>>Saying that, I don't really want to continue this discussion because I don't have enough knowledge.
>
>Look, I'm discussing this matter here for what, six years now, and you were the first one to mention the "oh, BTW, they omitted the women". What is this, a conspiracy? Nobody but you had the guts to say that aloud for all these years?
>
>The whole "you need to study all that to understand" may be a nice way to do recruitment by immersion, but now I am sure I don't want to come close to any of those racist religions (they do insult half of my race - the human race, that is). I knew they tended to not count female children in some cases, but I thought that was limited to highlanders in Montenegro and Albania and a few other places where they had vendetta deep into XX century and were organized in clans/tribes/families. But now I hear it was so from the beginning, that they didn't count female children for the last couple of millennia, from the alleged first generation? Ah, the things we take for granted!
>
>Do I need any disclaimer as to the obvious? OK: this is just my opinion.
>
>And, I know, you're only the messenger, and a brave one at that, who had the courage to point out the obvious that I didn't see.

At first, I thought you were just yanking her chain - but - now looks like this is a problem for you. There are both men and women that the Bible does not mention. I don't see a problem with that. The Bible is not meant to be a historical record (althought is can be used as such.) It is meant to show us that we need a Saviour and to point us to Him.