New Jane Anderson Website

[Koinonia]

Jane Carole Anderson, author of The Thread of Gold has a new website and blog at: When Lemons Become Grapes.... The website appears to be focused on Jane's thoughts regarding Christian women. It looks like it will also be a repository for her other writings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Jane Carole Anderson, author of The Thread of Gold has a new website and blog at: When Lemons Become Grapes.... The website appears to be focused on Jane's thoughts regarding Christian women. It looks like it will also be a repository for her other writings.

She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.

Like the aphorism "the kind of Bible you have depends on the kind of person you are".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Like the aphorism "the kind of Bible you have depends on the kind of person you are".

So what sort of person has a "lemon bible"? he he he

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So what sort of person has a "lemon bible"? he he he

She'd probably argue that she has a grape Bible and its everyone else that has a lemon Bible and that she is just "raisin" the issue.

I know, its a groaner.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.

Perhaps the issue was more of translation & transmission & interpretation, not composition. (I'm guessing, here).

Compare this to Lee, who said something like 75% of the composition of the Psalms was "natural", "fallen human concepts" & not revelatory of God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps the issue was more of translation & transmission & interpretation, not composition. (I'm guessing, here).

Compare this to Lee, who said something like 75% of the composition of the Psalms was "natural", "fallen human concepts" & not revelatory of God.

Whatever the reason, I can't find much support in the Christian scholarly literature for the idea that all of these passages are mistranslated, other than Bushnell. She doesn't really have a case unless all of the verses that disprove her view are "lemons" and I don't think it is likely that all of them are mistranslated to the degree claimed.

Before I came to the Recovery and still now I believe in the doctrine of biblical preservation:

https://www.gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html

The doctrine of preservation in regard to Scripture means that the Lord has kept His Word intact as to its original meaning. Preservation simply means that we can trust the Scriptures because God has sovereignly overseen the process of transmission over the centuries.

the differences are extremely small and insignificant and do not in any way affect the basic teachings or meaning of God’s Word

If Scripture were not supernaturally preserved, there would be no way to ensure the consistency of the message it contains.


The claims of mistranslations I think go beyond "extremely small and insignificant differences".

[awareness]

Let's all praise Jane Carole Anderson.

Witness Lee made me sensitive to big egos. So I'm cautious whenever I bump into one.

[UntoHim]

Low blow Mr A, really low blow. Just because Jane starts a website she has a big ego...even like Witness Lee? Enjoy while you can.
-

[Drake]

In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-

You are factually incorrect that the desire of Gen 3:16 is very different to the desire in Gen 4:7. You are correct that these are two different circumstances, but you are incorrect that they are very different when we look at the original text.

In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 the word desire is the same Hebrew word, teshuqah, or in the Septuagint, both are translated as apostrophē.

So whatever changes are to be made to Gen 3:16, then Gen 4:7 is affected as well. If Gen 3:16 is a lemon, then Gen 4:7 is a lemon as well. If translators were male biased, then they were also "farmer biased" in Gen 4:7.

This is related to my earlier question, - how come male translators were influenced by Satan only on the verses pertaining to women?

The common meaning between Gen 3:16 and 4:7 is that there would be a struggle and there is something to rule over. Eve's struggle was with man, and Cain's struggle was with sin. I think this is the reason that most bible versions translate both as "desire".

Jane's reasoning is not so solid at all. She has to argue from the Syriac or Coptic translations, and her interpretation is one of many more plausible interpretations, which by the way, do not necessarily support the case she is arguing against. A simple interpretation is that this verse means "men and women will struggle with each other" .

[Evangelical]

So far it's been neglected that the first part of verse 16 is about a woman's pain in childbirth:

Genesis 3:16

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Reading this in a plain way would suggest that there is a connection between the first part and the second. There is a connection between childbirth and the husband's ruling.

One perspective which comes from Judaism is that the husband would rule over the woman (sexually) and she would have to bear children in pain. These are two sorts of punishments related to childbirth. One, the cause of childbirth (men) and secondly the childbirth itself.

Now the Jewish interpretation of Gen 3:16 from the Hebrew.

Gen 3:16 in Hebrew is:

"v'el isheich t'shukateich, v'hu yimshol bach."

The word yimshol means "rule over" and the root word for yimshol is moshel means a dictator, one who rules by force.

Anyone who knows Hebrew can maybe confirm or check if this is correct.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-

UntoHim, null and void? Heavens no. Desire and rule are the same words in both verses. The sentence structure is the same. Two pairs of relationship and the relationship in each pair is the same. You can't apply desire and rule one way for Gen 3:16 and a different way for Gen 4:7.

Evangelical covered it in more detail in Post 49 and 50. If Jane's logic to change up 3:16 is applied to 4:7 it does not make sense.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-

I asked Jane to send me the passage in her book where she discussed Genesis 4:7 in her book Woman of Chayil.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant anymore than the translators were farmer biased. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Applying Jane's lemon reasoning in Gen 3:16 to Gen 4:7 leads to the idea that Satan used the farmer (Cain) bias of the translators to subjugate the cattlemen (Abel) in order to keep them from fulfilling their God designated role.

Of course that is an argument lacking credibility.

Drake

That's a good point. If there was bias in translating the word teshuqah as desire in Gen 3:16, then there would also be bias in translating the same word used in 4:7.

http://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/
In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament, teshuqah is translated as apostrophē.[15][16] The etymology of apostrophē gives the meaning “a turning away”, but it is has a broader range of meanings, some of which are conflicting.

Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), arguably one of the best lexicons of Ancient Greek, has several definitions for apostrophē. Most don’t fit the context of Genesis 3:16 at all. For definition III, however, the LSJ says that apostrophē is used rhetorically when one turns away from all others to one person and addresses him specifically.[17] This meaning makes good sense in the contexts of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Since the preposition pros (“towards”) also occurs in Genesis 3:16 (“your turning (apostrophē) will be towards (pros) your husband”), I think the meaning of a woman turning away from others to turn towards, or even long for, her husband may well be what is intended here.[18]



The interpretation that Jane takes is this one:

“But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syriac Pe****ta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Eve’s mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Eve makes Adam her priority . . . .”[19]

For Cain, Cain's mistake would be of turning his principle devotion towards his sin rather than God.

Whether it means turning or desire, does not change the second part of the verse: "he shall rule over thee".

Translated "desire", it implies the man's ruling is positive - most Christian and Jewish scholars take this view, and bible translators (men and women). This is the patriarchal view.

Translated "turning", it implies the man's ruling is negative ie "If you turn towards your husband he shall rule over you".

Then again "turning" and "desire" can also mean the same thing, and have no bearing on whether the man's rule is positive or negative.

Considering Cain, if Jane is correct, that Gen 3:16 means "If you turn towards your husband he shall rule over you".

Then when this interpretation is applied to Cain:

"And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

It doesn't really make sense.

In other words

If Eve turning toward her husband and her husband ruling over her is a bad thing

Then Cain turning away from sin and ruling over his sin is a bad thing.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:
...
Drake

Genesis 3:13-16
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Satan was cursed by God because he deceived the woman. Got put enmity between the the serpent and the woman and her seed. Ultimately the serpent met his END because of the seed of woman...the serpent's head was bruised and will ultimately be cast into the lake of fire.

It should be obvious that the serpent works through any means possible to exact revenge on the woman. "Satan working through male biased translators" would be a master stroke. Satan using God's own word against him to recruit men, and in fact, women themselves, as his accomplices in his campaign to defeat woman and her seed...Jesus Christ. God's was merciful toward the woman, and later a virgin woman, who would ultimately bring forth his only begotten Son...not born of man. The serpent was cursed, and Adam received this punishment:

Gen. 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Adam was held responsible for the fall.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Satan's working to inspire men's animosity toward women on every level is rooted here. The serpent was cursed by God, and the woman was blessed with the ultimate blessing...her seed would ultimately defeat the one who deceived her. She was warned that her lot in life wasn't going to be easy. So the serpent deceived men, and women, to fight his war against women for him.

Because of this enmity, Satan declared war on women. It would be naive to think that Satan was not behind any mistakes in translations of the Bible that may exist. In fact, it is a brilliant, though Satanic, strategy. Worst of all, it's working.

From War on the Saints by Jesse Penn-Lewis
Henceforth it is also war by Satan upon the womanhood of the world, in malignant revenge for the
verdict of the garden. War by the trampling down of women in all lands where the deceiver reigns.
War upon women in Christian lands, by the continuance of his Eden method of misinterpreting the
Word of God; insinuating into men's minds throughout all succeeding ages, that God pronounced a
"curse" upon the woman, when in truth she was pardoned and blessed; and instigating men of the
fallen race to carry out the supposed curse, which was in truth a curse upon the deceiver, and not the
deceived one (Gen. 3: 14).

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said God, as well as between "thy seed and her
seed," and this vindictive enmity of the hierarchy of evil to woman, and to believers, has not lessened
in its intensity from that day.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the workings of Satan.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think it might be good to start with three basic things.
#1 What was God's original plan/intention/order in the creation before the Fall? Obviously woman was created 2nd. Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer. -

Of course we aren't privy to God's original plan or intentions for women before the fall. And I find it interesting that Untohim wants to restrict our ascertainment to Genesis, and not the whole Bible, that depicts women as inferior.

But none of that concerns me. After reading this thread I wonder what's being defended. I see a defense against Jane's claim, that, the translators were biased men against women.

My concern is if all of the defense against Jane is actually a cover for defending that women should be subjugated by men.

If that is so, and I'm not sure it is, that's shameful. But it wouldn't be foreign in the local church. One of the elders in the c. in Detroit, where Ron Kangas was lead elder, ruled his house with his fist. I saw it. And a brother that lived with the elder that gave me the boot told me he ruled his wife and kids with his fists. So to me this is a very important matter.

If that's what is being defended then those defending would likely want to take care of Jane with their fist. And that's completely shameful. Maybe that's why Paul said not to touch a woman.

Sorry. I just had to say it. Please, those defending against Jane, tell us outright just what you are really defending. I would hate to find that we have members out here that believe women should be subjugated by any and all means.

I don't believe that that is what God intended for women.

[UntoHim]

My friend Harold, didn't your mommy teach you that "good things come to those who wait". Your running ahead and trying to force the ending before we even get started. That may play well over on Alt Views, but not over here on the main floor of this popcorn stand.

One of the great loses we suffered under the ministry of Witness Lee was the rejection of systematic theology. (Lee also taught his followers to reject, even mock, biblical theology...but that is a subject for another day).

Short excerpt from Wiki:
Systematic theology draws on the foundational sacred texts of Christianity, while simultaneously investigating the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history

I thought it might be helpful for us to take a step back and "begin at the beginning" as it were. I'm sure there will be plenty of agreeing to disagree as we go along, but I think we can at least come to some common understanding of "the course of history" as recorded in the Bible. Obviously these makes the start line the opening chapters of Genesis.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend Harold, didn't your mommy teach you that "good things come to those who wait". Your running ahead and trying to force the ending before we even get started. That may play well over on Alt Views, but not over here on the main floor of this popcorn stand.

One of the great loses we suffered under the ministry of Witness Lee was the rejection of systematic theology. (Lee also taught his followers to reject, even mock, biblical theology...but that is a subject for another day).

Short excerpt from Wiki:
Systematic theology draws on the foundational sacred texts of Christianity, while simultaneously investigating the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history

I thought it might be helpful for us to take a step back and "begin at the beginning" as it were. I'm sure there will be plenty of agreeing to disagree as we go along, but I think we can at least come to some common understanding of "the course of history" as recorded in the Bible. Obviously these makes the start line the opening chapters of Genesis.
-

My bad. So how long should I stay in the hole this time?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You know these kinds of posts are going to upset Nell more, but you just had to get a few more digs in, didn't you?

I'm use to never being able to do or say anything right. I've lived with women. So I know I can't hope to win. Nell has a bee in her bonnet toward me ... for past full frontal disagreements with her and Jane - like can be see on the "Re: A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us" thread, with Jonathan Cahn, Harbinger, 4 blood moons, and Shemitah, which I couldn't buy into, but Jane and Nell were all in to. Nell hates that I was right, and she hates when I'm right about Bushnell, and this re-translation of Satanic influenced lemon verses, being the cause of the suppression of Christian women in the body of Christ. Jane and Nell don't want to admit that what's making Christian women inferior is actually the male authors of the books of the Bible. So they cherry-pick verses and call them lemons, and even if they are right in their re-translation of their cherry-picked verses, it won't fix the problem, because it's just whacking at the branches and not at the roots.

Nell needs to bury that hatchet, cuz I don't have one toward her. I've always considered "sis" to be a term of endearment ... but there's no endearing Nell ... unless I praise Jane, and never disagree with her.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm use to never being able to do or say anything right. I've lived with women. So I know I can't hope to win. Nell has a bee in her bonnet toward me ... for past full frontal disagreements with her and Jane - like can be see on the "Re: A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us" thread, with Jonathan Cahn, Harbinger, 4 blood moons, and Shemitah, which I couldn't buy into, but Jane and Nell were all in to. Nell hates that I was right, and she hates when I'm right about Bushnell, and this re-translation of Satanic influenced lemon verses, being the cause of the suppression of Christian women in the body of Christ. Jane and Nell don't want to admit that what's making Christian women inferior is actually the male authors of the books of the Bible. So they cherry-pick verses and call them lemons, and even if they are right in their re-translation of their cherry-picked verses, it won't fix the problem, because it's just whacking at the branches and not at the roots.

Nell needs to bury that hatchet, cuz I don't have one toward her. I've always considered "sis" to be a term of endearment ... but there's no endearing Nell ... unless I praise Jane, and never disagree with her.

Don't flatter yourself.

As I said, your frequent crude and vulgar remarks are distasteful to me. When you then call me "sis", it makes me feel dirty. A statement which you have conveniently ignored.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

I post on this forum for the benefit of women who read but never/rarely post.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

I post on this forum for the benefit of women who read but never/rarely post.

Here's a good one I stumbled upon :

"The teaching that God punishes Christian women for the sin of Eve is a wicked and cruel superstition, and unworthy the intelligence of Christians."
~Bushnell, Lesson 13 - DID GOD CURSE WOMAN?
https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2013.htm

I do appreciate your Forrest Gump approach to the nonsense you come up with though. (Sorry Forrest. I mean no disrespect.) You illustrate male bias as nothing else can.

“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump

Nell

Well that certainly was edifying, with much ministering of grace. Thanks Nell.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that certainly was edifying, with much ministering of grace. Thanks Nell.

You're right. Sorry about that remark. I will delete mine.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

You're right. Sorry about that remark. I will delete mine.

Nell

No need to apologize or remove it, on my account ... unless the Spirit moves you to do so.

I don't get offended. I have a sense of humor, and have never intended ill towards you. Sorry if it doesn't come off that way. I know I can be a jerk at times. Sorry for that. I'm a man, darn it. What do ya expect?

But how did you like the Bushnell Lesson I linked. That's a core lesson methinks.

And btw, just because I don't always agree with Bushnell doesn't mean I don't like her, and her obvious goals for women, both in general, and for Christian women.

Thanks for putting up with me s.. er ah ... Nell.