[Drake]

Post #57

Nell,

If you prefer to repeat Jane's teaching in your posts that is fine with me, however, you don't need to do it for my sake. For I agree that Satan is attacking women, and that he deceived Eve by his "Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God" as JP Lewis succinctly stated (I'll come back to this point shortly). Eve and women were not cursed, rather it was the serpent that was cursed. Women are not inferior, neither are they less then men. Of course Satan seeks revenge on women and wants to attack her promised Seed and could, if successful, exact a revenge on women as you suggest here... "Satan working through male biased translators" would be a master stroke."

But that is not really relevant because the question is not "would it" be a master stroke, but rather "was it?". Or to bring it current in our conversation... is it?

That is where I part with Jane Anderson and you on in this topic. You present a hypothetical about what would be a Satanic master stroke and then search for evidence to support the hypothetical in a very dangerous way , that is, by adjusting scripture to fit the theory, in this case Genesis 3:16. I say dangerous because anyone can do that about anything and there is no end to it.. it becomes the proverbial slippery slope yet with the Word of God and that is very dangerous.

An example of rewriting scripture to fit the narrative is found in the writings of Bart Ehrman (this is the same Bart that got his hat blown off by UntoHim when awareness brought Bart to the party through the front door a few posts back. This is why I asked to leave those posts as part of our conversation now). Here is the summary on Amazon about the book "Misquoting Jesus":

"For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions. Religious and biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes."

Now you don't agree with Bart, I don't, Jane does not, UntoHim already threw Bart and his shot up hat out into the street.... only awareness seemingly agrees with Bart (yet frankly I have my doubts that he really does, and suspect our brother entertains by being provocative).However, any doctrine, teaching, belief can be justified once you start down that path. What Jane Anderson is doing is what Bart is doing. Same method, same approach, different topics.

Finally, on the ""Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God". Examining that incident carefully reveals that the Satan deceived the woman by suggesting a different version of what God really said or meant. "Did God really say this or that? Is that what God meant?" Jane argues that happened again when Satan used male biased translators to change the true meaning of Genesis 3:16. However, it is just as plausible, and I would argue more plausible, that Jane and you are falling for the same Satanic trick he used on Eve by misinterpreting the scripture to fit your hypothetical. The burden of proof is on Jane and you to demonstrate there was male-bias written into the Word of God by translators. It is not enough to present the hypothetical, theories, suggestions, could be, might be when it comes to the Word of God... the believer's standard must be higher. Much higher. Evangelical analyzed the translations and the gender composition of those teams and made a compelling case for there being no male bias.

Drake