Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Evangelical · 08-30-2017, 11:13 PM

The book has claimed that "all male translation committees" are responsible for mistranslating the bible. I can show that this logic is faulty, and it's not so simple, because some bible versions which have all-male members on the translation committee translate in favor of her views, and some bible versions on which females are well represented translate it the same as the KJV! If Jane's logic is correct, then it should be the other way around!

One way to verify (or not) these claims is to compare the verses said to be mistranslated due to male bias, with the same verses translated in bible versions where women are well represented on the committee.

Sound reasonable? Then let's begin. If not, then I'd like to hear why you think my comparison is not reasonable.

This site says which bible versions have females on the translation committee:
http://margmowczko.com/female-bible-translators/

CEB seems the best one, where women are well represented:
The Contemporary English Bible (CEB 1995) had 120 translators of which about 20 are women. And women are well represented among the contributors of their excellent study Bible..

Now let's compare.

Here is Genesis 3:16 in the KJV, an all-male translation team which is influenced by male bias.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

As Jane says, Genesis 3:16 is a lemon because Satan via male bias, changed it to misrepresent God and how His authority works. He made it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife. She then calls its a "poor translation". This is all on page 13 of this site: http://lemonstograpes.com/eight-lemo...d-into-grapes/

Now let's compare Genesis 3:16 in the CEB where women are well-represented. Genesis is available for download here: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/explore/downloads

It says:
"......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". (CEB)

Side by side:

KJV says: "... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - the male-biasd, Satan influenced version, and poor translation
CEB says: "......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". - the translation where women are well represented on the translation team

I can't see a difference (other than one being ye olde English), can you? Both use the word "desire", and the words "rule over".

In fact the CEB translation is arguably worse because it says "but he will rule over you". The "but" implies that the female desire must be ruled over by the husband. The word "but"reinforces a patriarchal interpretation of the passage, which is not going to help Jane's argument at all. What were those female bible translators thinking?

Where does this leave Jane's claim that Genesis 3:16 is a poor translation, changed by male-bias to make it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife?

It shoots it to pieces I would think, because the CEB version which is not an all-male translation team, says the same thing and even reinforces the patriarchy. How can even the female experts in Hebrew not pick up on this error?

A full list of names, and female contributors and their credentials is found here:
http://www.commonenglishbible.com/ex...eb-translators

How is it that none of these female experts have picked up on this translation error?

I'd like to continue this analysis on the other lemon passages but I don't have a version of the CEB.

However I could perform the same analysis on other bible versions which are known to have females on the translation team.

Let's try the NIV, where there are 13 women on the team.

The NIV says:

"your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Says the same thing as the KJV.

Let's just take a look at all of the translations then:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

There are 22 bible versions.

Most of them say "desire" and "rule over you".

The ones that don't, say dominate, like the ISV. Dominate is a much stronger word than rule I think. And only the ISV says "turning":

""since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you."

ISV is the most friendly version towards Jane's view, yet it has less female members than the CEB.

Other than the ISV, there are no bible versions that I can find that lighten up on the language of "desire" or "rule over you" which would support Jane's view.

So is Jane correct that Genesis 3:16 is a lemon passage, mistranslated by Satan via man, and a poor translation? Unlikely, given that no bible version, even those with women well represented, translate this verse differently. It seems that this lemon might actually be a grape.

Is Jane correct that all-male translation teams are responsible for mistranslating Genesis 3:16?

I don't think so, because the CEB version where women are well represented, actually reinforces a patriarchal interpretation, and the ISV which does not have any females on the translation committee (one or two females on the supporting scholars I think) seems to translate it correctly by using the word "turning" and not "desire". So I think the gender of the translation team has no bearing on the accuracy of the translation.

08-30-2017, 11:13 PM	#30
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	How do male-only versus male+female bible versions compare? The book has claimed that "all male translation committees" are responsible for mistranslating the bible. I can show that this logic is faulty, and it's not so simple, because some bible versions which have all-male members on the translation committee translate in favor of her views, and some bible versions on which females are well represented translate it the same as the KJV! If Jane's logic is correct, then it should be the other way around! One way to verify (or not) these claims is to compare the verses said to be mistranslated due to male bias, with the same verses translated in bible versions where women are well represented on the committee. Sound reasonable? Then let's begin. If not, then I'd like to hear why you think my comparison is not reasonable. This site says which bible versions have females on the translation committee: http://margmowczko.com/female-bible-translators/ CEB seems the best one, where women are well represented: The Contemporary English Bible (CEB 1995) had 120 translators of which about 20 are women. And women are well represented among the contributors of their excellent study Bible.. Now let's compare. Here is Genesis 3:16 in the KJV, an all-male translation team which is influenced by male bias. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. As Jane says, Genesis 3:16 is a lemon because Satan via male bias, changed it to misrepresent God and how His authority works. He made it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife. She then calls its a "poor translation". This is all on page 13 of this site: http://lemonstograpes.com/eight-lemo...d-into-grapes/ Now let's compare Genesis 3:16 in the CEB where women are well-represented. Genesis is available for download here: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/explore/downloads It says: "......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". (CEB) Side by side: KJV says: "... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - the male-biasd, Satan influenced version, and poor translation CEB says: "......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". - the translation where women are well represented on the translation team I can't see a difference (other than one being ye olde English), can you? Both use the word "desire", and the words "rule over". In fact the CEB translation is arguably worse because it says "but he will rule over you". The "but" implies that the female desire must be ruled over by the husband. The word "but"reinforces a patriarchal interpretation of the passage, which is not going to help Jane's argument at all. What were those female bible translators thinking? Where does this leave Jane's claim that Genesis 3:16 is a poor translation, changed by male-bias to make it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife? It shoots it to pieces I would think, because the CEB version which is not an all-male translation team, says the same thing and even reinforces the patriarchy. How can even the female experts in Hebrew not pick up on this error? A full list of names, and female contributors and their credentials is found here: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/ex...eb-translators How is it that none of these female experts have picked up on this translation error? I'd like to continue this analysis on the other lemon passages but I don't have a version of the CEB. However I could perform the same analysis on other bible versions which are known to have females on the translation team. Let's try the NIV, where there are 13 women on the team. The NIV says: "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Says the same thing as the KJV. Let's just take a look at all of the translations then: http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm There are 22 bible versions. Most of them say "desire" and "rule over you". The ones that don't, say dominate, like the ISV. Dominate is a much stronger word than rule I think. And only the ISV says "turning": ""since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you." ISV is the most friendly version towards Jane's view, yet it has less female members than the CEB. Other than the ISV, there are no bible versions that I can find that lighten up on the language of "desire" or "rule over you" which would support Jane's view. So is Jane correct that Genesis 3:16 is a lemon passage, mistranslated by Satan via man, and a poor translation? Unlikely, given that no bible version, even those with women well represented, translate this verse differently. It seems that this lemon might actually be a grape. Is Jane correct that all-male translation teams are responsible for mistranslating Genesis 3:16? I don't think so, because the CEB version where women are well represented, actually reinforces a patriarchal interpretation, and the ISV which does not have any females on the translation committee (one or two females on the supporting scholars I think) seems to translate it correctly by using the word "turning" and not "desire". So I think the gender of the translation team has no bearing on the accuracy of the translation.