Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Evangelical · 09-04-2017, 06:56 PM

I find it interesting that John is trying to argue the case from his idea of what a non-Christian would say, citing them as "objective people" . Would objective intellectual people believe Bushnell over modern day female professors and experts in ancient Greek/Hebrew? Being non-Christians, would they even care? Would objective people discount my previous analysis on how verses are translated and the gender of the translators? I think objective people would appreciate the additional information I provided.

I think that all-male committees may have gender bias, regardless how small. But we are not talking about a little bit of gender bias here, but more of a conspiracy that Satan used the male-bias in men to mistranslate 46 verses (no small number) of the bible which has permeated a majority 99% of the bible versions we use today, and for which, no female experts in Hebrew or Greek have picked up on, despite being involved in the translation to some degree.

Given that it is the year 2017 and not 1960, I don't think that John's view that it would be hard for women on translation committees has much weight. The women involved are experts, some Professors of Hebrew/Greek in their own right and having attained to such a position, surely are not the "precious flowers" John implies they are. What's the probability of Bushnell being correct given that all women of the many different translation committees have not influenced the translation in support of Bushnell's view?

By John stating "proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men" he has basically just lost the argument because it admits that a certain gender on the committee does not really prove that the translation is biased.

When Jane writes

""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by all-male translation committees" it may not be the case.

There are possibly a 100 different other reasons why things are translated the way they are. It would have helped the case perhaps, to omit speculation about the cause being male gender bias, and just focus on what the proper translation should be.

It does not change the meaning whatsoever if it was written something without referring to gender:

""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by bad translation committees"

I think in this day and age, to refer to anything as being caused by one gender or another could be considered gender discrimination:

e.g. "My mathematics textbook has errors in it because all of the author's were male".

I just don't see the correlation between translation accuracy and gender if both male and female are trained to the same high degree in their profession.

09-04-2017, 06:56 PM	#90
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: New Jane Anderson Website I find it interesting that John is trying to argue the case from his idea of what a non-Christian would say, citing them as "objective people" . Would objective intellectual people believe Bushnell over modern day female professors and experts in ancient Greek/Hebrew? Being non-Christians, would they even care? Would objective people discount my previous analysis on how verses are translated and the gender of the translators? I think objective people would appreciate the additional information I provided. I think that all-male committees may have gender bias, regardless how small. But we are not talking about a little bit of gender bias here, but more of a conspiracy that Satan used the male-bias in men to mistranslate 46 verses (no small number) of the bible which has permeated a majority 99% of the bible versions we use today, and for which, no female experts in Hebrew or Greek have picked up on, despite being involved in the translation to some degree. Given that it is the year 2017 and not 1960, I don't think that John's view that it would be hard for women on translation committees has much weight. The women involved are experts, some Professors of Hebrew/Greek in their own right and having attained to such a position, surely are not the "precious flowers" John implies they are. What's the probability of Bushnell being correct given that all women of the many different translation committees have not influenced the translation in support of Bushnell's view? By John stating "proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men" he has basically just lost the argument because it admits that a certain gender on the committee does not really prove that the translation is biased. When Jane writes ""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by all-male translation committees" it may not be the case. There are possibly a 100 different other reasons why things are translated the way they are. It would have helped the case perhaps, to omit speculation about the cause being male gender bias, and just focus on what the proper translation should be. It does not change the meaning whatsoever if it was written something without referring to gender: ""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by bad translation committees" I think in this day and age, to refer to anything as being caused by one gender or another could be considered gender discrimination: e.g. "My mathematics textbook has errors in it because all of the author's were male". I just don't see the correlation between translation accuracy and gender if both male and female are trained to the same high degree in their profession.