[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

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.

The translation, as presented by John in this post is:

Originally Posted by John

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.

She also quotes the International Standard Version to support this. They translate this portion “your trust is turning toward your husband”

Turning away to / Turn to / turning toward. You can claim that the word “away” is the most important word in the new translation, but it also seems like the word least supported by any other translation. I can see that the word desire towards could have male bias, I can also see that the word “turning to” is a viable and perhaps a more valid translation. But if you change “desire towards” to “turning away to” then that is a major change that needs more academic support than simply Bushnell. The only support Jane gives is a version that does not include “away” but rather says “turning toward”. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the use of “away”. This is my opinion, you clearly have your own and are free to it. Calling me deceptive is insulting. I was responding to Nell’s question about the translation. I don’t reject substituting “turning to” for “desire towards” or even “turning toward”.

This was quoted from Bushnell’s book on Jane’s website: “A seemingly small, but very critical, change to the meaning of one word in this verse took place in a sixteenth century translation. This change made it possible to conceal the most likely scenario of what happened during and immediately after man’s fall.” I was responding to Nell's question about the translation and It is this change that I focused my response to.

Originally Posted by John

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.

Jane refers to Bushnell “She [Bushnell] also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden. It does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it.”

Now I understand this to mean that Eve was not held responsible. Perhaps this is not what Jane meant when she put it in her blog, but it is the way it was understood. Perhaps she would like to clarify. Anyway, I disagree with this as well. Jesus said “What God has joined together let no man separate” referring to Adam and Eve. Hence, when Adam was driven from the garden so was Eve, they were a unit. This is supported in chapter 5 of Genesis where it says that God created man, male and female created He them, and He called their name Adam”.

I was surprised by this post. It appears to have involved a thoughtful response that he may have thought about for several days, yet on the other hand it is very insulting. You ask for feedback on the translation, so I take the time to do that, never again.

My post is "deceptive" because "she stated it should be "turning", not "turn to". Yet what she actually wrote was "turning away to" and provided a second version that said "turning toward".

John says "Jane did not write what he states that she did." Referring to my statement that the woman was not held accountable for her actions. What Jane did write in her blog was "She [Bushnell] also noted that nowhere does the scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden." I refute this saying that Adam and Eve were joined together by God, they were not to be separated, and that when God created man He created them male and female and called their name Adam. Regardless of what she meant by writing that God did not put Eve out of the garden, I reject it based on the reasoning I wrote.