Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
If we take a look at her 7 pages of Lemon Five: 1st Timothy 2:8–15. There are 7 pages of Jane's opinion in which she provides few, if any, citations to support her claims.
She even references online bible commentaries (opinions of men), just as I have when she says:
"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with
Bushnell’s insight"
She starts with the presupposition that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is a lemon translation, and then tries her hardest to prove that it is:
I found this lemon translation to be the most difficult one to resolve. Even though I had studied it, prayed over it, thought about it—every which way—and researched
others’ thoughts about it, I always was left with the feeling that I was missing something important.
If she "researched other's thoughts about it" then she should cite her sources.
Her method for discovering the truth is of is prayer and then to do a Google search to find an online article that supports her view:
"That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."
When she writes:
"This suggests the possibility that Paul..."
- it sounds very Witness Lee-like "this implies that..., this suggests that...". No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims.
If we weigh the balance of opinions, on one side we have the old bible commentaries as well as writings by Luther, Calvin, Origin, the list goes on. To be rejected because of faulty bible translations. On Jane's side, we have herself and her opinions found through prayer and articles which conveniently support her point of view, to be believed because of a claim that the english bible is poorly translated (in some respects I believe it is, but not in this case).
It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible.
|
* So...opinions found through prayer are invalid...so don't pray over...or at least
don't admit that you prayed over your work?
* Articles (or commentaries) that conveniently support your point of view ... should be ... avoided? Of course you have
never searched out commentaries that conveniently support your point of view...have you?
* I get it. You would
never start with a presupposition and "try your hardest to prove that it is..."
*
"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with Bushnell’s insight." You quoted this above...does this not count as a citation of source? She cited Wade Burleson...does that count?
* Quoting you above: "When she writes:'This suggests the possibility that Paul...' it sounds very Witness Lee-like 'this implies that..., this suggests that...'. No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims. "
Uh...I guess that's the point? Right? I wouldn't say there is "no hard evidence" but when you have "some" evidence, you need to make it clear to the reader that there are evidentiary "possibilities" that support your premise. You get to do that. The alternative is a serious breach of ethics...to state your opinion as fact and not acknowledge it as "your opinion."
* "It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible."
Not "male superiority" but male gender bias. But, you may be right. I understand that your statement is dripping with sarcasm, but, it could be more accurate than you know. Not just Jane's book. There are many sources out there now, including members of this forum, who are rethinking the woman topic.
So...what did Wade Burleson have to say? The Lemon5.pdf is about 95% a discussion of Burleson's article...which Jane DID cite. I notice not one word from you about the content of his article. Why is that? What Burleson wrote can be verified as historic fact and makes sense in the context of 1 Tim. Did you ignore 95% of Lemon5.pdf because this article was an answer to Jane's prayer?
You did read the .pdf so that's good. By not mentioning Burleson's commentary...the point of Lemon5.pdf, you seem to have exposed yourself as merely a "naysayer" and not an open minded scholar of what I refer to as the "woman topic". Your mind is made up.
Remember the hymn: "The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth to Break Forth from His Word"?
Perhaps your next project should be to read the "An Important Topic for Men Also" .pdf.
Here's a parting question for you to consider: What if Jane is right? How bad could it be? How good could it be?
Nell