Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Off Topic. Move on.
-
|
Right on. So back to the translators. Can Jane and/or Bushnell point us to an unbiased translation? I've got about 50 translations at my finger tips. Which one is the unbiased one? Or is there another one that I haven't found yet, that's completely unbiased?
Methinks that between the mass of translations we, that are said to be biased, and Bushnell's and Jane's take on the women verses, we've got nothing short of a battle of biases.
And both come from the lens that the Bible is inerrant, and any problem or inerrancy comes from the translators.
Seems to me then, we should eliminate those middlemen, and go to the source ourselves. Then we'll run into a problem of which manuscript we take from ... a huge problem for all translators.
I posit that Bushnell was an egalitarian, who fought for women's rights, and saw thru those lenses. And that biased her.
But still, I shout : Thank you Bushnell. Cuz once the cat was out of the bag, secularism picked up the cause, made an end run around the Bible, and has come a long way at making women equal. True, women today don't make the same pay as men. But secularism is working on that too.
And our modern secular world today, here in America, allows us to meet, or assemble as a church, any way we wish. If some want to gather, and blindly follow corrupted translations of the Bible, and keep women silent, they have the freedom to do so. That doesn't make them any less Christian. And in our modern secular world women don't have to go to those churches.
And if believers don't like churches, like Lee's Recovery, that don't allow women leaders, they don't have to go to those churches. We're free. Women are free. Amen.