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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is where the whole premise looks like an attempt to swing the pendulum rather than find truth.

Really. This statement sounds like you assume that "finding the truth" is VS. "swinging the pendulum." Often, the results of arriving at truth will spontaneously swing the pendulum with little or no effort on anyone's part. Regardless, you have missed the point.

The very idea that the garden was open to Eve but not Adam is patently ridiculous. Under this premise, there would be no more human race. Under the standard reading of Genesis, at that point there was only Adam and Eve. Separating them would be tantamount to the extermination of the human race.

Absolutely. It's SO ridiculous that I'm surprised that you would seriously float it as a response. You misunderstood what I was saying. Why not ask for clarification rather than make yourself look silly.

I'm sorry, but there is a reason that getting too embroiled emotionally in trying to get a result is a dangerous place to be. It leads to absurd conjecturing (theorizing).

Ah! The "emotion card." I really didn't think anyone on this forum would dare to play it, but there it is.

Another dangerous place to be is making your own absurd conjectures based on a book you have not read.

I will agree that there is nothing stating either way is true. But the outcome of your way to look at it v the outcome of the other is rather implausible. The difference between plausible and implausible is a valid reason to reject one in favor of the other when there is no direct evidence for either.

This makes no sense.

You would do well to stick with the problem of translations resulting in the erroneous mistreatment of women. Keep away from fantasizing about a world in which women get things right and men get it all wrong. As it is, you are showing how it is that women are just as prone to reading favor to themselves into the Bible. Looks more like a mea culpa than some important revelation or substantive theory.

This is a discussion about A Woman of Chayil. You would do well to read it. Your remarks hardly do it justice. You seem more interested in misunderstanding than understanding, along with a touch of patronizing advice to me.

One point of the book is that women and men alike have perpetuated the mistreatment of...mostly women. Women believe the 8 mistranslated verses just like men do. Maybe you haven't come to the place in the book that explains this, but it's an important point. Another point is that it's important to get the translation of the Bible right. Men and women Bible translators should come together to review these verses for accuracy.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Really. This statement sounds like you assume that "finding the truth" is VS. "swinging the pendulum."

Actually, it is. Finding truth should bring thinking to a common place.

But the pendulum just keeps moving against competing forces. When it gets far enough in one direction, it moves to the other. While it is true that given enough time it will stop where the forces are all in agreement (literally in the middle, at the bottom of its period in the case of an actual pendulum) the goal of seeking the truth is to shortcut the constant swings of simply fighting for getting one way over the other and instead try to find where there is no more movement because it is the right place in which all the forces are satisfied. (Still not a perfect metaphor. The never are.)

Finding the truth has a different goal from just getting the pendulum swinging. And when you begin to conjecture beyond what your evidence supports, you are moving beyond what you can call truth. Therefore it is something other than the search for truth. And more like another attempt to just swing the pendulum in the way you want it to go.

You are correct that the pendulum moves when truth dictates it. But if the movement is because of truth, the metaphor of the pendulum ceases to apply. Instead it will be more like the willful setting of a column on a foundation for the purpose of holding up a building. I realize that the fact that we are unlikely to get any truth absolutely correct means that it may eventually be revisited. But the process of getting it set, and then the eventual start of a new inquiry on the topic will not look like a pendulum, but a rational attempt to right a foundation. (For us Texans, like calling Olshan to repair a foundation.)

We have something that has been (legitimately) sticking in the craw of a lot of women for a long time. And as women have been getting a lot of pull in secular society for some time now, they are also starting to get some pull in Christian society. If the objective is to find the truth, then we are not talking about a pendulum. But if the objective is to turn the tables and put those men in line, even making it evident that women were righteous from the beginning, even not driven from the garden, and not in any way responsible for the fall of mankind, then you are talking about something that I do not see the truth supporting and instead taking on the appearance of an attempt to just swing a pendulum of thinking.

"This side has gone to far, so let's move it to the other side."

I hope that the book is not actually doing that. And that the portions you are bringing out are too void of context to read them correctly.

You need to understand that delving into speculation with no support does your cause no good. It removes you at least somewhat from the realm of someone who is seeking the truth and places you in the realm of someone ready to spin fantasy and shove on the pendulum.

This is how Lee got us. Found people who wanted something different. So he gave us different. And he gave us excitement. And a lot of emotion . . . . Along with a lot of nonsense.

I don't care how correct your underlying premise about the whole thing is. You are tanking your credibility with this kind of argument. It won't be given the time of day by even those who already agree with that for which you do have support.

And if your statements about taking any kind of serious stand that woman was not required to leave the garden needs clarification, then you don't get it. Those statements should not have been made in which case they would not need clarification. It is something that could start as a line of thinking and shortly thereafter die as clearly implausible. And therefore not get recorded in the book (if it is) or stated here on the forum.

Why do I say this? Because it could only be supported by declaring that:

1. Every detail has to be stated or it does not exist (without caring that the positions argued for are equally unstated)
2. "Man" cannot mean both the man and the woman (all of mankind)
3. Neither Adam nor Eve needed the other to "multiply"
4. The flaming sword blocking the entrance to the garden would not apply to the woman (not stated)
5. Assuming the man and the woman had to be in the same place, the driving of one out was not effectively driving them both out

And based on discussions on some serious topics in the past, it was the persistence of some to insist upon more than they could support that caused the topics to explode.

You set a good topic. But you keep peppering it with statements undermining the credibility. And the need to characterize verses in terms of "lemons" and "grapes" is often viewed as an indicator that the arguments do not stand on their own. That the truth needs to help from name calling.

That should concern you. And it should cause you to take note instead of digging in your heels.

Before you just go after me again, remember that I am on your side. I may not have the particular insight that Jane thinks (and probably rightly so) she has found in the Bible. I agree with the overall premises. If you are getting pushback from the inside, don't just fight. Consider it. Since there are 2,000 years (more like 5,000+ years) of misunderstanding, you are fighting an uphill battle with so many. Don't make your fight harder by even distancing those who should be your biggest supporters.