Quote:
Originally Posted by John
[*]Another poster thinks, I guess, that if something is repeated often enough that people will eventually believe it. If you want to know what Katharine Bushnell and Jane Anderson think, you will have to read their books. If you believe what you read on this thread from others about what Jane and Katharine wrote … well, let’s just say that you will be left with a twisted, inaccurate presentation. I finally got tired of reading about the hermaphrodite view that Bushnell and Jane supposedly believe in. Here is what Bushnell states in her book:[/LIST] We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family. (God’s Word to Women, para. 41) [underline added]
She wrote, “possible.” Katharine does not have a stated belief in the hermaphrodite, and Jane does not even mention it at all! If you are going to post with integrity, you should accurately reflect what someone wrote. By the way, this thread is supposed to be about Jane’s work, not Katharine’s. Although posting about Bushnell is not a bad thing, to do it to associate her with Jane in order to try to discredit Jane is wrong; or, to do it just to avoid engaging with Jane’s presentation is also wrong. |
Appreciate you taking the time to clarify the difference between Bushnell and Jane. I did not get the sense that Jane believed in Bushnell's hermaphrodite theories, but Bushnell uses those theories to advance some of her arguments about what took place in Genesis, and you have put forward Bushnell's book and Jane's book together, so you may be able to understand why Bushnell and Jane's book have been considered together, and concerns raised about it.
One point of difference between Bushnell and Jane may be that Bushnell presented the hermaphrodite thing to advance her argument that Eve was not taken from Adam's side. I am wondering if Jane believes Eve came from Adam's rib? I'm guessing yes if she does not support Bushnell's proposition of Adam's hmm hermaphroditeness...hermaphroditity?
Bushnell seemed to doubt the bible's statement that Eve came from Adam's side:
The Bible is not a treatise on science, but wherever rightly translated it is found not to
contradict science. Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve
was made from a single bone taken from Adam's body. We have already (par. 24, and
Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the
human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the
present time within the human family.
Bushnell seems supportive of the view that Adam was a hermaphrodite, that's why she presented it in the first place. If one postulates that something is possible then that is a stated belief in that possibility which amounts to a belief. Whichever way you try to justify it, Katharine entertained the possibility that Adam was hermaphrodite, to achieve support for her fantastical spin on the Garden of Eden story.
You've presented Bushnell's work and Jane's together in numerous places, and Jane did not clearly distinguish her views from Bushnell's it would seem. Did Jane ever state that Bushnell was wrong about the hermaphrodite thing? If not then her views are implicitly tied to it, because if Jane accepts Bushnell's view about the Garden of Eden, she implicitly accepts whatever support Bushnell had for those arguments as well. You have encouraged people to read either Katharines or Janes book almost as if they are sequels.
These are some quotes from you where you have associated Bushnell and Jane's work together:
There is a lot more that I could say about this; but, I will just recommend God’s Word to Women for more detail, since Katharine Bushnell describes it in great detail.
"
The poster needs to spend thoughtful and prayerful time on Katharine’s or Jane’s book, or both"
"
Persevere with her book, or Katharine’s"
If Jane accepts Bushnell's views on the Garden of Eden and presents them in her book, then implicitly she accepts what Bushnell has presented for support of those arguments, as well, such as Adam being a hermaphrodite. Jane seems to draw heavily from Bushnell in her sources, citing her opinions as givens. But this hermaphrodite example shows that Bushnell's opinions were not always solid, which casts doubt on her credibility as a scholar, and invariably ties Jane's views to those views as well if she ever refers to them in her book.