[Evangelical]

Before we get into Lee and zoe life, which I see Drake has picked upon on, let's consider the likelihood of one view over the other.

It has been argued that God's Word is the original Greek manuscripts, and that there were mistranslations from Greek to English. The second argument is that these mistranslations are in favor of men over women, resulting in the "lemon verses".

If that is the case, then by studying the original Greek we should be able to arrive at the "correct" conclusion. I should say a more plausible or likely conclusion, considering there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the conclusion. Whichever view has the more plausible interpretation from the original Greek is more likely to be correct.

Since Jane herself seems to have no theological credibility, but draws heavily upon Bushnell, we may as well reduce this question to the following -

Is Bushnell more likely to be correct, or Wallace?

My research of Bushnell and her credentials shows someone driven more by her experiences and thoughts than what the Greek text actually says to a neutral observer. A person with a degree of feminist bias, who even concluded that Eve was not to blame for the fall but Adam. She seems to be interpreting the original Greek driven by her desire to defend her ministry as a woman. She felt called by God, and she reads the original Greek in a way to justify her calling. In doing so, she then compares her interpretation of the Greek with the clear message of the English versions, and declares the English versions to be mistranslated and wrong.

The interesting thing is that Wallace also acknowledges mistranslated words - however some mistranslated words he is talking about are those which justify the cause of the egalitarians. For example, the difference between the English meaning of the word "tradition", as being something that can be done away with, and the richer meaning of the Greek word for "tradition", which means something more permanent.

The fact that certain words may be mistranslated from Greek to English, does not mean that the interpretation of the Greek is correct. So we can ignore that English words may be mistranslated, and consider who has the most likely correct interpretation of the Greek? Wallace knows a lot about the New Testament Greek language, so I would put more credibility in his interpretation than Bushnell's. I would say that a "theological implication" from Wallace is more credible than the alternative. Or put it this way - the argument for women, in the original Greek, must be so subtle, that it is just not seen by those who study the Greek, like Wallace - one must be a feminist with an agenda to draw it out and make it obvious, like Bushnell. If that was not the case, then theologians everywhere, like Wallace, should have picked up on this. Wallace's view is much more rational and logical in my opinion, because it does not have to engage in "exegetical gymnastics" or base its arguments upon a view that the English translations are wrong. The principle of Occam's razor suggests Wallace's view is the correct one. In other words, the number of assumptions one has to make to reach a conclusion in Jane or Bushnell's view, is much more than the number of assumptions that Wallace's view has to make. The view with the least number of assumptions is more likely to the the correct one.