusive spouse may free her from living another day, to worry about it.

i find it funny that you guys find it funny that there was a talking snake...

i also find it funny that some people really do think there was a talking snake...

I find it funny that you're talking.....

to fundamentalist christians!


I wonder if they'll talk back, about that, when you LOL at them.

Why isnt Lilith in the bible?

lol... i wonder too... cause i don't recall their being a snake in the garden... lol...

interesting question...

i've never really looked into Lilith... but it is an interesting story from the little bit that i've heard...

It is an interesting omission, considering there was not a problem adopting (stealing , as some have said) materials from the Hebrew texts, so as to create what is todays bible. This is something you might find interesting, with respect to Lilith.


Chapter 10: Adam's Helpmeets
(Excerpt from The Hebrew Myths by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai (New York: Doubleday, 1964), pp 65-69.)


(a) Having decided to give Adam a helpmeet lest he should be alone of his kind, God put him into a deep sleep, removed one of his ribs, formed it into a woman, and closed up the wound, Adam awoke and said: 'This being shall be named "Woman", because she has been taken out o f man. A man and a woman shall be one flesh.' The title he gave her was Eve, 'the Mother of All Living''. [1]

( Some say that God created man and woman in His own image on the Sixth Day, giving them charge over the world; [2] but that Eve did not yet exist. Now, God had set Adam to name every beast, bird and other living thing. When they passed before him in pairs, male and female, Adam-being already like a twenty-year-old man-felt jealous of their loves, and though he tried coupling with each female in turn, found no satisfaction in the act. He therefore cried: 'Every creature but I has a proper matel', and prayed God would remedy this injustice. [3]

© God then formed Lilith, the first woman, just as He had formed Adam, except that He used filth and sediment instead of pure dust. From Adam's union with this demoness, and with another like her named Naamah, Tubal Cain's sister, sprang Asmodeus and innumerable demons that still plague mankind. Many generations later, Lilith and Naamah came to Solomon's judgement seat, disguised as harlots of Jerusalem'. [4]

(d) Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. 'Why must I lie beneath you?' she asked. 'I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.' Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him.

Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back. They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, `or we will drown you!' Lilith asked: `How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. `How can I die,' Lilith asked again, `when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.' To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; [5] and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. [6]

Well then that would explain your sarcasm speaking for what you lack in knowledge.

what exactly am i lacking knowledge about? lol or is that an assumption on your part?

interesting... as i hope you didn't write all that out... is there a link to that... i find it quite the interesting story...

oh and in case i don't ever say this to you again... lol... the chances are slim that i will... but thanks for the info... i'm not being sarcastic...

You would do well to stop the lol. It does nothing to detract from recognizing you don't even know what you say, half the time. I'll let you find where you admit a lack of knowledge.


And for the record, it's not an assumption, when one refers to your blatant admission of a lack of knowledge.

And for the record also, as I've said before. If you have nothing constructive to add to a thread of mine, please refrain from flames.

You summed your beliefs up perfectly there.

Like Lucifer... Lilith was another stolen deity demonized. She is the babalonia/messopitanium goddess of the night among other things depending on which culture you ask.

Indeed she was extant in Babylon. The Babylonian goddess Lilith

Remember to what was said about why Eve had to replace her as Adams helpmeet. She wasn't going to stand being treated like a second class citizen. Lilith, the first feminist.

actually it's you who is ignorant to the situation... lol

and it is you that thinks i don't know that you think i'm ignorant of the Serpent in the garden... although you probabaly think it was a snake... further more... serpent is an english tranlation and it's not there in the Hebrew... so remind me again... what is it that i'm ignorant of? lol...

if you can post non constructive things... so can i...

oh and just cause you don't understand what i'm saying... doesn't mean that i don't...

so you might want to stop thinking so highly of yourself... because 90% of your sources are BLATENTLY false... and some even ADMIT to being false... yet you say i don't know what i'm talking about half the time... lol...

actually that sums up yours too... because you are part of the group that only picks that bad stuff out of the Bible while ignoring the good...

i on the other hand look at it all... and i never denied that God kills people... but you on the other hand have denied that God does indeed to good... even though the same Bible you used contains verses to the contrary of your belief...

Goddess Whispers,

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm just trying to understand your views on this topic. The Bible is not to be taken literally, and we should only use the parts that serve us the most? To pick and choose the parts that we feel the most comfortable with?

There are some that say we should look to the church to interpret the Bible for us? But as you know, there are many people who would deceive us. Some people would say "You have to let the spirit guide you when reading the Bible, and it will correctly interpret it for you." So if someone says they read the Bible and it said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and they go and lie with their neighber because they heard it is good to love your neighbor, how does this sound? To many of us this interpretation would seem twisted, but if we are to rely upon our own spirit in interpreting the Bible, whom are we to trust?

But again, I point to the first paragraph of my post. Where in the Bible does it say that it is ok for women to speak in the church, and do we pick and choose(just like the early church supposedly did) as to what fits our lifestyle and what seems too outlandish, or follow what is literally written there.

I have heard about other religious text such as the Nag Hammadi and another one from the east that also depict women at a lower status and gives them minimal, if any, importance.

Well, you know there are some that claim to take the bible literally. Fundamentalists are one such sect that often claim to believe as much. (also referred to as Evangelists) But if one actually did take the bible literally, godly admonitions would make for a very busy criminal justice system, after. Killing one's children because they disobey, etc... If one claims to believe in the literal words as fundamentally contemporary, they're a bit on the twist, to begin with.

Then there are others that read the bible and claim it's all metaphor and allegory. Parables inspiring deeper thought and meaning, than a literal contextual interpretation. Which would then mean one could pick and choose, like you mentioned.



I think the church's vested interest involves interpreting the bible for it's parishioners. However, the parishioners, I would think, would want to invest themselves in the process. Trusting one's life to words in scripture, interpreted by someone else, makes for a slave mentality of sorts. Not exactly a platform for revolution/revelation, if what one has allowed to command them is suddenly found wanting. Like your friend. It's obvious what submitting to the will of an abusive husband, per the bibles admonition in Collosians about wives submitting themselves unto the will of their husbands. But there is another passage that commands the husband to cherish his wife. And cherish would preclude abuse. Collosians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. This may be of assistance, with respect to your friend. http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/spouse-abuse.htm


I think following one's heart is the best way to enter and remain a part of, any faithful ideology. Otherwise, if one allows themselves to be told what to do, through all of it, by someone else, regardless of their feelings, they're not being empowered by their faith, they're being enslaved to someone else's ideal for their faith.



I think it's subject to interpretation, based on what current of thought applies to the admonition against women speaking in church. It's a patriarchy remember, so males will have a superior position throughout the entire faith construct. This article , because I don't know what particular denomination is present here, speaks to the subject. May Women Speak in Church? Keeping in mind jesus treated women as equals, and at one time women were also priestesses of the teachings of jesus.





I know that much is interpreted within the Abrahamic faiths, to make women of lower status. But then again it's all subject to interpretation and context, as some like to say. Islam says women are sacred, and yet it may also be said that it advocates abuse of women. Christianity we've already spoken about, and judaism has it's sects that believe women to be property and are unclean, by their nature. Meeting out all sorts of odd rituals due to menstruation, etc...
You might refer your friend to this link. It posits NT scriptures relating of womens equality.

Lilith appears only once in the Bible - the book of Isaiah, and refers to a songbird (or perhaps nightbird). Biblically it never referred to the story of Adam and Eve, and only appears in texts as such after the 10th Century AD. It makes for a good story, but has no basis in the text.

Now, for some more cases of female equality (I'll drop the sarcasm for this post)

Mary, the mother of Jesus – Mary was accounted as a woman of great Faith. In a book supposedly written by people who thought women were second-class citizens, Mary is accorded a high honour indeed. And I’m not talking about her being the mother of whom some people believe is the Messiah. When told by the angel that she was to have a child, Mary, a supposedly lowly woman, had great Faith: "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” – Luke 1:38. In striking contrast, shortly before this, Zechariah, a man and a priest of God, when visited by the angel Gabriel and told that his wife would give birth to John the Baptist, Zechariah doubted: "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” – Luke 1:18. For his lack of Faith, Zechariah was cursed, unable to speak a word until John the Baptist was finally born. Think about this: Zechariah, not just an ordinary man but a holy man of God, a Priest, is being slammed, while Mary, a simple woman, was commended for her Faith under very similar circumstances. Does that really sound like a text that promotes inequality amongst the sexes?

Mary Magdalene – At least that is to say, most people believe the woman being spoken of in Luke 7:36-50 is Mary Magdalene. It never actually mentions a name, but the preceding chapter does speak of Mary Magdalene, a prostitute (another one, hmm – Rahab commended in the Old Testament, Mary Magdalene in the New…… the plot thickens) and it is assumed they are they same person.

Anyhow, while Jesus is at table (I’m going to assume for dinner) with the Pharisees, a sinful woman comes to him, weeping at his feet for the wrongs she had done. The Pharisees condemn her: If this man were a prophet he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner – verse 39. Jesus, far from doing this commends the woman for her great Faith, and treats her with equality and respect.

The poor widow – In Luke 21:1-4 the widow was praised as being more righteous than the rich man who had more, but lacked Faith. Male + money = status, yet Jesus condemned him and praised the female.

The Samaritan at the well – John 4. The Bible does not only cut through cultural prejudices against women, it also cuts through prejudices against race. Here we have a Samaritan, loathed by Jews, and a woman to boot. A Samaritan should have been shunned, a Samaritan woman even more so according to the culture. When Jesus speaks to the woman, she even admits as much: "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" - verse 9. But Jesus did not discriminate. The Bible does not discriminate. Instead he speaks to her and treats her fairly, as an equal. It even mentions, in verse 39 that many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony. A woman's testimony, a samaratan's testimony, instrumental in bringing many to believe in Jesus.

There are more, from both Old and New Testaments, but these are a small number just for you to mull over a little.

I don't pick anything out of the bible, its just a piece of fictional writing made thousands of years ago that no one should take too seriously. My life doesn't depend on it's word.

So naw, the statement just sums up yours

Isn't she Fraisers ex wife??

I've always loved Lilith! She was great!

Nice post PA.

The Gospels of John are a favorite of my own denomination. They show a great deal of equality, love and it's this Gospel that my own sect was built on. Absolutely equality for ALL.

God's Word comes from the Light Within.

Jesus' life and practice was focused; He also embodied a faith that was focused without becoming narrow; he did not exclude others from the light he knew they shared with him. In my opinion, TRUE Christianity provides equality for everyone both Christian and non-Christian. It's too bad that much of the faith of Christianity has deviated from this original message and teaching.

miss wells if jesus existed ( of course many believe he did) contrary to the lack of evidence....I agree with the poster that says the bible is a book of storys not to be taken to seriously any more than alice in ownderland etc.....IMO the bible is the least purveyor of love than any book written ....I stand corrected of unconditonal love that is.....

Is that why PA didnt mention her then LMAO cuz she refused to be treated like a second class citizen LOL....

Well, of course Jesus treated them fairly. He was awesome!

Actually, I didn't mention her because she is not in the Bible. Only once, in Isaiah is Lilith brought up, and that as a "nightbird" or "songbird". It was not until the 10th Century AD that a manuscript was written - "The Alphabet of Ben Sira" - which equated Lilith with Adam and Eve. Simply put, people want to argue that Jesus never existed - well, there is even less evidence of Lilith.

Ohhhhhhhhhh Iget ya...........you didn't mention her cuz...........you don;t like that sitcom Fraiser LMAO now I get it lol its ok PA.... but lilith only ever appears in fraiser a few times..dont let it put you off lol

Which is somewhat why you will not ever see me posting Bible passages. I admit quite freely that I rarely read the Bible, although there have been occasions where I have picked it up to check things in certain Gospels, mostly in the NT. Do I take what I read in the Bible seriously? Yes. In my practice, it's helpful for me to know how others experienced the Word of God. But in my opinion, the Bible is the inspired wordS of God as interpreted by individuals. I don't not believe in closed canons and I don't concern myself with inerrancy. Is the Bible inerrant? I much don't care, there are a few people on this board who are VERY gifted at making very convincing arguments for inerrancy. PA is one, IamsSon is another and Thephantum is another. It's not my practice or path to prove or disprove inerrancy though. Heck, I find truths of God in eastern writings, and it's not at all uncommon for me to go to a First Day service and find my brothers and sisters reading Confucious, Dammapata, and I myself have read the works of Sri Auribindo at a meeting. One of the best I've seen is someone reading Winnie the Pooh and finding God in that... and delivered a beautiful sermon based on it!

Actually the Isaiah passage ,(re:the only Lilith mention in the christian bible) is contested, as to whether or not it is a reference to such a being/woman. She actually appears, in a negative light of course, in full in the Rabbinic Midrash. She was the mate of Samael, and they were both born at the same hour as Eve and Adam, intertwined with one another. (Qabalah)

I think what jesus said about women is an excellent and worthy accounting to a new testament, for womens equality. However, that doesn't discount the fact that the old testament contains accounts and godly decree's where that is not the case. If jesus is god, it should be noted that in the OT god made no covenant between himself and women, as he did with the males. And did jesus give equality to women? If we're to go by what is not in the bible, as PA mentioned regarding Lilith, then it should be noted that jesus did not have any disciples that were women either. (Though, before the edit, that was not the case in the early known practice of discipleship) What we do have is this: "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." 1 John 2:13
And if gods word is eternal and unchanging, nothing changes from the OT , with respect to womens lack of equality in the eyes of god. Women were and remain, lesser than the male.

^I did also provide examples of strong-willed women in the Old Testament who were hardly submissive or unequal. I'm not denying that the culture was patriarchal and did indeed subjugate their women. But this is cultural, not biblical. The Bible is full of examples of women who were treated as equals and sometimes even accorded higher honour than men.

As for the Midrash, you are aware that this is only an exegesis of biblical passages by various scholars and Rabbi's - it is their opinion, and just as subject to mistake as any other (as I said, Lilith being related to Adam dates to the 10th century AD - simple as that).

Ephesians 5:22, 6:5-6, Colossians 3:18, 3:22, Titus 2:3-5, 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18, 3:1
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Given there was such a thing as a Biblical era society, I think it's biblical well enough, given there exists enough scripture relegating women to subservience to prove as much. And if it's cultural and a religious culture, then it stands to reason that a religious culture would sponsor such policy through biblical admonitions. I think if women were absolutely equal and empowered, there would not exist a single Scripture to say outright or imply, otherwise.