PDA

View Full Version : God's Word To Women by Katherine Bushnell


Suannehill
09-30-2008, 02:53 PM
Katherine was a rather unique woman especially for her era. Born in 1856, an MD, medical missionary,evangelist...died in 1946. Her accomplishments are too numerous to list. Most importantly, she loved the Lord Jesus and as a woman served Him. She believed that mistranslations were responsible for the social and spiritual subjugation of women. Speaking seven languages, she was honored by the British government for translating the ancient Latin Bible into English. So, after reading her thoughts, the Word of God opened to me.
Although I can't completely expound on her work, my hope and prayer is that others can join in.
Sue

Suannehill
09-30-2008, 03:30 PM
Beginning thoughts.
1. Woman is formed from the (pleura) or flank of man.(not rib) Adam and Eve were created at the same time and were together, and were separated during a deep sleep. Did Adam then contain both the male and female within him, and God merely separated the male from the female?
2. God spoke of the duty of husband to wife, not wife to husband.
3. The husband is to separate from his parents rather than the wife from her parents. The parents were the natural protectors of their married daughters.
4. God did not make the wife, her husband's superior; but prevented her from becoming his subordinate.

The first woman aside from Eve that appears as a personality is Sarah, which means chieftainess. She did not go to Abraham, he came to her.

countmeworthy
10-01-2008, 05:53 AM
Keep this thread alive Sisters! ...especially those who have Katherine Bushnell's book and Jessie Penn Lewis' book(s) too.

This is deep stuff...stuff I like to chew on and stuff that requires time to digest. But since time is flying by soo quickly, the Revelation is magnifying itself quicker and clearer.

As a reminder to all of us..especially the MEN reading this thread...Bushnell's insights and writings are not 'womens' lib'...written to overthrow men in any shape or form.

Our only common enemy is Satan himself....period.

To GOD be the Glory!

UntoHim
10-01-2008, 07:26 AM
..As a reminder to all of us..especially the MEN reading this thread...Bushnell's insights and writings are not 'womens' lib'...written to overthrow men in any shape or form.

At a recent "blending conference" a certain "blended brother" said something like "when the sisters take over a church, the church is through!" He did not elaborate, and I did not hear a rip-roaring chorus of amens. All of the LC oldies (sisters & bros) knew exactly what he meant - "Sit down and shut up", just read your HWMRs and know your place. Then he did the usual LC have-it-both-ways and proclaimed that "sisters have the greatest influence on a local church!"

In my observation, Western Christian men have become wimps. Spiritually strong men have (should have) no problem with spiritually strong women, in fact they welcome and foster an atmosphere that encourages them. Although this goes beyond culture, there is no doubt that the LC has been heavily influenced by Asian culture in this regard. Witness Lee had no problem with spiritually strong women...so long as they were dead:eek: (Margaret Barber, Jessie Penn-Lewis, etc) According to LC folklore, Watchman Nee was heavily influenced by a number of spiritually strong women, so I guess we are to believe the "recovery" of spiritually strong and influential women ended with Nee?:rollingeyes2:

In a nutshell: You go sisters, you go! Just go ahead and overthrow what needs to be overthrown, whether it be wimpy men or wimpy culture or wimpy ideas or wimpy mistranslations.

Ohio
10-01-2008, 08:08 AM
As a reminder to all of us..especially the MEN reading this thread...Bushnell's insights and writings are not 'womens' lib'...written to overthrow men in any shape or form.



Witness Lee had no problem with spiritually strong women...so long as they were dead (Margaret Barber, Jessie Penn-Lewis, etc)


Both these thoughts have crossed my mind. Thank you. :)

Nell
10-01-2008, 01:30 PM
...Henceforth it is also war by Satan upon the womanhood of the world, in malignant revenge for the verdict of the garden. War by the trampling down of women in all lands where the deceiver reigns. War upon women in Christian lands, by the continuance of his Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God; insinuating into men's minds throughout all succeeding ages, that God pronounced a "curse" upon the woman, when in truth she was pardoned and blessed; and instigating men of the fallen race to carry out the supposed curse, which was in truth a curse upon the deceiver, and not the deceived one (Gen. 3: 14).

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said God, as well as between "thy seed and her seed," and this vindictive enmity of the hierarchy of evil to woman, and to believers, has not lessened in its intensity from that day.

I like this quote from JPL because it clearly defines the problem. Satan hates women. He also hates men. He uses men to carry out his vindictive hatred toward the woman and we spend our time fighting each other. Very clever of him, don't you think?

None of us have escaped the lies of the devil or being used by him. We need to make sure we know who is our enemy and make sure we are fighting the right battle.

Nell

Ohio
10-01-2008, 02:47 PM
I like this quote from JPL because it clearly defines the problem. Satan hates women. He also hates men. He uses men to carry out his vindictive hatred toward the woman and we spend our time fighting each other. Very clever of him, don't you think?


I hope you didn't spend all your time "hatin' on the men folk." :D

This statement is fairly judgmental, huh? I happen to know hundreds of decent guys who would lay down their lives for their wives and daughters.

Can you rephrase this post? If I made similar comments about you ladies, I'm sure I'd hear about that!

countmeworthy
10-01-2008, 02:59 PM
I hope you didn't spend all your time "hatin' on the men folk." :D

This statement is fairly judgmental, huh? I happen to know hundreds of decent guys who would lay down their lives for their wives and daughters.

Can you rephrase this post? If I made similar comments about you ladies, I'm sure I'd hear about that!


This is what I hope this thread doesn't turn into... a misunderstanding of the roles of men and women.

I haven't read the book so I can't speak on it..or about them in depth.

For me Ohio, what liberated me if only a tiny bit...is that for years I've had a nagging question..a YOKE even that men APPEARED to be more important than women in the Bible. That has always troubled me.

We see more men on the pulpits..the world leaders...etc...I don't have a problem with stay at home wives and mothers. BUT check out the world culture...women over all are very oppressed. It may not be soo bad here in this country, Praise the LORD for that...but women in general are.

One thing that I was enlightened about was in Genesis...where we find the blame game, Adam did not confess his sin. He, as we know blamed Eve. It is very possible when God gave the commandment not to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden before Eve came out of Adam's SIDE, he (Adam) did not relate that exact information to Eve.

Eve confessed to God she was deceived..and pointed to the deceiver, the serpent.

We also found Adam's name appearing something like 8 times more than Eve's through out the bible. He was in a heap of trouble with God...more than Eve was.

I hope others can add to this info I brought out.

Thanks. :)

Suannehill
10-01-2008, 05:08 PM
I hope you didn't spend all your time "hatin' on the men folk." :D

This statement is fairly judgmental, huh? I happen to know hundreds of decent guys who would lay down their lives for their wives and daughters.

Can you rephrase this post? If I made similar comments about you ladies, I'm sure I'd hear about that!

Actually, we spent time in prayer for men.
We are wanting to labor together with our brothers...and you can see how fast it degenerates. Thanks to the "confuser".

The very helpful part of her research was the correcting of the translations. She pointed out that Jewish law was often given more weight than the actual Word of God.

Women are not wanting to "take over" but to seek and work together. And I believe that brothers think that is what they are doing...however with the clarity in translation, the meaning of many things taught in the church change.

HEAD COVERING
I Cor 11:1-16
The real purpose of this passage was to stop the practice of men veiling in Christian worship.
In other words, it was to ask men not to wear the Jewish prayer shawl during meetings.
Her explanation is long and through and you'd have to read it for a full understanding. See lesson 32 in her book.

In my honest opinion, the enemy sent the "women's libbers" to further destroy God's plan. It puts division between men and women. Remember, it is the seed of the woman that bruises the serpent...and believe me the serpent has not for gotten this. So, anything that Satan can do to destroy the function of the sisters in the church will certainly enhance Satan's kingdom.

Sue

Suannehill
10-03-2008, 03:39 PM
Eve was "deceived" Adam "willfully" sinned. Eve quickly confessed. See that in Gen 3:6 Adam was "with" her when she ate. It does not record that he stopped her or corrected her...he only blamed her when God spoke. Note that Adam was driven out of the garden...not Eve. She followed him. 1 Tim 2:13-15...saved through the childbearing... note that the most accurate way to translate this verse is "the childbearing" The salvation spoken of here is the birth of the manchild in Revelation...not natural childbirth. Eve was never cursed...the earth was.
So, Eve left the garden with a promise of the manchild, not a curse.

countmeworthy
10-03-2008, 06:09 PM
Eve was "deceived" Adam "willfully" sinned. Eve quickly confessed. See that in Gen 3:6 Adam was "with" her when she ate. It does not record that he stopped her or corrected her...he only blamed her when God spoke. Note that Adam was driven out of the garden...not Eve. She followed him. 1 Tim 2:13-15...saved through the childbearing... note that the most accurate way to translate this verse is "the childbearing" The salvation spoken of here is the birth of the manchild in Revelation...not natural childbirth. Eve was never cursed...the earth was.
So, Eve left the garden with a promise of the manchild, not a curse.

Genesis 3:6 from the New Living Translation (NLT)

The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too.


Yes ! Adam was with Eve when the serpent was talking to her. He didn't even rebuke the serpent for telling lies! God told Adam he would die if he ate of that tree. The serpent said they wouldn't! WHO created WHO? Why didn't Adam call His heavenly DAD and tell Him what was happening with the serpent?

Adam already KNEW they were not to eat of that tree! Why did he not stop Eve ? Why did he not correct her ? Why did he DILEBERATELY disobey God, his Creator and Father?
We also need to look at Genesis 3:15-18

The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. 16 But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.”

These verses are very telling. God warned ADAM not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He warned him before Eve was formed.

It was Adam's responsibility to make sure Eve got it right! For all we know, God never warned Eve personally. She had to be told by Adam not to eat of the tree !

Was there a miscommunication?

We are exploring these verses not to put BLAME on man for mankinds' problems..but to show how Satan really hates woman.

2 Timothy 2:13-14 (NIV)
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Adam was not deceived. He disobeyed.

2 Timothy 2:15 NLT reads it like this:

15 But women will be saved through childbearing,[a] assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

Footnote from Biblegateway.com :

1 Timothy 2:15 Or will be saved by accepting their role as mothers, or will be saved by the birth of the Child.

WOW!

That goes along with the birth of the manchild in Revelation...not natural childbirth.

Revelation 12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Revelation 12:13
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

To the brothers reading this:

Please! Please know we are for YOU! We love YOU..as GOD loves you men and loves us women!

God is showing us all something deep and profound. Please don't tune out!

Thanks. :) :grouphug: <--from cmw :D

Suannehill
10-04-2008, 08:08 AM
Diakonos
There seems to be a double standard when translating this word. The word occurs 30 times in the New Testament and was translated as follows: 3 times as "deacon," 7 times as "servant," and 20 times as "minister."

But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things:

However, when diakonos referred to Phoebe, a woman, the same word was translated "servant."

I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: Rom 16:1

Apparently the translators just could not imagine having a female deacon.

Sue

(Thanks John)

Ohio
10-04-2008, 08:56 AM
Diakonos -- There seems to be a double standard when translating this word. However, when diakonos referred to Phoebe, a woman, the same word was translated "servant." Apparently the translators just could not imagine having a female deacon.
The Rec Vers, along with other translations, translates this verse in Rom 16.1 as "deaconess," which I like. Is that acceptable Suannehill? Or do you prefer "minister?"

Suannehill
10-04-2008, 09:29 AM
The Rec Vers, along with other translations, translates this verse in Rom 16.1 as "deaconess," which I like. Is that acceptable Suannehill? Or do you prefer "minister?"

It is acceptable. The genuine problem seems to be with the women who for whatever reasons are unable to function as God intended. The suppression of function is of course from God's enemy. However, we humans cooperate with the suppression much too well.
I only want to expose the suppression and free my sisters to follow Christ.

Even with a good translation, the LC suppressed sisters for many reasons. So, just having a good translation does not result in the sisters being free in Christ. We need to have our freedom pointed out and highlighted.

Even with this translation...no sisters were included in the furious letterwrting of two years ago, no sisters were involved in the local decision of a lawsuit, no sisters were consulted concerning the withdrawal of the lawsuit. In fact, my husband was specifically instructed not to tell me anything. So, what kind of co-labor is that? I can partially answer that it is NOT co-labor to continue to exclude 50% or more of the saints in the serious decisions concerning the church.
My heart is broken that even in the breaking away from the LSM (and others) condemnation of women and the suppression continues. It has been ingrained into ALL of us, and the Lord needs to root it out.

Sue

countmeworthy
10-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Even with this translation...no sisters were included in the furious letterwrting of two years ago, no sisters were involved in the local decision of a lawsuit, no sisters were consulted concerning the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

My heart is broken that even in the breaking away from the LSM (and others) condemnation of women and the suppression continues. It has been ingrained into ALL of us, and the Lord needs to root it out.

Sue

Sue,
It is heartbreaking seeing the oppression of women everywhere..even though in this country it's a lot better than most !

As for the furious letterwriting, perhaps in this case, it was God's mercy sisters weren't involved!

So much damage was caused by ego centric, LSM centric men, maybe it is good sisters were not thrown into the mix.

Sisters have suffered alot...have suffered enough.

As the scripture says: Let the dead bury the dead.

It's time we rise up from the grave and ASCEND into the heavenlies where our LORD is! :)

Keep on postin' on this topic. :hurray:

Suannehill
10-04-2008, 01:13 PM
Sue,
It is heartbreaking seeing the oppression of women everywhere..even though in this country it's a lot better than most !

As for the furious letterwriting, perhaps in this case, it was God's mercy sisters weren't involved!

So much damage was caused by ego centric, LSM centric men, maybe it is good sisters were not thrown into the mix...

Keep on postin' on this topic. :hurray:

Well, I wasn't so concerned about those from LSM permitting sisters to participate (we know they are a mess)...it is those who claim to have left that nonsense behind...only to drag the baggage with them. The brothers in Ohio also wrote letters and excluded sisters. I can't 100% blame them either if I don't know who I am in Christ. So...all I can do is pray, learn and speak.
Sue

countmeworthy
10-04-2008, 02:19 PM
The brothers in Ohio also wrote letters and excluded sisters. I can't 100% blame them either if I don't know who I am in Christ. Sue


You know...it's a crying shame that for many who were in 'la creme de la creme'...as we were told in the LC...for years and years....do not know who they are in Christ! By now...we saints ought to be soaring in the heavenlies !! If we got saved in the 60's and 70's and were in 'the church'..absorbing 'the riches'...why are soo many spiritually, emotionally, physically and financially bankrupt !

Go figure that one out! :rollingeyesfrown:

I think I got off topic here...sorry. :D Back to topic!

Igzy
10-04-2008, 02:26 PM
Even with this translation...no sisters were included in the furious letterwrting of two years ago, no sisters were involved in the local decision of a lawsuit, no sisters were consulted concerning the withdrawal of the lawsuit. In fact, my husband was specifically instructed not to tell me anything. So, what kind of co-labor is that? I can partially answer that it is NOT co-labor to continue to exclude 50% or more of the saints in the serious decisions concerning the church.
My heart is broken that even in the breaking away from the LSM (and others) condemnation of women and the suppression continues. It has been ingrained into ALL of us, and the Lord needs to root it out.

Sue

Sue,

Yet one more reason to leave the old LSM carcass behind. Not with malice, but with hopefulness.

"Supression" is very apropos. The fact is a system like LSM-LC cannot help but suppress legitimate ministries and function. It's built into the DNA.

It's one thing for leaders to say that they are not interested in a particular effort or ministry at the moment. It's entirely another for them to say they are not interested and they better not catch you engaging in it. The first might simply reflect a lack of time or resources; the second reflects a willingness to risk opposing something of God for the sake of maintaining absolute control.

I would suggest that if you find yourself in a group which practices the latter you might consider moving on. Reform might not be possible.

Ohio
10-04-2008, 05:27 PM
Even with a good translation, the LC suppressed sisters for many reasons. So, just having a good translation does not result in the sisters being free in Christ. We need to have our freedom pointed out and highlighted.

Even with this translation...no sisters were included in the furious letter writing of two years ago, no sisters were involved in the local decision of a lawsuit, no sisters were consulted concerning the withdrawal of the lawsuit. In fact, my husband was specifically instructed not to tell me anything. So, what kind of co-labor is that? I can partially answer that it is NOT co-labor to continue to exclude 50% or more of the saints in the serious decisions concerning the church.

My heart is broken that even in the breaking away from the LSM (and others) condemnation of women and the suppression continues. It has been ingrained into ALL of us, and the Lord needs to root it out. Sue

Sueannehill,

You mention letter writing ... I did notice that the church in Toronto did allow much input from the sisters during their recent time of turmoil.

I agree that the input of sisters was rarely deemed valuable. I attribute most of that to the influence of the dominant chinese culture. Your place seems to suffer unnecessarily. Serious decisions that do impact the sisters should include the sisters. This in no way undermines the place of the elders.

I have witnessed many sisters over the years voice their protests, concerning this matter of being included, in many diverse scenarios. Some sisters were perhaps just whining, but many others were very legitimate in their concerns. My observation is this -- as the local leaders were subservient to the authorities in Cleveland, they also expected the local brothers and sisters to be subservient to them. I can sympathize with you -- I also "got it" many times too.

We can talk about the GLA's being different from the LSM'ers, but if all the people in the lead are the same, how different can things be?

Suannehill
10-04-2008, 07:11 PM
Perhaps I am not patient enough...but it does seem that we are following LSM down the path to exclusive-ism.

I know many struggle with how to go on. It is a constant swim upstream to find the way out of all we were caught up in.

I am blessed because over the years I have fellowshipped with many believers and the void is not so immense to me. I do not need to cling to a practice to feel a part of the fellowship.

Please do not misunderstand...I love those saints here... both in and out of LSM.

Katherine Bushnell's book has solidified my thoughts and given me a voice. Not in rebellion, but being firm in my God-given stand in Christ.

Sue

countmeworthy
10-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Perhaps we could take an entire chapter of K Bushnell's book..and discect it. :)

Most have not even heard of Bushnell, Sue.

If we share big portions of each chapter, perhaps we could fellowhip via cyberspace on it.

I'm willing. :)

Suannehill
10-05-2008, 06:34 AM
OK,
Do you want to link to the book in each post? Otherwise it may be too hard to follow. The book is not a quick easy read for certain. Katherine mentally dances circles around me :party:
Sue

countmeworthy
10-05-2008, 07:18 AM
Yes.. I think it would be helpful for the link to be there. Then everyone could read it and discuss it/fellowship around it..with a PRAYERFUL attitude. :)

Nell
10-05-2008, 09:04 AM
Paragraph 1. The object of these Lessons is at least three-fold:
a. To point out to women the fallacies in the "Scriptural" argument for the supremacy of the male sex.
b. To show the true position of women in the economy of God.
c. To show women their need of knowing the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies, and also to show that such a knowledge of the Bible would have great influence for good on the progress of the Church and womanhood. ...

Paragraph 2. ...However freely certain male scholars of the present day manipulate the text, no confidence would be placed in the results thus obtained by a woman, at once, she would be faced with the charge that she had manipulated the text to suit her argument. ...

Paragraph 3. ...the Scribes wrote out their copy with immense care, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. They copied even supposed errors, calling attention to seeming irregularities by slight marks, but not venturing to correct. They have left records to show that when copying they counted each consonant and vowel-letter in each line, and kept records of the same, in order to verify their finished work. Superstition alone was enough to cause the Jews to preserve their Scripture text inviolable, they prized the letter beyond the spirit of the Word. ...

Paragraph 5. But when we speak of the Bible as inspired, infallible and inviolable, we do not refer to our English version, or any mere version, but to the original text. ...

I think a good place to start is a renewed committment to the authority of the holy Scriptures. I know in the place we used to be, the Bible has lost its place, having given way to the interpretation of a man as being invoilable, including the writings of a man and something called HWMR.

I believe Neil Anderson coined the phrase "non-scriptural Christian teaching". Of course, a "non-scriptural" teaching is not a "Christian" teaching. However, some teach as though what they are saying is "Christian" even though it isn't in the Bible. I also have problems with a man calling himself the "Bible Answer Man".

Here's a quote from Ohio: #929 (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=3684&postcount=929) "...I do not necessarily need to quote a verse to speak the word of God,...". Please follow the link to get the context of the quote.

My reply: #930 (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=3685&postcount=930) "Uh...yeah...I think you do. Maybe you'd better 'splain this one. As a minimum, whatever you (say) must agree with scripture. Is that what you mean? Nell"

I'm going to assume that Ohio meant that whatever you say must agree with Scripture. Regardless, if the Old Testament scribes took such immense care with copying the Hebrew text as described above, should we be any less careful with our handling of the Scriptures? To me, this approach will end many arguments and set the ground rules for discussion of this and all other Christian topics. What do you think?

Nell

Ohio
10-05-2008, 10:03 AM
Nell, I was following along real well until you mentioned my name, then I lost you. Why the references to the "LCS FACTOR" thread.

Nell
10-05-2008, 10:21 AM
Ohio, my reference was not to the "LCS Factor". It was to your statement which I quoted and which happened to be on that thread.

Nell

Ohio
10-05-2008, 12:07 PM
Nell, you were in the middle of doing a book report ... and then somehow got "inspired" to take a poke at me for something I said a month ago? You've been saving that one for a while. :)

Suannehill
10-05-2008, 02:44 PM
Paragraph 3. ...the Scribes wrote out their copy with immense care, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. They copied even supposed errors, calling attention to seeming irregularities by slight marks, but not venturing to correct. They have left records to show that when copying they counted each consonant and vowel-letter in each line, and kept records of the same, in order to verify their finished work. Superstition alone was enough to cause the Jews to preserve their Scripture text inviolable, they prized the letter beyond the spirit of the Word. ...

This is important to note. The scribes were EXTREMELY careful about the way they handled the Word. However, translators used the Talmud, (not scripture) Jewish traditions and customs of the time to translate. Therefore the condition of woman at the time of translation is reflected and not what the Word actually said. Some of the customs were of Muslim origin.
Sue

Ohio
10-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Sue, which "translators" are we talking about here?

countmeworthy
10-05-2008, 06:04 PM
This is important to note. The scribes were EXTREMELY careful about the way they handled the Word. However, translators used the Talmud, (not scripture) Jewish traditions and customs of the time to translate. Therefore the condition of woman at the time of translation is reflected and not what the Word actually said. Some of the customs were of Muslim origin.
Sue

How do we know these things for certain? Where does this information come from ?

I ask because these are questions that will be raised...just as Ohio, just did and rightfully so. :)

countmeworthy
10-05-2008, 06:05 PM
Paragraph 1. The object of these Lessons is at least three-fold:
a. To point out to women the fallacies in the "Scriptural" argument for the supremacy of the male sex.
b. To show the true position of women in the economy of God.
c. To show women their need of knowing the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies, and also to show that such a knowledge of the Bible would have great influence for good on the progress of the Church and womanhood. ...



Hmmm...the one 'problem' I see could come out of these paragraphs is the emphasis on women. I know the book is titled "God's Word to Women".

But by pointing out to women the fallacies ...for the supremacy of the male sex -Scripturally-, I can see how it could APPEAR the book being very biased.

Yes...we all know MEN have for the most part been very biased & have carried on an air of Supremecy throughout world history..globally.

I do think it's a GREAT idea for us to take a closer look at how GOD truly sees women.

This subject matter has certainly helped me to see why women have been suppressed and oppressed & how Satan has done his best to hide women..or push women down..even through the scriptures by blinding mankind.

All that written, I pray these paragraphs pointed out does not become a turn-off. That they're not misconstrued into a 'women are better than men' debate.

I cautioned this earlier..but I think it's worth mentioning it again...'cause I know that old serpent, whose growing into a dragon does not want women and men to see it is the WOMAN who is birthing the MANCHILD. It is the woman who has crushed the serpent's head.

Suannehill
10-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Sue, which "translators" are we talking about here?

I can only go by her research and translation. She spoke 7 languages and was honored by Great Briton for her translation. She also was a medical Dr specializing in Neurology. Without being able to directly link to her work I am hampered because I am NOT Katherine Bushnell nor do I posses her wit.
So, I am working on putting the link to her work in each response. It will save long resposes and repetition.
Thanks,
Sue

Suannehill
10-05-2008, 06:23 PM
OK,
Look at signature.
From now on I can tell you which lesson we are in and you will be able to see what she said.
Her entire book is here.
Sue

Nell
10-06-2008, 10:06 AM
How do we know these things for certain? Where does this information come from ?

I ask because these are questions that will be raised...just as Ohio, just did and rightfully so. :)

All---

These questions were answered for me as I read the book. You can clearly see her methodology and how she came to the conclusions she reached. She is not standing alone. She researched the works of other authors as well as the Greek and Hebrew text. She researched the culture of the day as well as other ancient writings.

Check her work! Be convinced in your own mind. I'm still reading...haven't finished yet. I'm looking up the scripture references as I go and that takes a lot of time. :)

Nell

Lesson 1: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Lesson%201.htm

About Kathrine Bushnell: tp://www.godswordtowomen.org/about_bushnell_book.htm (http://www.godswordtowomen.org/about_bushnell_book.htm)

countmeworthy
10-06-2008, 10:14 AM
Thanks Nell and SueAnne!

I don't have the book yet...and many here don't either. Thus far, this topic was discussed at the 'Cherith' -retreat/fellowship/get together.- (which was the BEST ever yet!) :hurray:

I'm glad we have the book on line now. This way anyone can read it..ponder on it/ get revelation from the LORD regarding this topic.

We then will be able to fellowship without misunderstandings based on comments made regarding the book.

Nell
10-06-2008, 10:23 AM
K. Sounds like a plan.

Nell

Suannehill
10-06-2008, 05:22 PM
OK
Lesson 2 part 16
She makes the points concerning vowel usage and it's importance.
Twice the Christians have lost the Hebrew and turned to the Jews for help with translation. The rabbis who taught them would naturally turn them away from Christian ideals and toward Talmudic teachings. The Talmudic teachings on women are negative to say the least.
Sue

Suannehill
10-07-2008, 04:43 PM
Lesson 3
I must tell you, it is nor nearly as much fun to go through the book in proper order, as it is to pick out what spoke to me.

Nevertheless, this section dealt with the androgynous side of man(male and female in one person), and reiterates that scripture must be interpreted by scripture. Next it speaks of the theory that people were born in pairs of male and female, meaning there would have been a male Cain and a female Cain. (Not endorsed, just spoken of)

Five blessings pronounced on Adam and Eve by God:
1.Be fruitful
2. Multiply
3. Replenish
4. Subdue
5. Have dominion

These blessings were all plural, meaning they were pronounced on male and female.
The perfect equality of the sexes by God's original creation...He pronounced it very good.

Suannehill
10-09-2008, 06:37 PM
Lesson 4
Well, it really brought a smile to my face when she showed who was a contemporary of whom:Adam and Methuselah 243 years, Methuselah and Shem a full 100 years... During this time there was plenty of time for an oral history to be passed on. Concluding that Moses could easily have written the Pentateuch except of course his own death.
At #30 she brings up a good point about the word "formed" The word used is not the one for "creation " but elaborated first.
She next quotes William Law saying, " Adam had lost most of his first perfection before his Eve was taken out of him; which was to prevent worse effects of his fall and prepare a means of his recovery..."
#34 "Help Meet" This word does not indicate an inferior but a superior help.

bookworm
10-10-2008, 09:34 AM
Lesson 4
Well, it really brought a smile to my face when she showed who was a contemporary of whom:Adam and Methuselah 243 years, Methuselah and Shem a full 100 years... During this time there was plenty of time for an oral history to be passed on. Concluding that Moses could easily have written the Pentateuch except of course his own death.
At #30 she brings up a good point about the word "formed" The word used is not the one for "creation " but elaborated first.
She next quotes William Law saying, " Adam had lost most of his first perfection before his Eve was taken out of him; which was to prevent worse effects of his fall and prepare a means of his recovery..."
#34 "Help Meet" This word does not indicate an inferior but a superior help.


It is interesting to note in this Lesson 4 that it is pointed out that Genesis 1:31, states “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Therefore Adam was very good; but this condition did not last. Verse 2:18 tells us that presently God says: “It is not good that the man (or Adam) should be alone.” The “very good” state of humanity becomes “not good.” It is interesting to see these points that are to be considered:
1) Adam was offered “freely” the tree of life (2:16), but did not eat of it (3:22).
2) He was made keeper, as well as dresser, of the Garden, (2:15), but Satan later enters it.

Katherine Bushnell then also presents the view of the German philosopher Jacob Behman (whose writings Wesley, in his days, required all his preachers to study):
“There must have been something of the nature of a stumble, it not an actual fall, in Adam while yet alone in Eden…Eve was created [he should say “elaborated”] to ‘help’ Adam to recover himself and to establish himself in Paradise and in the favor, fellowship and service of his Maker.”

Suannehill
10-10-2008, 02:08 PM
Thanks, Bookworm good to hear from you!
This Lesson 4 was titled, "The Beginning of Evil". That must be where "very good" becomes "It is not good that the man..."
I never saw that change in terminology before reading this.
Sue

Suannehill
10-12-2008, 07:07 AM
Lesson 5
Man was given the charge to watch and protect the garden. This implies there is something to protect it from. However the power of evil did enter, so Adam failed in his job. (He was also to protect the tree.)

Then women came from the "flank" of man. The word "Rib" came from something later unknown.

Archdeacon Wilberforce..."Rib seems to be a mistranslation." The word here translated rib occurs 42 times in the text and this is the only place it is translated rib. In the Septuagint it is pleura which is side. Had God only taken a rib Adam, would never have exclaimed..."flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone!"

Gemmiarous or fissiparious reproduction is..."a cleft or fission at some part of the body, takes place very slight at first, but constantly increasing in depth, so as to become a deep furrow... at the same time the organs are divided and become double, thus two individuals are formed of one. So similar to each other that it is impossible to say which is the parent and which is the offspring."
The idea that Eve came from Adam's rib has it's root in Rabbinical Lore.

Now see section #44 Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. Many commandments of God apply to both sexes, but this one is specific for the man. Scripturally, the man is to separate from his parents not the other way around.

Well, this is enough for now.
Sue

Nell
10-12-2008, 08:32 AM
I was reading Genesis this morning and now I'm having a thought or two that I want to run by you all.

God said he was going to make man it seems for the purpose of dominion, replenishment and to subdue the earth. God's image is apparently male and female as well, because he made man "male and female"...after his image. This male and female man was given the charge to be fruitful, have dominion over the animals and, replenishment and subduing the earth.

In Genesis 2:16 this male and female man was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge. In Genesis 2:19 the male and female man named the animals, but among the animals there was not suitable helper for the male and female man. Despite the newly created animals, man was still alone and that was not good.

When the male and female man was separated physically into a man and a woman, there is the thought that the woman was somehow not only weaker physically, but inferior in intellect to the man, and at separation, that the man got all the marbles...so to speak. We know that's not true, or the woman would not have been much better off than the animals who were clearly not suitable as a helper, because they were not after his kind, or his intellect. It's possible that had the male gotten all the marbles, regardless of the female, man would still be "alone".

"Intellect" is not the right word, but I'm not sure what the word is. Sorry. I'm not trying to say that men think think themselves to be mentally superior to women. Let's not go there. OK?

My thought is that the female was given dominion along with the male. The female was clearly involved in the multiplication process, but she also had the intellect to name the animals. Before, I have always believed that Adam was given dominion, and he named the animals "alone", but now I'm not so sure. When the man named the animals he was still a male and female man. The female may have been younger and less mature, but she most likely had the same intellect as the male...otherwise how could she be a "help" to him? Laundry? Dishes? Run the vacuum? I don't think so.

We have speculated about what Adam told Eve about not eating of the trees in the center of the garden. Since the male and female had not yet been separated, I'm thinking that Adam may not have told her anything at all. Since God spoke this word to the male and female man before being separated into two physical beings they both heard what He said.

When they were separated, the female became the physically weaker one. We know this. Did the male get all the marbles too and the female become somehow inferior? There is no evidence of this. The fact that the image of God is both male and female would seem to substantiate that the female is different from the male but not inferior.

Kathrine may say all of this as we continue, or she may shoot me down. This makes sense to me.

Nell

Here are the verses:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, ...

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
.

Suannehill
10-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Interesting Nell, thanks.

Lesson 6 God's Law of Marriage
Gen. 2:24
At this point it was customary for the husband to live under the wife's parents' roof or just visit her there.

The Word of God started the world right.

The parents were the natural protectors of their married daughters, not the husband, until he was able to prove himself worthy of their trust.

This is to conserve social morality. She speaks rather frankly here about the White Slave Trade and how God's provision is a protection for women.

God had our rights and dignity in His heart.