Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".
However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.
We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.
So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.
In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.
Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".
Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.
|
Before I can press forward with new writing, I need to address a post on the thread from a few days ago. After reading it, I realized that I should reply in some detail because it is so deceptive. Let’s go bit by bit and look into it. I mean, it does look like an analysis, after all:
If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".
Alarm bells sound in my head: First, the poster is wrong about what Jane stated. She stated that it should be “turning,” not “turn to.” This causes me to question whether or not the poster even read or paid much attention to what Jane wrote. In my mind, this kind of carelessness alone would bring a serious reduction in grade if submitted in college.
However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.
The verse does talk about childbirth and childrearing, but this does not establish the whole context for God’s speaking to the woman. (To speak about the context within one verse is more than just a little odd.) The poster goes into biology to add, I suppose, what he thinks will give an aura of authenticity to his argument. Then, based on what he has stated about part of the verse, he proceeds to tell us what the context is, and then punctuate it by stating that it is a fact, signifying, I guess, that his proclamation is beyond debate, based on the “context” of a few sentences in one verse.
Let me show the verse translation by Bushnell which Jane uses, and see for yourself if the whole context is about childbearing:
Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased thy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.
I suppose that the poster thinks that he has gotten readers to believe that the entire “context” of the verse is only about birthing and rearing children. I am definitely not convinced about his assertion as to the topic. Anyhow, he continues:
We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.
He continues his talk about childrearing. I guess that he is still trying to convince us that the topic is about how to birth and rear children, even bringing in a social comment about poor women having to rear children by themselves.
Then, somehow, I guess with his thinking that God’s whole reason for talking to the woman was so that she would realize how she was going to give birth to and rear children, he concludes that the warning to the woman doesn’t make sense:
So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.
Interesting reasoning, his: Claim that the context of one verse is what
he thinks it is, claim that it is a fact, throw in some biology and sociology, and then conclude that Jane’s conclusion doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t fit into his supposed “context” within that verse.
I would say that his analysis and conclusion don’t make sense. By this time, I am wondering exactly what he actually read in Jane’s book. He seems to be writing his own narrative about what he thinks the verse means and stating that a re-translation isn’t necessary, implying that the one Jane offers (by Bushnell) doesn’t make sense.
Actually, the translation changes are huge in their import, affecting all of humankind. The most charitable thing I can write is that he needs to read Jane’s text about Genesis again—all of it. Read it slowly and think and pray about it.
After reading what comes next, I lose what little respect I might have had for this post:
In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.
Jane did not write what he states that she did. This is coming from his imagination, I suppose. What Jane did was to quote the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12, 14–15, and 17. Paul is the one who blamed the Fall on Adam; Jane simply agreed with Paul. The poster leaps from the idea that he has invented to state that Jane said that the woman was not responsible for her actions! This is an astoundingly twisted representation of what Jane wrote.
After losing the little respect I had, I wonder what else will spring forth. Amazingly, it gets worse:
Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".
First, Jane does not even write about Genesis 5! Think about it. The second quoted sentence above is a total fabrication! I read about one poster who couldn’t trust Bushnell because she supposedly believed in the hermaphrodite (which she doesn’t); I wonder what trust he would have in someone who makes up something and attributes it to someone who doesn’t even write about it at all?
What I just wrote should give anyone pause about trusting any posts from this source; but, that's not all: In the first sentence of what I just quoted from him, he also falsely claimed that Jane said that the woman was never banished from the garden. Since he doesn’t tell us from where he got this notion, I will supply the portion to which he
may be referring:
Just as a small finger held up between the eye and the sun can completely block the orb of the sun from view, the one word change from “turning” to “desire” has blocked a proper understanding of the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. The word “turning” in Genesis 3:16 reveals that it was Eve's choice to “turn” from God to Adam. This reference to her turning to him may mean that she was not driven out of the garden with Adam, but that she chose to follow him out. Regardless, in this verse, God was warning Eve that, because of her turning to Adam, Adam would rule over her. Rather than a command for the man to rule over woman, this was a warning to Eve of what was going to happen to her as a consequence of her choice. Whether she went out of the garden of her own volition or not, it is clear that God saw her turning away from Him to Adam and warned her of the danger of doing this. (A Woman of Chayil, 46–47) [underline added]
May I call the poster’s attention to the word, “may”? In layman’s terms, “may” means that it is possible, not definite.
Finally, we come to his last paragraph:
Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.
Honestly, I had to read this last sentence more than five times before I could even make any sense of what he was trying to say. I have read Bushnell’s book, and she states something to the effect that the inaccurate translation of this verse, Genesis 3:16, is the foundation for much of the misunderstanding of God’s view of women. If you don’t get this, you won’t get much; and this poster hasn’t gotten it. The poster needs to spend thoughtful and prayerful time on Katharine’s or Jane’s book, or both, and not be prejudiced by thinking and proclaiming that Genesis 3:16 is all about child bearing.
I hope that I have shown to the reader’s satisfaction that the entire supposed analysis by this poster presents a false impression of Jane’s writing. Why he wrote such things only he knows. I would think that the poster knows that anyone writing even one or two such misstatements would deserve a grade of “F,” if not to be kicked out of an upper-division college program altogether.
Note: Now that I’ve finished with my analysis, I feel like I have just wasted my time—unless some have seen by my effort that, yet again, people misrepresent Jane’s writing on this forum (even stating blatant falsehoods)—some purposefully, some probably unconsciously. I’m going to repeat that if you want to know what Jane thinks, you’re going to have to actually read her book. If my tone seems a little harsh, I guess that I am just disappointed and upset to find a post that appears to be a thoughtful analysis only to be found to be masquerading as one.
I hope that I don’t come across as a know-it-all, because I definitely do not know all that much. I also hope that my language hasn’t been too over the top; I’m just hoping to get posters to pay more attention to what they write and to take a little more time posting factually and accurately. After all, this is a Christian forum: We are not to bear false witness, and we will be held accountable for every idle word. I hope that this poster will write an apology and retraction, because that is all that I am willing to read from him.
Lord, I’ve got to go back to just skimming posts, because this is just sad and depressing. So, to preserve my sanity, maintain my standards, and shepherd my time, I’m going to be ignoring as much of this kind of nonsense as I can in the future. To that end, I will not even pay attention to future posts that claim to write what Jane wrote unless her words, quoted exactly as they appear in the book, are indented, and preceded and followed by blank lines. This still does not mean that I will respond to every post, even if quoted portions are treated as specified. (I see that the same poster has since written more on this thread since his post #165 that I have quoted from and analyzed, but I am not taking his new posts into account; and, I will not be taking them into account for the reasons given.)
In full disclosure and maybe to soften the blow a little (male egos can be easily bruised), I initially had some trouble realizing the import of the translation changes to Genesis 3:16. I had to spend time thinking about it and re-reading appropriate portions before I really got it, and I probably don’t really get the full impact of it.
By the way, the translation changes discussed in this post relate to one verse; however, there are really several changes to the one verse, which you probably won’t appreciate without reading about all of them, and all are important. These things have not been presented in this thread yet.
I do not intend to rewrite Jane’s book to try to make her points. Persevere with her book, or Katharine’s, and you may eventually get more of the impact of the translation changes. And, keep in mind, we are only talking in this post about one verse that has had a huge negative impact on women; there are others that have had a negative impact as well, although this one is considered to be the “The Big Lemon.”