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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't think everyone needs to read the whole book for Nell or anyone else to address the various mistranslations in a piecemeal fashion. As a matter of fact, I think this is the best way to address such large issues on a public forum. I don't know if you read the PDF that Nell posted, but it's a real good summation, and there is enough in this one portion to get us off the ground.

I personally have never seriously considered this view:


In due time, I think Nell will get us into the individual "lemon" passages, but I think this might be enough for us to get the discussion going.
-

What if the Bible had been translated by an all female translation committee? Would we be discussing different "lemon translations" that reflected a female gender bias that men would like to see revisited and corrected when appropriate?

The goal of the translators is to "get it right" without bias. K. Bushnell discusses this in her book "God's Word to Women."

Nell

[Evangelical]

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

Needless to say, Evangelical is a white male.

[OBW]

Needless to say, Evangelical is a white male.

While the bulk of Evangelical's post was truly pathetic, it is true that the writers were all male (though not many of them "white" in the Anglo-European sense of the word).

So if we are to take the Bible as the word of God, then unless we want to rethink the meaning of inerrancy we are stuck with what those men wrote.

I am willing to entertain a Bible that is fully authoritative in terms of the God it reveals that is written by men who write within the ethos and prejudices of the day. They speak of utterly destroying an enemy when they really mean that they won handily and left the survivors running for the borders. That is not open season for dismissing anything. But it eliminates the notion that there are deep spiritual truths in every phrase of the scripture. Or that anything particular is intended as some kind of permanent rule for all time. That every story is full of metaphorical nuggets to be mined like silver and gold.

Do you read Genesis 1 and conclude that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Or are you impressed that God created the heavens and the earth in some way that could only be described in this limited way?

When a passage says that a day is like 1,000 years to God, is it a statement of actually relative time to apply like a formula, or is it a statement of the irrelevance of time to God?

What are we reading the Bible to find?

If our primary commands are to love God, love our neighbor as ourselves, and to love one another as Christ as loved us. If our edict for leadership is serving others and washing their feet. If . . . so many good examples. If these, then how do we find anyone to have a forced position of subservience? For any purpose?

Are we just proof-texting?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

While the bulk of Evangelical's post was truly pathetic, it is true that the writers were all male (though not many of them "white" in the Anglo-European sense of the word).

So if we are to take the Bible as the word of God, then unless we want to rethink the meaning of inerrancy we are stuck with what those men wrote.

I am willing to entertain a Bible that is fully authoritative in terms of the God it reveals that is written by men who write within the ethos and prejudices of the day. They speak of utterly destroying an enemy when they really mean that they won handily and left the survivors running for the borders. That is not open season for dismissing anything. But it eliminates the notion that there are deep spiritual truths in every phrase of the scripture. Or that anything particular is intended as some kind of permanent rule for all time. That every story is full of metaphorical nuggets to be mined like silver and gold.

Do you read Genesis 1 and conclude that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Or are you impressed that God created the heavens and the earth in some way that could only be described in this limited way?

When a passage says that a day is like 1,000 years to God, is it a statement of actually relative time to apply like a formula, or is it a statement of the irrelevance of time to God?

What are we reading the Bible to find?

If our primary commands are to love God, love our neighbor as ourselves, and to love one another as Christ as loved us. If our edict for leadership is serving others and washing their feet. If . . . so many good examples. If these, then how do we find anyone to have a forced position of subservience? For any purpose?

Are we just proof-texting?

OBW,

The issue isn't the writers of the original text of the Bible, but those men who translated the text from the original Hebrew and/or Greek. There are verses, due to mistranslation, that do not fit the "primary commands" as you have described them. For example, Paul, in several cases, seemingly contradicts himself and his own ministry because of some verses relating to women.

This is noted in UntoHim's Saturday Sidebar: "Whatever is taught prescriptively should produce what is seen descriptively in the Bible.
If a teaching produces something different than what the Bible illustrates or describes as proper behavior, it is unhealthy teaching and should be questioned and re-examined."

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

This is bait.

[UntoHim]

Evangelical,
When the next widely accepted translation of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures by a committee of LGBT or Muslim folks comes out, I'll be sure to let you do the first review, OK big guy?

In the meantime, I will thank you in advance to not post any more racist or insensitive things on our forum. I'm not sure what the sex, nationality or race was of the translators of Revelation 7:9, but here goes anyway: "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages". This is they way things are going to end for eternity....better get used to it now.

I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so don't hold me to any of this.....

First to question God: Adam - Male
First to murder: Cain - Male
First to get drunk: Noah - Male
First to commit sexual sin: Sodom and Gomorrah - Males
First to murder to take another person's spouse: David - Male
(shall I go on?)
--------------------------------------------------------
First to suffer consequence of the Fall: Eve - A Woman
First recorded heroes to save the Jewish people: Women (gave birth before Egyptians could kill Hebrew babies)
First recorded single hero to save the Jewish people: Esther - A Woman
First to the empty tomb of Jesus: Mary - A Woman
First ex-Local Churcher to write a book helping former members: Jane Anderson - A Woman
-

[OBW]

Unto,

I expect that Noah is only the first recorded person to be drunk. I suspect that fermenting was not new at that point in history. Just no reason to record the results of the consumption of too much of the fruit of the vine.

But not really relevant to anything anyway.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evangelical,
When the next widely accepted translation of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures by a committee of LGBT or Muslim folks comes out, I'll be sure to let you do the first review, OK big guy?

In the meantime, I will thank you in advance to not post any more racist or insensitive things on our forum. I'm not sure what the sex, nationality or race was of the translators of Revelation 7:9, but here goes anyway: "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages". This is they way things are going to end for eternity....better get used to it now.

I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so don't hold me to any of this.....

First to question God: Adam - Male
First to murder: Cain - Male
First to get drunk: Noah - Male
First to commit sexual sin: Sodom and Gomorrah - Males
First to murder to take another person's spouse: David - Male
(shall I go on?)
--------------------------------------------------------
First to suffer consequence of the Fall: Eve - A Woman
First recorded heroes to save the Jewish people: Women (gave birth before Egyptians could kill Hebrew babies)
First recorded single hero to save the Jewish people: Esther - A Woman
First to the empty tomb of Jesus: Mary - A Woman
First ex-Local Churcher to write a book helping former members: Jane Anderson - A Woman
-

There is nothing racist about my post. It is the ones who say "the bible has no women translators, so we must find some" who are the ones who see the divisions. To me this idea of women translators of the bible is coming from the liberal and populist agenda, not the bible itself (which is written by men, including God Himself who is a man). It seems you subscribe to this agenda yourself. In fact, if people truly believed in what the bible says about no male or female in Christ we would not be discussing about this male or female translator nonsense.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect...

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, baiting, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, bait, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

What I'm trying to "dial down" is what you said about certain bible translations of certain passages being lemons. I don't care if a person is pushing a feminist, LGBT or multi-faith agenda, as soon as the bible translation is called into question it makes me wonder.

In regards to your quote of my post, what I said was in response to what you said about my posts being crap after I questioned why you weren't used theological resources?

Your response was essentially, "if you want respect, you have to give some, I can't take anything you say seriously, most of what you say is crap".

So we can see that my point about respect not being important, is in the context of why aren't you using theological resources? You or I don't need respect to do a Google Search and find out the facts for ourselves.

But on this topic I think you calling certain passages of the bible "lemon translations" is a bit of a stretch. There is a line between writing a book to help former members of the local church and support women, and claiming the bible translations are wrong. To me it's just one piece of the larger pie that seeks to undo history and rewrite everything to suite populist ideals.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, baiting, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

Evangelical provides very detailed and thoughtful responses, well researched, scriptural based, and patiently clarifies himself. The forum is lucky to have him.

It does not matter whether women or any other demographic group were involved in translating the bible. If there is an objection to the translation of a verse, resources are readily available to present a case.

Yet, there are many translations of the Bible into different languages and the translators are not all white male. Julia Smith translated the Bible from original languages into English. It is too broad of a brush to categorically dismiss verses mentioning women and submission as "lemons" That is not say that every verse is bias free, on the contrary some may be, so, I think visiting the original languages and manuscripts is a good approach and if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon"verses. 1 Timothy 2 is very instructive providing an explanation as to why (v14).

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In fact, if people truly believed in what the bible says about no male or female in Christ we would not be discussing about this male or female.

Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles?

So it can cut both ways.

The Bible certainly sends the message that generally speaking men are to take the lead and women are to follow. But the extreme subjugation of women we see in ancient times was, I believe, just that--an extreme.

Neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female. This doesn't mean there are no differences between these groups, it has nothing to do with their abilities or roles. What it's talking about is their standing before God.

The OT, even some aspects of the Jewish ordinances and culture, was meant to reflect a fallen, Genesis 3 situation. But in Christ many things changed and were brought closer to God's original intent. Gentiles and Jews have completely equal status in the NT, there is no difference before God. Male and female, too, except for the reality of their originally intended roles--that the man was to lead and the woman was to be a "helper."

The extreme second-class status of women we see in the OT was not God's original intent--but neither was a situation where, except for physical aspects, the two are interchangeable. God intended man and women to come back to his original design--that through their cooperation in assuming somewhat different responsibilities God is glorified. If we were all the same things would run more smoothly, but God would get less glory--there is no need for cooperation in that case. So it is with the male-female differences.

But what is the extent of the expectation and limitation on each gender? Because I have see the Lord's blessing on teaching ministries of many women, I have to believe Paul's seeming restriction of women from teaching was situational to the culture of the time. However, I still believe that regarding lines of authority in the Church God prefers men to lead and women to follow (of course, most men follow too!).

That's my take on that subject.


But in general, simply because someone thinks it would be beneficial for women to have a larger role in the intellectual tasks of Biblical analysis does not necessarily mean he or she is motivated by appealing to "populism" or are being "conformed to the age."

This is what generally bugs and bothers me about Evangelical's analysis. He throws out these snarky accusations with no conclusive evidence of their appropriateness. He sees the possibility of a conclusion and then goes from it being possible to being true, not because the evidence is conclusive, but because it fits his mindset. He comes across as a person so convinced he's right that he is above considering he might be wrong.

[Evangelical]

There are no female authors of the Bible likely because of this verse:

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;

If a female authored any book of the Bible then it would be equivalent to teaching authority over a man. In addition, culturally speaking, a female author of the bible would have been a hindrance to the gospel in ancient times.

There are two books (one biblical, one not but used in Catholicism) named after females - Esther and Judith. These were not written by females but by men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles? So it can cut both ways.

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.