A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Nell]

A new book by Thankful Jane (Jane Carole Anderson) is available today (Nov. 24, 2016) on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXQ62M2...arole+anderson

Nell

[Evangelical]

Just reading the outline of the book. I don't think men abuse women because of their Bible translations. Men will surely use these bible passages to justify, but changing the passages will not change their heart. I think it is a human problem and man "ruling over woman" was one of God's curses on Eve. It is a male vs female issue that transcends religious belief. The fact is there are men who abuse women. Some of these men are Christian, some are Muslim, some are atheist etc. I would think that in general Christian men, in general, are far kinder to women than non-Christian men (particularly Muslim etc).

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just reading the outline of the book. I don't think men abuse women because of their Bible translations. Men will surely use these bible passages to justify, but changing the passages will not change their heart. I think it is a human problem and man "ruling over woman" was one of God's curses on Eve. It is a male vs female issue that transcends religious belief. The fact is there are men who abuse women. Some of these men are Christian, some are Muslim, some are atheist etc. I would think that in general Christian men, in general, are far kinder to women than non-Christian men (particularly Muslim etc).

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

[TLFisher]

By no means do I feel abuse of women is comprehensive in society.
I've known brothers whose approach towards marriage life having tendencies towards abuse and others who aren't.
Does one as a brother feel that his spouse's feeling and opinion bear no weight? That's a brother who tends to lord over his wife.
Does a brother listen and value his spouse's feelings and opinion? That's a brother likely to have an Ephesians 5 view towards his own marriage. From personal experience I was raised in a home I never heard my father raise his voice at my mother. My father never called her names. He never expressed any temper at my mother. Though there were many opportunities he could have. My father never did.
General I have felt in the local churches sisters have been devalued. Sure, it's encouraged for sisters to speak and exercise their spirit in prophesying meetings. However if a sister or sisters feel there's too much emphasis on the ministry and not enough on the family, you can expect a condescending word from elders and responsible brothers. One I've heard from RK in many a message.
There's a big disconnect with brothers and sisters. Brothers are ministry oriented. Jockeying for position who's going to be first among the disciples. Sisters are Christ oriented. Just like Mary, they're lovers of Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

There's a big disconnect with brothers and sisters. Brothers are ministry oriented. Jockeying for position who's going to be first among the disciples. Sisters are Christ oriented. Just like Mary, they're lovers of Jesus.

In general, perhaps. But I know of women who are jockeying for positions in the church as well, in denominations. And don't forget the scheming mothers or wives behind the scenes, the ones pushing their sons or husbands to achieve greatness.

[Nell]

The Message of this Book

Through time spent at His feet and many experiences over the years, God has fine-tuned for me a biblical truth that is foundational for the message of this book: God requires us to do our part in having and maintaining right relationships with Him and with others in the body of Christ. Offenses among believers must always be biblically addressed with the goal of reconciliation. When they are not, the parties involved are left with broken relationships with each other. Our heavenly Father is not pleased when there are such problems in His family. He considers failure to address such relational offenses to be sin. His Word requires that all believers involved in any relational conflict, whether they be victim or perpetrator, take biblical steps to remove the offense. Failure to do so leaves the unaddressed offense like a spiritual cancer in the body of Christ. It silently grows and gradually spreads. It interferes with the normal function of the body and brings death. Prayers go unanswered because ongoing sin among God’s people always hinders God’s answers to their prayers (Isa. 59).

A Woman of Chayil [khah’-yil] takes an in-depth look at a huge, long-term relational sin in the body of Christ. This sin has gone basically unidentified, unrecognized, and unaddressed. This spiritual cancer began at the time of the Fall and has been growing and metastasizing among human beings for several millennia. In the Body of Christ, it is found in the improper relationship that exists between Christian women and Christian men. Since the early beginnings of the church, the devil has been able to use Christian men who hold errant beliefs to carry out his hatred of women, hatred which began at the time of the Fall, by stifling, subduing, and abusing them under the mantle of male authority. Christian women also have been used to silently enable abusive men and, thereby, perpetuate their own mistreatment. Thus, both genders are responsible for the cancerous state of affairs that has hindered and blocked much needed answers to the prayers of the body of Christ. Both genders are responsible for grieving the Holy Spirit and frustrating the work of the Holy Spirit on the earth.

I believe that when both men and women begin to acknowledge and correct the part they each play in the perpetuation of this great offense, healing will begin. The church and the earth will begin to experience a fresh outpouring of spiritual life. There will be a spiritual revival the likes of which have never been seen. Such a revival is certainly needed in the times in which we live.

I am not a feminist. I am a free woman in Christ. I have written this book from my perspective as a Christian woman who spent many years in enabling silence, having been subdued and suppressed by numerous Christian men. I have since learned to a large degree to overcome my sin of enabling my fellow believers. Enabling comes naturally to many women and thus remains unidentified as a sin. It is fitting that I do my part to help other women recognize this sin and learn how, by walking with Christ, to end their silence and stop enabling the Christian men who sin against them. In this way they will begin to do what God requires of them towards the removal of a deadly spiritual cancer from the body of Christ.

A Controversial Topic

In many Christian circles, women cannot speak about the subject of this book without facing criticism, opposition, and even shaming from those who have historically played a major role in silencing them. For Christian women to break silence and question the validity of their traditionally-defined place in the family of God is, in itself, an act outside the boundaries which have been established for them over many centuries. This sad situation is made even sadder by the fact that many God-fearing Christian women don’t even venture to think about the topic, much less pose questions about it, lest they be found guilty by God of questioning what the Bible appears to spell out plainly. I was such a woman until God set me on an unexpected and unsought-after path that, to my great surprise and joy, led me into the discovery of the wonderful freedom I had in Christ, freedom that I had no idea was mine.

I pray God will bless this writing and use it to convict both men and women of improper gender roles they play which further the purpose of God’s enemy. I pray they will find the way to full freedom in Christ in their relationships with one another. I also pray that all who read this book will be challenged to rethink and re-examine its crucial topic—and be changed for the better!

A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

The abuses that brothers endured in the meetings often spilled over into the homes.

For some that was a strong signal that the system was sick.

[ZNPaaneah]

It seems to me the point of the book is an inherent sexism in many Biblical translations.

The prime example is translating the expression "virtuous woman" rather than "valiant woman". In Proverbs 31.

Here are examples of how the word is translated.

ASV — “worthy”

KJV — “virtous”

Amplified — “excellent, spiritual, capable, intelligent, and virtuous”

CEB — competent

CJB — Capable

Douay Rheims — Valiant

Wycliffe — strong

Orthodox Jewish Bible — valor

(In Proverbs 31 the word translated as "virtuous" KJV is Chayil which is generally translated valiant, or some other similar term).

[Nell]

There's a lot more to the book than this.

Jane actually makes the observation that the Hebrew word "chayil" is translated one way when referring to men but the same word is translated another way when referring to women.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:

Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:
Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

I don't see why you came to the conclusion you did.

As you pointed out, the verse says "will rule over". It does not say "is to rule over". This verse is talking about the effects of sin in the fallen world:- The wife will try to control the husband but the husband in turn will dominate the wife. God is not endorsing this state of affairs in this verse.

What God desires is set out in Eph 5 v 21:- "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ". As we all know, v 21 is the precursor to Eph 5 v 22 to 33 (the section on marital relations).

[Nell]

micah6v8,

There's a good reason why Evangelical came to the conclusion he presented below. Here it is:

"IN THE BIBLE, THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF FAMILIAR PASSAGES that are at the root of wrong beliefs about women and authority. These few verses exist like one bunch of “lemons” hanging on a grapevine in a Biblical vineyard laden with many “grapes.”

Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations, translations which have adulterated and corrupted the real meanings of God’s words. All of these passages are fundamentally about authority and, in particular, about women and authority. It is time for men and women alike to stand up and speak the truth as Paul did when he said:

1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4:1–2, NASB)

There is one big lemon translation in the Old Testament: Genesis 3:16. There are seven lemon translations in the New Testament: 1st Corinthians 11:2–16; 1st Corinthians 14:29–40, Ephesians 5:22–24, Colossians 3:18, 1st Timothy 2:8–15, Titus 2:3–5, and 1st Peter 3:1–2."

I'm quoting from Chapter 2 of A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies with Jane's permission.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:

Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Not very astute. In this verse, God is saying that the result of the curse is that a woman will tend to desire for her man and that fact will make her tend to be subservient to keep things "right." I do not see that as a declaration of the right of man to rule over woman.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not very astute. In this verse, God is saying that the result of the curse is that a woman will tend to desire for her man and that fact will make her tend to be subservient to keep things "right." I do not see that as a declaration of the right of man to rule over woman.

Uh oh! That's not what my bible commentaries say! I'm a bible believing Christian who reads and studies the non-Lee/Nee bible commentaries and I'm not even using Lee/Nee at this point.

Sometimes I like to consider Jewish beliefs in this matter, particularly where it concerns translation of the old testament. Who can argue against a solid hebrew interpretation?

In doing so, I have found that the phrase rendered "rule over" in our English translations, means:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4910.htm

mashal: to rule, have dominion, reign
Original Word: מָשַׁל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: mashal
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-shal')
Short Definition: rule
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to rule, have dominion, reign
NASB Translation
dominion (1), gain control (1), govern (1), had charge (1), have authority (1), master (1), obtain dominion (1), really going to rule (1), rule (27), ruled (5), ruler (18), ruler's (2), rulers (6), rules (9), ruling (3), wielded (1).


Uh oh, someone's wrong again!

There is "..strong proof that everyman rules over his wife – no matter who she is"
see:

http://daattorah.blogspot.com.au/201...ed-by-her.html


But is it my fault that I believe what the Bible says and most commentaries say? Here's an interesting fact - the KJV Bible inserted the word "shall", so it says "shall rule over". This has turned the meaning of the passage into a decree or command that man must rule over his wife because she cannot be trusted. The author of the book should probably focus on a better bible translation, a KJV for women or something like that. I know! the Queen Jane Version. Very hard to re-write history and long-standing bible translations.

[Evangelical]

If we take a look at her 7 pages of Lemon Five: 1st Timothy 2:8–15. There are 7 pages of Jane's opinion in which she provides few, if any, citations to support her claims.

She even references online bible commentaries (opinions of men), just as I have when she says:

"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with
Bushnell’s insight"

She starts with the presupposition that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is a lemon translation, and then tries her hardest to prove that it is:

I found this lemon translation to be the most difficult one to resolve. Even though I had studied it, prayed over it, thought about it—every which way—and researched
others’ thoughts about it, I always was left with the feeling that I was missing something important.

If she "researched other's thoughts about it" then she should cite her sources.

Her method for discovering the truth is of is prayer and then to do a Google search to find an online article that supports her view:

"That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

When she writes:
"This suggests the possibility that Paul..."

- it sounds very Witness Lee-like "this implies that..., this suggests that...". No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims.

If we weigh the balance of opinions, on one side we have the old bible commentaries as well as writings by Luther, Calvin, Origin, the list goes on. To be rejected because of faulty bible translations. On Jane's side, we have herself and her opinions found through prayer and articles which conveniently support her point of view, to be believed because of a claim that the english bible is poorly translated (in some respects I believe it is, but not in this case).

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we take a look at her 7 pages of Lemon Five: 1st Timothy 2:8–15. There are 7 pages of Jane's opinion in which she provides few, if any, citations to support her claims.

She even references online bible commentaries (opinions of men), just as I have when she says:

"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with
Bushnell’s insight"

She starts with the presupposition that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is a lemon translation, and then tries her hardest to prove that it is:

I found this lemon translation to be the most difficult one to resolve. Even though I had studied it, prayed over it, thought about it—every which way—and researched
others’ thoughts about it, I always was left with the feeling that I was missing something important.

If she "researched other's thoughts about it" then she should cite her sources.

Her method for discovering the truth is of is prayer and then to do a Google search to find an online article that supports her view:

"That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

When she writes:
"This suggests the possibility that Paul..."

- it sounds very Witness Lee-like "this implies that..., this suggests that...". No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims.

If we weigh the balance of opinions, on one side we have the old bible commentaries as well as writings by Luther, Calvin, Origin, the list goes on. To be rejected because of faulty bible translations. On Jane's side, we have herself and her opinions found through prayer and articles which conveniently support her point of view, to be believed because of a claim that the english bible is poorly translated (in some respects I believe it is, but not in this case).

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible.

* So...opinions found through prayer are invalid...so don't pray over...or at least don't admit that you prayed over your work?

* Articles (or commentaries) that conveniently support your point of view ... should be ... avoided? Of course you have never searched out commentaries that conveniently support your point of view...have you?

* I get it. You would never start with a presupposition and "try your hardest to prove that it is..."

*"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with Bushnell’s insight." You quoted this above...does this not count as a citation of source? She cited Wade Burleson...does that count?

* Quoting you above: "When she writes:'This suggests the possibility that Paul...' it sounds very Witness Lee-like 'this implies that..., this suggests that...'. No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims. "
Uh...I guess that's the point? Right? I wouldn't say there is "no hard evidence" but when you have "some" evidence, you need to make it clear to the reader that there are evidentiary "possibilities" that support your premise. You get to do that. The alternative is a serious breach of ethics...to state your opinion as fact and not acknowledge it as "your opinion."

* "It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible."
Not "male superiority" but male gender bias. But, you may be right. I understand that your statement is dripping with sarcasm, but, it could be more accurate than you know. Not just Jane's book. There are many sources out there now, including members of this forum, who are rethinking the woman topic.

So...what did Wade Burleson have to say? The Lemon5.pdf is about 95% a discussion of Burleson's article...which Jane DID cite. I notice not one word from you about the content of his article. Why is that? What Burleson wrote can be verified as historic fact and makes sense in the context of 1 Tim. Did you ignore 95% of Lemon5.pdf because this article was an answer to Jane's prayer?

You did read the .pdf so that's good. By not mentioning Burleson's commentary...the point of Lemon5.pdf, you seem to have exposed yourself as merely a "naysayer" and not an open minded scholar of what I refer to as the "woman topic". Your mind is made up.

Remember the hymn: "The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth to Break Forth from His Word"?

Perhaps your next project should be to read the "An Important Topic for Men Also" .pdf.

Here's a parting question for you to consider: What if Jane is right? How bad could it be? How good could it be?

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

* So...opinions found through prayer are invalid...so don't pray over...or at least don't admit that you prayed over your work?

* Articles (or commentaries) that conveniently support your point of view ... should be ... avoided? Of course you have never searched out commentaries that conveniently support your point of view...have you?

* I get it. You would never start with a presupposition and "try your hardest to prove that it is..."

*"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with Bushnell’s insight." You quoted this above...does this not count as a citation of source? She cited Wade Burleson...does that count?

* Quoting you above: "When she writes:'This suggests the possibility that Paul...' it sounds very Witness Lee-like 'this implies that..., this suggests that...'. No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims. "
Uh...I guess that's the point? Right? I wouldn't say there is "no hard evidence" but when you have "some" evidence, you need to make it clear to the reader that there are evidentiary "possibilities" that support your premise. You get to do that. The alternative is a serious breach of ethics...to state your opinion as fact and not acknowledge it as "your opinion."

* "It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible."
Not "male superiority" but male gender bias. But, you may be right. I understand that your statement is dripping with sarcasm, but, it could be more accurate than you know. Not just Jane's book. There are many sources out there now, including members of this forum, who are rethinking the woman topic.

So...what did Wade Burleson have to say? The Lemon5.pdf is about 95% a discussion of Burleson's article...which Jane DID cite. I notice not one word from you about the content of his article. Why is that? What Burleson wrote can be verified as historic fact and makes sense in the context of 1 Tim. Did you ignore 95% of Lemon5.pdf because this article was an answer to Jane's prayer?

You did read the .pdf so that's good. By not mentioning Burleson's commentary...the point of Lemon5.pdf, you seem to have exposed yourself as merely a "naysayer" and not an open minded scholar of what I refer to as the "woman topic". Your mind is made up.

Remember the hymn: "The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth to Break Forth from His Word"?

Perhaps your next project should be to read the "An Important Topic for Men Also" .pdf.

Here's a parting question for you to consider: What if Jane is right? How bad could it be? How good could it be?

Nell

I'm open but skeptical. If I was not open I would not be participating in this thread. The reason for my skepticism is I have not seen so far any authoritative scholarly source about the question of the translations being wrong. Occam's razor leads me to side with history, plain reading of the English translation - what it says is what it means.

Even so, no doctrine hangs on the interpretation of one word. And that applies equally to Hebrew/Greek as it does to any other language. I highly doubt that even two credible hebrew/greek scholars would agree on everything, as so much is open to interpretation, context etc. It is hard to agree on meaning, in any language.

If Jane is right, the only thing it changes in terms of the recovery is enabling women to preach/teach in a church or conference like the leading brothers currently do, it would enable women to participate in the Lord's table too.
Women can already prophesy and do many things. Burleson does not agree with female elders or pastors and I assume Jane agrees.

When I read Chapter 5 pdf it only says:

" That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

"I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety. "

I have to google search to find the article in question.

I assume this is the article in question (no citation was provided in the chapter 5 excerpt you posted, but anyway):

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/...angelical.html

As far as I know Burleson is no expert in Greek/Hebrew and that is what is important here. Can he confirm or deny, with some scholarly authority, that the Hebrew translation is wrong? Burleson does not cite any scholarly sources in his online articles.

So Jane quotes Burleson...
and Burleson quotes... no one! He merely says "could have, should have, would have":

"Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone "dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm."

So an "open scholar" is at a dead end once they reach Burleson's articles.

Jane's book gives a skeptic like me three choices:

1) trust her judgement and that God answered her prayers in revealing the truth
2) Trust Burleson's internet article
3) Trust the NET Bible (Internet version)

To me his argument is based more upon the fact that women are gifted by the Spirit and some bible verses which are open to his interpretation. There is a common argument which goes "God gave the Spirit to women so there's no reason why he wouldn't give her church leadership as well". However God and Jesus were in the habit of choosing males as leaders.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As far as I know Burleson is no expert in Greek/Hebrew and that is what is important here.

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

The difference between Witness Lee and Jane, is that on this issue he is agreeing with the majority interpretation. He is not claiming that every bible commentary based upon certain translations is wrong, or that Luther or Calvin are wrong. For the most part he builds upon their beliefs and extends them. He does not claim their views are based upon faulty translation. You know that I could quote almost any bible commentary from biblehub that disproves Jane. I don't even need to quote Witness Lee. So the onus is on Jane, and she has not done her research it would seem and neither have you or Nell because you cannot point me towards one Hebrew or Greek scholar that proves she is right. Most of her book it seems are just claims based upon a prayer and a hunch and a few internet searches.

I think many would take issue with the idea that our English bibles are fallible. Most protestant evangelicals believe that God preserved the translations of the bible also, and that the English translations are just as much God's Word as the original Greek or Hebrew.

Myself I am not as strict - I am open to some errors in the translation, but these are more to do with sentence structure, punctuation, etc, than whole "lemon passages" being wrong. Even on this point, some would accuse me of heresy, for even suggesting that one dot or line in the bible is in error.

Being pragmatic, I think some errors are possible, but what are the chances that translators made a mistake in every single verse that disproves Jane's point of view ? Pretty slim I would say.

What are the chances that Luther did not pick up on it? Also pretty slim. He did translate the bible into German, afterall.

You know that books are not peer reviewed, right? Anyone can write a book and say anything they like. Neither are internet articles (the ones Jane quotes). Books are not scholarly sources, neither are internet articles.. I for one would like to see some solid evidence about this Hebrew/Greek translation issue.

That is, I don't care what Burleson or Jane or the feminist Katherine Bushnell has to say about this, if they are claiming that the translations are wrong, this is something serious, so then what do the Greek/Hebrew experts say? Why is she not citing these people in her book, so we can read their conference or journal article ?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

Untohim,

Rewriting the Bible as Jane attempts to do in her book requires a higher standard than just some personal inspiration and an Internet article. Even if what she has found is possible there is not a compelling argument for rewriting "lemon"passages. Every person is fallible so that does not shore up her argument either.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English.

Can you hear yourself?

Witness Lee's entire ministry was based on what "serious Bible scholars" had missed since 1945, and how he alone could see what the Bible really says.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Nell

A new book by Thankful Jane (Jane Carole Anderson) is available today (Nov. 24, 2016) on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXQ62M2...arole+anderson

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

All--

I've posted 3 attachments from Woman of Chayil but so far I see no indication anyone is posting comments after having read these attachments. Hopefully this will not end up just another topic gone down the bunny trail.

To be fair, please take a look at the attachments and comment.

Thank you--
Nell

...........................

[Drake]

Untohim"I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Witness Lee to be taught...in fact I KNOW he would not have allowed such an uneducated, unqualified pretender to teach a Sunday school class if he had anything to say about it."

Ah, the old dumb fisherman argument. Fortunately that was flipped on its head when the Lord Jesus put the elitist Sanhedrin, scribes and teachers of His day in their proper place and opted for some of the uneducated to do His speaking for Him. Nevertheless, the elitist religious spirit lives on even today.Though I still fail to understand how simply posting on a website makes anyone here biblical geniuses. I mean we are all pretty much in the same boat on the educated front aren't we?

Brother Lee ministered Christ, taught God's economy, God's purpose, the Church, the churches, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, and all the basics of the Christian faith, salvation, redemption, the precious blood of Christ, the Spirit of Life, growth in life, consecration, transformation, glorification, the judgements, and the consumation of God in man and man in God as the New Jerusalem the universal divine human expression for eternity.

Thetefore, I'll take an uneducated man's bible based teaching like that any day... and with a high degree of certainty,, seeing how those teachings are taken directly fron the Old and New Testaments and Pauls teaching, that Paul would also welcome them.

The doctrines and teachings in Chayil, on the other hand, do not meet that standard in spite of several attempts here to prop them up and cast them that way.

Drake

[Nell]

Please take this discussion to another thread.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Please take this discussion to another thread.

Ok Nell.

Igzy, be happy to continue in another place.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Moderator, please move relevant posts to new thread. Drake and I would like to discuss the issue of the LCM claiming to be the One True Whatever They Are.

Thanks!