Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

John · 09-04-2017, 11:29 AM

Before presenting one lemon that was likely caused by male gender bias, I will try to focus us because of all of the distractions. This may help posters and readers to be on the same page, at least to start, as regards my posts here.

Brief history of the King James version

As I understand it, generally speaking, the King James version (KJV) was about the only version of the Bible in English available to the general populace for hundreds of years. As such, it held sway over the English-speaking world for maybe 300 years or so, even being referred to as the Authorized Version. In fact, there are still a number of Christians today that believe that the KJV is the best version and that the newer ones are adulterated.

Impact of the King James version

Also, most have heard that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time. Until the newer translations, the KJV was in this position of authority. Most have also heard that the Bible is the most quoted book in all of literature, which would be applicable to the KJV until the newer versions.

The point is that the KJV has had a huge impact on our culture, both Christian and secular. In my generation, we memorized the so-called Lord’s prayer, complete with its “Thy’s” and “Thine,” and recited it in unison, even though I didn’t know the meaning of “hallowed” or “trespasses.” To finish the point, the Bible gets into us; and, as Christians, that’s what we want—but we do want it to be true to what God intended. For many Christians, the KJV somewhat set the standard due to its first-to-market status, market share, and longevity in the marketplace. It sort of established a precedent that remained for hundreds of years. As we know, it is often difficult to make changes to the status quo; and the KJV became the Bible of record, if you will.

Therefore, when we embrace a biased translation of a verse (including its punctuation and sentence structure)—“a lemon,” if you will—we have self-indoctrinated an understanding that is not actually according to God’s Word, but simply one that is according to what the translators thought at the time. (In this regard, keep in mind that members of the Local Church dutifully penned the changes in their KJV Bibles that Witness Lee dictated until the 1980s, at which time he was able to publish his own version.)

Many readers probably know Bible history facts better than I do. I am just asking all readers to consider the impact that the KJV has had on our Christian culture and how we view the Christian community and our places in it as a result.

Is there male gender bias in the KJV?

Recently, on this forum, three different threads have in some way touched on the issue of male gender bias in the Bible: “Women’s Role,” “A Woman of Chayil …,” and “New Jane Anderson Website.” I would like to address this question: “Is there male gender bias in the KJV Bible?” To keep things more manageable, I will try to keep the KJV as the touchstone, since it has had such a tremendous impact on our Christian culture, almost like it’s in our DNA, that is, at least for those of us who were reading our Bibles fifty years ago or so.

An objective person, let’s say, a non-Christian who knows nothing more about the Bible than having seen an end-zone banner with “John 3:16” on it, would probably grant that there was, indeed, male bias in the KJV translation when given one simple fact: There were no women on the KJV translation committee. I would, therefore, conclude that gender bias, regardless how small, would be self-evident to an intelligent, logical person.

As a side note to those who would say that there are now women on translation committees and that that should solve the problem, consider these things: How would you like to be the one woman in the room (or in the review group) who has to try to point out to all the males that the translation that they have been agreeing with probably most of their adult lives might not be accurate in this regard? I don’t state this as proof that there is still gender bias in all newer translations; I state it to show that it is not so simple to uncover and stand up against gender bias as some would have us believe. The other comment I’d make is that portions of the Bible would, I would think, get divided up among the translation participants, so we don’t even know if one of the women got to see any particular passage, unless, of course, that information has been made available. In the same vein, if a woman’s specialty is Greek, she most likely wouldn’t be commenting on Genesis 3:16. These are just a few quick thoughts that came to me when reading some of the superficial claims made earlier; and, as I wrote previously, I won’t spend time going into the details.

In the final analysis, I don’t plan to get bogged down discussing how many women were on any particular translation committee. First, the fact is that there were no women on the precedent-establishing KJV committee; and, second, proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men. Jane, in fact, wrote that there are women who are solidly in the traditional camp, holding to what is referred to as a complementarian or patriarchal position. The writings of these women, in fact, might agree largely with what I understand of Evangelical’s position.

09-04-2017, 11:29 AM	#78
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	Setting the Stage for Male Gender Bias Before presenting one lemon that was likely caused by male gender bias, I will try to focus us because of all of the distractions. This may help posters and readers to be on the same page, at least to start, as regards my posts here. Brief history of the King James version As I understand it, generally speaking, the King James version (KJV) was about the only version of the Bible in English available to the general populace for hundreds of years. As such, it held sway over the English-speaking world for maybe 300 years or so, even being referred to as the Authorized Version. In fact, there are still a number of Christians today that believe that the KJV is the best version and that the newer ones are adulterated. Impact of the King James version Also, most have heard that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time. Until the newer translations, the KJV was in this position of authority. Most have also heard that the Bible is the most quoted book in all of literature, which would be applicable to the KJV until the newer versions. The point is that the KJV has had a huge impact on our culture, both Christian and secular. In my generation, we memorized the so-called Lord’s prayer, complete with its “Thy’s” and “Thine,” and recited it in unison, even though I didn’t know the meaning of “hallowed” or “trespasses.” To finish the point, the Bible gets into us; and, as Christians, that’s what we want—but we do want it to be true to what God intended. For many Christians, the KJV somewhat set the standard due to its first-to-market status, market share, and longevity in the marketplace. It sort of established a precedent that remained for hundreds of years. As we know, it is often difficult to make changes to the status quo; and the KJV became the Bible of record, if you will. Therefore, when we embrace a biased translation of a verse (including its punctuation and sentence structure)—“a lemon,” if you will—we have self-indoctrinated an understanding that is not actually according to God’s Word, but simply one that is according to what the translators thought at the time. (In this regard, keep in mind that members of the Local Church dutifully penned the changes in their KJV Bibles that Witness Lee dictated until the 1980s, at which time he was able to publish his own version.) Many readers probably know Bible history facts better than I do. I am just asking all readers to consider the impact that the KJV has had on our Christian culture and how we view the Christian community and our places in it as a result. Is there male gender bias in the KJV? Recently, on this forum, three different threads have in some way touched on the issue of male gender bias in the Bible: “Women’s Role,” “A Woman of Chayil …,” and “New Jane Anderson Website.” I would like to address this question: “Is there male gender bias in the KJV Bible?” To keep things more manageable, I will try to keep the KJV as the touchstone, since it has had such a tremendous impact on our Christian culture, almost like it’s in our DNA, that is, at least for those of us who were reading our Bibles fifty years ago or so. An objective person, let’s say, a non-Christian who knows nothing more about the Bible than having seen an end-zone banner with “John 3:16” on it, would probably grant that there was, indeed, male bias in the KJV translation when given one simple fact: There were no women on the KJV translation committee. I would, therefore, conclude that gender bias, regardless how small, would be self-evident to an intelligent, logical person. As a side note to those who would say that there are now women on translation committees and that that should solve the problem, consider these things: How would you like to be the one woman in the room (or in the review group) who has to try to point out to all the males that the translation that they have been agreeing with probably most of their adult lives might not be accurate in this regard? I don’t state this as proof that there is still gender bias in all newer translations; I state it to show that it is not so simple to uncover and stand up against gender bias as some would have us believe. The other comment I’d make is that portions of the Bible would, I would think, get divided up among the translation participants, so we don’t even know if one of the women got to see any particular passage, unless, of course, that information has been made available. In the same vein, if a woman’s specialty is Greek, she most likely wouldn’t be commenting on Genesis 3:16. These are just a few quick thoughts that came to me when reading some of the superficial claims made earlier; and, as I wrote previously, I won’t spend time going into the details. In the final analysis, I don’t plan to get bogged down discussing how many women were on any particular translation committee. First, the fact is that there were no women on the precedent-establishing KJV committee; and, second, proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men. Jane, in fact, wrote that there are women who are solidly in the traditional camp, holding to what is referred to as a complementarian or patriarchal position. The writings of these women, in fact, might agree largely with what I understand of Evangelical’s position.