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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

I'm not exactly sure what you meant to say in your last post. However it appears as if you are overgeneralizing this matter of Zoe.

John 1:4 says in Him was Zoe.
John 1010 says He came that we might have Zoe abundantly.
First Corinthian's 15;45 says that He became a life giving spirit.

Helps elaborates on that last reference in this way:

2227 /zōopoiéō ("make alive, enliven") is particularly used of God infusing His life in the believer. The Lord infuses eternal life (zōē) into us each time we receive (obey) faith from Him. This enables living with God – not just for Him (cf. Gal 2:20; Ro 8:28-30; 1 Jn 5:4). His self-existent, all-powerful life overcomes all the deadly effects of sin.

http://biblehub.com/greek/2227.htm

Drake

What I am saying is that there is not some exclusive lock on the use of the term zoe with respect to God's life only. And none of the verses that you mention refer to what is the zoe discussed as being "God's life." That God provided it to us does not simply make it God's life or make God's life = zoe.

I am not disputing all that God provides to us. It is the erroneous use of the term as if it somehow is defined as being God's life. And that it does not exist outside of what God gives according to these verses. God's life is zoe. Just as Chevrolet is an automobile. (A is B) But Zoe is not God's life. Just as an automobile is not simply a Chevrolet (except in the particular instance in which it is).

You have ignored that part of the discussion, which is all that I have been saying. In many different ways since you just keep coming back to the fact that verses are used that have the word "zoe" in them and you default to "zoe = God's life."

And you keep being all incensed that I could use the word zoe in such a way that it is in any way associated with a beer (even indirectly). As if I am comparing God to beer (which I never did and would never do). However, when it comes to the understanding of what is zoe, both beer and God can come into the conversation. They do not result in the same content of life that would be described within zoe, but they are both something that could affect the recognition of zoe.

It changes the discussion from "God gives zoe and nothing else does" to "God provides the means to the life that would really be termed as zoe." This does not demean or lower God. It just recognizes that the references to zoe are to something that ordinary people understood in contexts in which God was not part of the equation. So the statements recorded in the Bible are saying that our life, when analyzed under the thought of "zoe," should be something that we really see as high quality of life. It is quality that is really quality (to replace the word "zoe" in that one verse).

[Drake]

OBW " you default to "zoe = God's life."

No. I default to Gods life is Zoe.

The helps quote states it succinctly. I can't help it if you don't believe it.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Brothers,
Let's try to keep this tied into "Chayil".
-

[OBW]

Testallthings recently put a couple of things into one place for our consideration.

First, from Jane's book:

Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?...She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles.

Then something that attributed to Katharine Bushnell's book:

After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite."

What I find missing in all of this, and in the whole of the section from Jane's book from which the above quote is taken, is a discussion of the meaning of the Hebrew word that is the root of this whole thing. As with most words, I suspect that it could have more than one singular definition. Even where the definition appears to be somewhat singular, it often has nuances based on the context in which it is found.

For example, somewhere there was a reference to Genesis 3:16 in which it seemed to be suggested that the term (in English) "childbearing" should have been "sighing." Yet an online interlinear Hebrew text provides a rather convoluted phrase that has as its primary component the word "pregnant" or "pregnancy." It is difficult to try to take these words to Hebrew-English dictionaries because the Hebrew provided is typically a set of special characters that do not copy-paste well into a translator. But that means that there needs to be more than some bare statement that the word means "sighing" to change it. There is too much available that says otherwise.

What is needed is a real analysis of the definition(s) for the particular Hebrew word. Not the Greek or Latin term used in those updated texts. Or the various English words used. Without the study of the Hebrew word, there is no basis to accept or reject anything else said about it.

Jane's book (it is getting difficult to tell within what is in front of me at the moment whether it is a quote from Bushnell or Jane's words, though I think it is Bushnell's) makes a reference to the word "turning" being used for 16 centuries before the Italian Monk changed it to "lust." First, the Italian Monk did not change it to "lust." Neither had the word "turning" been used for any material length of time. I realize that it should be patently obvious that we are talking about either the Greek or Latin word used in non-Hebrew manuscripts/sources. But that only muddies the discussion because that means that the English word we are using in place of the Greek/Latin word is itself a translation, so we are two languages removed from what was recorded.

But what I find most annoying about the whole discussion is that I cannot see that my understanding of the verse as found right now in almost any version is being altered. I see a statement of a sort of curse put upon the woman that is different, but not necessarily less onerous than what is put on the man. And I also see a prophetic statement that things would tend to go in a certain direction.

It is going to take more than a passionately written book to change that. It needs a real analysis of the words. And without that, I only have what is available to see. And a simple statement that the word means "sighing" without any reference to or analysis of what is provided in other sources is not a study in reality. Whether it ultimately is true or false, it is nothing in the form in which it has been presented at this point. There is no basis for me to accept it or give it serous consideration. And a lot more than the notion that Genesis 3:16 does not make a proscriptive statement that woman should be ruled over by man is based on this unsupported statement. I can get to "not proscriptive" quite easily without any change in words. And that is actually what I believe about it. But the rest needs the changed word (and a fair bit more to be realistic) to even make it worth considering.

[Evangelical]

I think the facts of mistranslation should be separated from the conspiracy.

For example, it is a fact that the word teshuqa was mistranslated. It is a conspiracy that this means that Paul is wrong when he says that a woman should not hold authority over a man because "Adam was created first".

There are a few questions here.

One is, was the word teshuqa mistranslated? I believe the answer is yes.

It was because of Jerome who was heavily influenced by Jewish scholars and the "ten curses of Eve" and their negative opinions towards women ("thank God he did not make me a woman"):
http://www.notredamedesion.org/en/di...p?a=3b&id=1120


https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2016.htm says:
"The sense "desire" has come to us from the Talmud, in the "Ten Curses of Eve.""



The second question is, what is the correct meaning of teshuqa?

The word is used three times in different contexts:

Genesis 3:16, "-and-to-Adam, Eve's teshuqa."

Genesis 4:7,11 "-and-to-Cain, Abel's teshuqa"
(or perhaps sin's teshuqa,)

Sol. Song 7:10, "-and-to-the-Church Christ's teshuqa"
(as usually interpreted).

https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2016.htm

I think it is clear that the word does not mean lust (as in sensual), or desire (as in sensual). It does not mean "desire to control or destroy" (the husband) either as a number of modern translations have put it.

I believe the word "turning" means that the woman turned from God and as a consequence, Adam would rule over her:

https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2017.htm
The Pentateuch of the Septuagint is especially esteemed for its accuracy. This version renders teshuqa into the Greek word apostrophe in both passages in Genesis: and epistrophe in Canticles. The former word, apostrophe, is familiar to us all: it means "turning away," and the latter, "turning to." The teaching is, that Eve is turning away from God to her husband, and, as a consequence of that deflection, Adam will rule over her.

136. Likewise, the sense "turning" reconciles the three passages one with another, whereas the sense "desire" puts them in utter conflict. Eve is "turning" from God, and He warns her that if she does this, she will fall under the dominion of Adam. Abel is "turning" toward Cain, in all the confidence of a younger and unsuspecting brother. God warns Cain prophetically that this confiding approach of his brother will be a temptation to slay him in his defenselessness. The third passage is a joyful boast of the bridegroom's favor and attention, "He is turning to me."


I believe the proper understanding of this verse is not:
"Your husband will rule over you if you don't submit to Me", as a kind of a threat.

But this:

"because you turned away from Me, your husband will rule over you, for your protection"

I added "for your protection" because that is Witness Lee's understanding.

In other words, the husband ruling over the wife is for her benefit, not to do her harm. The bible's instruction for the man to the woman is to be her provider and protector.

Does it mean that if Eve turned back to God her husband would not rule over her? No. There is nothing about the fall's curses that can be undone in this life. A man who obeys God today does not find "tilling the ground" much easier. Women who obey God today do not find themselves free of pain in childbirth, for example.


Some women may say "as long as I am obeying God, I don't have to obey my husband". This is wrong. This view is like saying that as long as Christians obey God, they don't have to obey the governing authorities.
A Christian obeying the governing authorities is them obeying God.
Rom 13:1

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

A woman obeying her husband is her obeying God.

Let us not think that a woman obeying God does not mean she does not have to obey her husband.

This sort of wrong thinking is also manifested in other ways e.g.

"Because God provides for my needs I don't have to get a job. "

[testallthings]

PAGNINUS AND A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT BUSHNELL'S QUOTATIONS
(I just realized that in my previous post, due to some problems, part of my post was omitted. This is the complete one. Sorry for the confusion.)



Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?

...
She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles. (POST#21)





142. After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite." (GOD’S WORD TO WOMEN, Katharine Bushnell)




Pagniuo a trop négligé les anciens
interprètes de l'Écriture , pour s'attacher
aux sentiments des rabbins....
Il s'est imaginé que pour faire une
traduction fidèle , il était nécessaire
de suivre la lettre exactement et
selon la rigueur de la grammaire; ce
qui est tout-à-fait opposé à celte
exactitude prétendue , parce qu'il est
rare que deux langues se rencontrent
dans leurs locutions ; et ainsi ,
bien loin d'exprimer son original
dans la même pureté qu'il est écrit (Biographie Universelle page 373)
,



Pagniuo has neglected the old
Interpreters of Scripture, to attach themselves To the feelings of the rabbis .... He imagined that to make a Faithful translation, it was necessary to
To follow the letter exactly and According to the rigor of grammar; this
Which is wholly opposed to this Alleged accuracy, because it is Rare that two languages ​​meet In their locutions; and so, Far from expressing its originality In the same purity as it is written (Google translation; though not accurate I have posted it to give a broader context for Richard Simon's critique.)


Richard Simon likewise accuses Pagninus of “neglecting the ancient interpreters of Scripture, to rely upon the opinion of the Rabbis.” The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language, By G. Lloyd Jones, page 42


Pagninus ( a disciple of Savonarola) spent 25 years working on his translation. At that time it was highly appreciated by both Jews and Christians. Richard Simon (13 May 1638 – 11 April 1712, french priest) criticized Pagninus for relying upon the opinion of the Rabbis while neglecting the ancient interpreters of Scriptures (maybe the Church Fathers?).
Bushnell's quote appears to be a mistake.

Checking if Pagninus used the word lust in Gen. 3:16, I found that the word he used was “desiderium”. (https://play.google.com/books/reader...en&pg=GBS.PP66)

dēsīdĕrĭum , ii, n. desidero,
I.a longing, ardent desire or wish, properly for something once possessed; grief, regret for the absence or loss of any thing (for syn. cf.: optio, optatio, cupido, cupiditas, studium, appetitio, voluntas—freq. and class.). ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=latin#lexicon)

desiderium: an ardent desire or longing; especially :* a feeling of loss or grief for something lost (Merriam-Webster)

The Vulgate used this word in various passages like:


Psa 38:10 *Domine ante te omne desiderium meum et gemitus meus a te non est absconditus
Psa 38:9 Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee.




Proverbs 11: 23 *desiderium iustorum omne bonum est praestolatio impiorum furor
Pro 11:23 The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath.



Philippians 1:23 coartor autem e duobus desiderium habens dissolvi et cum Christo esse multo magis melius

Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (KJV)


Philippians 4:19
Deus autem meus impleat omne desiderium vestrum secundum divitias suas in gloria in Christo Iesu
Php 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (KJV)



Desiderius (given name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desiderius is a Latin given name, related to desiderium - which can be translated as "ardent desire" or "the longed-for". Various other forms include Desiderio in Italian, Desiderio or Desi in Spanish, Desidério in Portuguese, Didier in French and Dezső in Hungarian.
Desiderius may refer to:
Desiderius (died c. 786), the last king of the Lombard Kingdom of northern Italy
Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino (c. 1026-1087), successor of Pope Gregory VII
Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), Dutch humanist and theologian
Desiderius Hampel (1895-1981), Waffen-SS general
Desiderius of Aquitaine (died 587), Gallo-Roman dux in the Kingdom of the Franks
Desiderius Wein (1873-1944), Hungarian doctor and gymnast
Saints
Desiderius (lector), (died c. 303)
Desiderius of Auxerre, (died 621), bishop of Auxerre
Desiderius of Cahors (c. 580–655), Merovingian royal official
Desiderius of Fontenelle (died c. 700), Frankish saint
Desiderius of Vienne (died 607), archbishop of Vienne and chronicler
Desiderius of Pistoia, (died 725); See Barontius and Desiderius

It would really sound strange if we read Lust Erasmus from Rotterdam instead of Desiderius Erasmus. (emphasis added)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

It would really sound strange if we read Lust Erasmus from Rotterdam instead of Desiderius Erasmus. (emphasis added)

Same kind of question concerning Nicolas. Is that a conquering hero (conqueror for the people) or conquering bully (conqueror of the people). Or are names not always intended to bear the apparent meaning of the words or snippets of words that we find in them?

But on the other hand, if we presume that names are intended to mean what the words mean, then even if Desiderius Erasmus was intended to refer to desire, that does not deny that lust is an extreme form of desire and therefore not entirely ridiculous. My point is not to say that the word should be translated "lust." But neither does the fact that a guy's name wouldn't be "lust" but rather a softer form of the word deny that it could mean "lust."

But whether it is desire or lust, in terms of Gen 3:16, the intent is essentially the same. There would be something within the woman that would cause her to put herself under the man and therefore be ruled by him.

Still doesn't create a mandate as some are arguing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But whether it is desire or lust, in terms of Gen 3:16, the intent is essentially the same. There would be something within the woman that would cause her to put herself under the man and therefore be ruled by him.

Still doesn't create a mandate as some are arguing.

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.


The traditional and orthodox (or mandated) view is this:
The sin - woman deceiving man
The result - man ruling over women

The criminal, the woman, received the result of her crime.

In your view, the underlying, even sinister theme that is plainly obvious to me and anyone else who holds to the traditional, orthodox view, is that women are innocent and men are the criminals.

What much of the lemon verses actually are is Satan's inquisitive questions causing people to doubt the truth of God's Word.

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.

First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.

But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)

As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

Sounds can be deceiving.

Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.

But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.

"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"

Not at all the same as . . .

"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.

The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.

I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.

It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.

But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.

And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."

And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.

Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.

You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.

Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

What I am saying is that there is not some exclusive lock on the use of the term zoe with respect to God's life only. And none of the verses that you mention refer to what is the zoe discussed as being "God's life." That God provided it to us does not simply make it God's life or make God's life = zoe.

Zoe to the Greeks meant life in its idealized state. OBW is correct when he says it's more that just the life-energy that makes God living. It also includes all the behavioral and social results that spring from being related to God.

Lee got hung up on "life" as some kind of energy force emanating from God to us. It is that, but it's more than that. My observation is that focusing on "life" the way Lee did has advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that it suggests that the virtues of God are conveyed to us naturally through grace.

One disadvantage is that it tends to depersonalize God and even separate God's Person from his life, making "life" a kind of unconscious force, a way of accessing God's power while avoiding his personality.

[Drake]

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

They wouldn't. So what does that say about people who find fault with them because they won't?

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

They wouldn't. So what does that say about people who find fault with them because they won't?

Drake

I would agree that any church has the right to limit what can be taught under its umbrella. But that does not make its declared limitation correct in the ultimate sense, just in the "local" sense.

When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree that any church has the right to limit what can be taught under its umbrella. But that does not make its declared limitation correct in the ultimate sense, just in the "local" sense.

When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches.

OBW,

What does that have to do with Chayil?

Drake "the Mod"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

What does that have to do with Chayil?

Drake "the Mod"

Duplicitous question. It was in response to your post. Therefore, if there is a problem of linkage to Chayil, it began with the post I responded to — yours.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Duplicitous question. It was in response to your post. Therefore, if there is a problem of linkage to Chayil, it began with the post I responded to — yours.

Nevertheless you should show how it is relevant to the subject.

Assuming it is.

I just don't think any Christian group should have to allow Chayil to be taught.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

I wouldn't expect leadership to endorse my writing. I would just expect them to allow me the freedom to publish if I feel led.

I just don't see the LCM kind of control endorsed in the NT. Paul told us to use our gifts according to the measure of grace given to us. I don't seen anything about checking with "the brothers" about every little thing you do.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

That is supportive of the notion local churches are really ministry churches. You must receive LSM publications or you're on your own. In LC history that's happened. It's not even an issue publishing on your own.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

That is supportive of the notion local churches are really ministry churches. You must receive LSM publications or you're on your own. In LC history that's happened. It's not even an issue publishing on your own.

It's supportive of the notion that the local churches are not anything goes,.. that is.. anyone can teach whatever they like and no one should stop them. Applied here, that means no local church should be forced to allow the doctrine and teachings of Chayil to be taught in them.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Drake, does that sound to you like the smear campaign waged by LSM against numerous GLA brothers? LSM orchestrated a Kangaroo Court in Whistler Canada with Titus Chu in absentia. Doesn't sound like they were just letting him be "on his own."

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

Where in scripture do we find book publishers demanding that all their readers forego their rights to also write and publish books? Does not the liberty of the Spirit allow the readers to decide what they will read and not read?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, does that sound to you like the smear campaign waged by LSM against numerous GLA brothers? LSM orchestrated a Kangaroo Court in Whistler Canada with Titus Chu in absentia. Doesn't sound like they were just letting him be "on his own."


Where in scripture do we find book publishers demanding that all their readers forego their rights to also write and publish books? Does not the liberty of the Spirit allow the readers to decide what they will read and not read?

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

If LSM was the first century publisher of Paul's epistles, they would have quarantined Peter, John, Jude, and James.

The coerced lack of diversity of writers proves that the Recovery is the movement of man and not the move of God.

I grew up in Catholicism. We had specific literature for every service in our Missal. No different than LC headquarters providing HWFMR for every service.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

Igzy,

In making your point you are ignoring history and the clear instruction and examples from the Scriptures.

First, many people wrote, not just those eventually included in the Bible. Using your logic why exclude any of them? The Catholic Bible includes some other books. Should we include those too? They and others who wrote are not included in the canon of scripture but why not?

That alone validates that not every book or letter written was included in the canon of Scripture and therefore, not everyone who writes something should be given a fair and equal shot of inclusion. If you agree and say that not everyone should be allowed then whose criteria do we use to decide? Who decides who is "in the true movement of the Lord"?

LSM and the local churches will decide for themselves. As do Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and every other group that stands for a certain set of beliefs. Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing.

The Bible also reveals limitations and filtering on what may be taught as Paul instructed Timothy

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

It is very clear that Timothy was to tell those in Ephesus what to teach and what not to teach. So in this case they did not need to check with anyone because they were told what was allowed and what was not. The publishing arm of Paul had its bounds and limits. There is our NT model to follow.

I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Chayil to be taught for those reasons.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Chayil to be taught for those reasons.

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. There were plenty of other genuine apostles around, just as there are plenty of genuine, godly men of God around today to relate the healthy teachings of the REAL One Publication - the living and abiding Word of God.

Now thankfully God has raised up a number of genuine, godly women who have shown the fortitude and courage to speak some desperately needed truth to the Body of Christ. Of course they have been met with great resistance from some of their brothers in Christ, who seem to be stuck in the centuries old prejudices and draconian mindset that have held both women and men back from taking their rightful place in serving our Lord, his people and his Kingdom.

And this is one of the reasons that the Local Church of Witness Lee has remained the insolent, insignificant little sect that it has in the West - Their attitude and treatment of our sisters in Christ is nothing short of deplorable. They are treated as second class citizens, and this is one of Jane's touchstones in Chayil - that women were not created as second class citizens in the Kingdom of God. Eve was created second, NOT second class.
-