Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Evangelical · 09-04-2017, 04:54 PM

Bushnell, etc believe in an unsupported claim, a conspiracy rather, that the KJV and other translations were or are affected by Satan-inspired male-bias.

There are two questionable ideas in this conspiracy:

(1) That the translator's of the bible were affected by Satan-inspired male bias

(2) That the translation of the bible is somehow responsible for the problem of gender discrimination and that correcting the translation will fix the problem.

That it is a conspiracy is somewhat demonstrated by John's previous post where he wants me to "admit more" on the basis of ignorance:

Oh, wait a minute, in some of his later posts, I see that he is actually admitting that Jane could be right regarding the translation in Genesis 3:16 (“turning”). Although he grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of the translation change, he still doesn’t want to admit to more.

I did not "want to admit more" because I have found there is nothing more to admit and there is not provided enough evidence to convince.

Further, WHY do I (or anyone) have to ADMIT MORE? Egalitarians are quite capable of making a biblical argument in support of women without resorting to a Satan-male-bias conspiracy theory.
I think there is little correlation between the male-bias of the translators and how one interprets the verse. Are the conspiracy theorists so naive as to think that male-bias exists only in the translators and not in the readers?

Rather, I have found:

(1) No apparent correlation between bible translator gender and rendering of the word teshuqa in Genesis 3:16. In fact, all-male translation committees have translated the word in favor of Bushnell's view before.

This somewhat dilutes Bushnell's assumption that translators were biased simply for being male.

(2) Rendering teshuqa as "desire" which Bushnell et al disagrees with is found predominantly in the bibles of the Western churches.

In the early Greek translations from the Hebrew, apparently they translate teshuqa as "turning" in the Greek, which favors Bushnell's view, yet the Eastern churches are no less patriarchal than the West.
This somewhat dilutes a view that the translation of a single word in Genesis 3:16 is responsible for patriarchy in the church and that resolving this translation issue will fix the problem.

From here:
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/phys...sis/3.asp?pg=2

Yet in Greek, the word is ἀποστροφή meaning "turning".

The translation from Greek to English is "and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

Perhaps this translation from "turning" to "submission" is another conspiracy theory all on its own.

Now if we exam further the first part of the conspiracy (1).

The first is that Satan "inspired" or even translated himself, the Scripture, using man's "innate male bias".

"innate male bias" to me seems to be just a fancy term that Bushnell thought of which doesn't mean anything really. It just means "being a man", because the word innate means "inborn; natural".

I can see how it would be better for her to use this term than to write what it really means:

"Parts of the bible were translated by Satan because all the translators were men".

We can see how John places his trust in the Spirit in Jane:

When I am reading Jane’s writings, it seems that she is always referencing her relationship with the Lord and how she contacts Him for guidance in her Bible study. (She has even been disparaged for this; apparently, it’s not scholarly enough. Katharine Bushnell was even criticized for noticing cultural bias in the Chinese translation and starting with that; apparently, some have not heard of or thought of inductive reasoning.)

But does not consider that the 60 men who translated the KJV were craving the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer as they did their work:

They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work.

Finally, I just realized something ironic:

The "conspiracy theorists" ( for lack of a better word, until they can start providing evidence), believe "there is no male nor female in Christ" where it concerns female leadership.

But when it concerns the translation of the Bible it's all about those male-biased translators isn't it?

In other words, the folk that don't want to make much fuss about gender in the church, sure make a big deal out of it when it's about bible translations.

09-04-2017, 04:54 PM	#84
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Where's the evidence? Bushnell, etc believe in an unsupported claim, a conspiracy rather, that the KJV and other translations were or are affected by Satan-inspired male-bias. There are two questionable ideas in this conspiracy: (1) That the translator's of the bible were affected by Satan-inspired male bias (2) That the translation of the bible is somehow responsible for the problem of gender discrimination and that correcting the translation will fix the problem. That it is a conspiracy is somewhat demonstrated by John's previous post where he wants me to "admit more" on the basis of ignorance: Oh, wait a minute, in some of his later posts, I see that he is actually admitting that Jane could be right regarding the translation in Genesis 3:16 (“turning”). Although he grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of the translation change, he still doesn’t want to admit to more. I did not "want to admit more" because I have found there is nothing more to admit and there is not provided enough evidence to convince. Further, WHY do I (or anyone) have to ADMIT MORE? Egalitarians are quite capable of making a biblical argument in support of women without resorting to a Satan-male-bias conspiracy theory. I think there is little correlation between the male-bias of the translators and how one interprets the verse. Are the conspiracy theorists so naive as to think that male-bias exists only in the translators and not in the readers? Rather, I have found: (1) No apparent correlation between bible translator gender and rendering of the word teshuqa in Genesis 3:16. In fact, all-male translation committees have translated the word in favor of Bushnell's view before. This somewhat dilutes Bushnell's assumption that translators were biased simply for being male. (2) Rendering teshuqa as "desire" which Bushnell et al disagrees with is found predominantly in the bibles of the Western churches. In the early Greek translations from the Hebrew, apparently they translate teshuqa as "turning" in the Greek, which favors Bushnell's view, yet the Eastern churches are no less patriarchal than the West. This somewhat dilutes a view that the translation of a single word in Genesis 3:16 is responsible for patriarchy in the church and that resolving this translation issue will fix the problem. From here: https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/phys...sis/3.asp?pg=2 Yet in Greek, the word is ἀποστροφή meaning "turning". The translation from Greek to English is "and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". Perhaps this translation from "turning" to "submission" is another conspiracy theory all on its own. Now if we exam further the first part of the conspiracy (1). The first is that Satan "inspired" or even translated himself, the Scripture, using man's "innate male bias". "innate male bias" to me seems to be just a fancy term that Bushnell thought of which doesn't mean anything really. It just means "being a man", because the word innate means "inborn; natural". I can see how it would be better for her to use this term than to write what it really means: "Parts of the bible were translated by Satan because all the translators were men". We can see how John places his trust in the Spirit in Jane: When I am reading Jane’s writings, it seems that she is always referencing her relationship with the Lord and how she contacts Him for guidance in her Bible study. (She has even been disparaged for this; apparently, it’s not scholarly enough. Katharine Bushnell was even criticized for noticing cultural bias in the Chinese translation and starting with that; apparently, some have not heard of or thought of inductive reasoning.) But does not consider that the 60 men who translated the KJV were craving the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer as they did their work: They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work. Finally, I just realized something ironic: The "conspiracy theorists" ( for lack of a better word, until they can start providing evidence), believe "there is no male nor female in Christ" where it concerns female leadership. But when it concerns the translation of the Bible it's all about those male-biased translators isn't it? In other words, the folk that don't want to make much fuss about gender in the church, sure make a big deal out of it when it's about bible translations.