Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Bushnell was wrong about there not being feminine translators.
The year Bushnell was born, 1855, Julia E. Smith Parker translated the Bible. It was considered the first complete translation of the Bible by a female :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_...er_Translation |
Her credentials are just as good as Bushnell's and she followed a strictly literal translation, staying true to the original texts:
Julia Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut had a working knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Her father had been a Congregationalist minister before he became a lawyer. Having read the Bible in its original languages, she set about creating her own translation, which she completed in 1855, after a number of drafts. The work is a strictly literal rendering, always translating a Greek or Hebrew word with the same word wherever possible.
A full version online is found at:
http://studybible.info/JuliaSmith/Genesis%203
She was obviously corrupted by inborn/natural male bias because this is how she translates Gen 3:16
Gen 3:16
To the woman he said, Multiplying, I will multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and to thy husband thy desire, and he shall rule over thee
No different from the KJV and other "male biased" translations.
This is why Bushnell's arguments about male bias are basically nonsense - they have not been able to show any examples of female-influenced bible versions that are free from their "male bias". Females such as Smith translated it faithfully, even too literally, according to the original text and it still disagrees with Bushnell's view.