Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
* 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
|
I'm open but skeptical. If I was not open I would not be participating in this thread. The reason for my skepticism is I have not seen so far any authoritative scholarly source about the question of the translations being wrong. Occam's razor leads me to side with history, plain reading of the English translation - what it says is what it means.
Even so, no doctrine hangs on the interpretation of one word. And that applies equally to Hebrew/Greek as it does to any other language. I highly doubt that even two credible hebrew/greek scholars would agree on everything, as so much is open to interpretation, context etc. It is hard to agree on meaning, in any language.
If Jane is right, the only thing it changes in terms of the recovery is enabling women to preach/teach in a church or conference like the leading brothers currently do, it would enable women to participate in the Lord's table too.
Women can already prophesy and do many things. Burleson does not agree with female elders or pastors and I assume Jane agrees.
When I read Chapter 5 pdf it only says:
" That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."
"I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety. "
I have to google search to find the article in question.
I assume this is the article in question (no citation was provided in the chapter 5 excerpt you posted, but anyway):
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/...angelical.html
As far as I know Burleson is no expert in Greek/Hebrew and that is what is important here. Can he confirm or deny, with some scholarly authority, that the Hebrew translation is wrong? Burleson does not cite any scholarly sources in his online articles.
So Jane quotes Burleson...
and Burleson quotes... no one! He merely says "could have, should have, would have":
"Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone "dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm."
So an "open scholar" is at a dead end once they reach Burleson's articles.
Jane's book gives a skeptic like me three choices:
1) trust her judgement and that God answered her prayers in revealing the truth
2) Trust Burleson's internet article
3) Trust the NET Bible (Internet version)
To me his argument is based more upon the fact that women are gifted by the Spirit and some bible verses which are open to his interpretation. There is a common argument which goes "God gave the Spirit to women so there's no reason why he wouldn't give her church leadership as well". However God and Jesus were in the habit of choosing males as leaders.