New Jane Anderson Website

[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.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by 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.
-

Brother Untohim, I don't know Jane Anderson from Adams' cat. But from what I see from her so far, and know of a little bit, she seems quite taken with herself. Sorry, if I'm wrong about that. She's doing the writings, so if I'm wrong, I'm either reading her wrong, or she's presenting her writings wrong.

Hey, she's got a website. Let her come out here and explain how she doesn't have a disproportionately sized ego. Ma Culpa if I am. Like I said I'm cautious.

I'd love to be wrong.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by 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.
-

Unto---

That's rich...JANE has a big ego. The pots calling the kettle black?

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Unto---

it's rich...the pots are calling the kettle black...don't you think?

Nell

Oh I agree. I'm a kettle in a glass house throwing the first stone.

But doesn't sister Jane have a cult following? Sisters of the traveling pants, so to speak?

I know someone out here said cults are everywhere to be found, but that doesn't mean I should like them, male or female.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh I agree. I'm a kettle in a glass house throwing the first stone.

But doesn't sister Jane have a cult following? Sisters of the traveling pants, so to speak?

I know someone out here said cults are everywhere to be found, but that doesn't mean I should like them, male or female.

Why the attacks on Jane Anderson? What has she done to you? You seem to be suspicious of everyone who desires to serve God and others. To you every collection of Christians on earth is a cult, starting with every church you ever visited.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why the attacks on Jane Anderson? What has she done to you? You seem to be suspicious of everyone who desires to serve God and others. To you every collection of Christians on earth is a cult, starting with every church you ever visited.

Bro Ohio, you draw the most delightful straw men. You're good at it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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.

You compare her ego to WL, saying we should praise her, because you have bumped into her "big ego."

Originally Posted by awareness

But from what I see from her so far, and know of a little bit, she seems quite taken with herself... Hey, she's got a website. Let her come out here and explain how she doesn't have a disproportionately sized ego.

Here you say she has a "disproportionately sized ego" because she has her own website, and somehow "she seems quite taken with herself.

Originally Posted by awareness

But doesn't sister Jane have a cult following? Sisters of the traveling pants, so to speak? I know someone out here said cults are everywhere to be found, but that doesn't mean I should like them, male or female.

And here you imply that Jane has a "cult following," and "said cults are everywhere to be found."

How have I drawn a STRAW MAN here? Didn't you tell us that the church of Christ is a cult, and the Southern Baptists are not only a cult, but also racist?

Perhaps you are not only wrong about Jane Anderson, but wrong about other things you have written too. Maybe???

[Evangelical]

Jane says that our bibles today are Satanic:

"Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations".

wow. She is not just saying that these verses have been misused or misapplied, but that God is unable to preserve His Word, or worse, that He allowed Satan to corrupt them.

Apparently the bible is a mixture of grapes (God verses) and lemons (Satanic verses)

This is in stark contrast with this view of preservation:

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.

Her website is basically proclaiming that we cannot trust the Scriptures because God did not sovereingly oversee the process of transmission.



In Lemon 1 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 she says:


"It seems evident that the translators weren't really sure what Paul was saying" ~ seems evident according to her expertise as a scholar?
"The way they translated his words suggests they were under the influence of male bias". ~ of course, she knows exactly what the translators were thinking, she's the expert right?

She also changes God's Word just to match her views:

"I accomplish this by changing 'I would' to 'would I" in the opening phrase of verse 3"
"I conclude the quote with a question mark"

So she unashamedly changes God's Word from "I would...". to "would I...?" and completely reverse the meaning of the passage.

She then says:

"I am not a bible translator" but hopes that the changes will stimulate new thought and inspire some translators to do the work to "de-lemonise" the passages.

In other words, "I hope some real bible scholars will come and support my amateurish modifications".

The approach she takes is:

First presume that the lemon passages exist, and that the translators were under the influence of male bias which was in fact Satanic - i.e. God is unable to preserve His Word.
Then proceed to change verses here and there to match her presumptions - i.e. change God's Word
Then hope that these modifications will inspire serious bible scholars to fix the problems which she claims to exist .

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

While I might agree that there is something unsettling in the way that Jane has approached the problems with Bible translation, the "doctrine of preservation" that you quote goes too far when it declares that the "original meaning" is preserved. While I would agree that the original meaning is always there, it is not because it is preserved that we are able to find it. It is because good Spirit-filled people join to work at studying and understanding what is written to ferret out what is really there rather than what we want to be there.

And what we want to be there is a problem on all sides of any argument, whether it is about how to meet or what to do about women. What scripture means is not simply written down. It requires study. It is not simply there. But saying that does not mean that it is found when applying external overlays and biases of understanding.

The scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. And who should teach is not a matter of righteousness.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I might agree that there is something unsettling in the way that Jane has approached the problems with Bible translation, the "doctrine of preservation" that you quote goes too far when it declares that the "original meaning" is preserved. While I would agree that the original meaning is always there, it is not because it is preserved that we are able to find it. It is because good Spirit-filled people join to work at studying and understanding what is written to ferret out what is really there rather than what we want to be there.

And what we want to be there is a problem on all sides of any argument, whether it is about how to meet or what to do about women. What scripture means is not simply written down. It requires study. It is not simply there. But saying that does not mean that it is found when applying external overlays and biases of understanding.

The scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. And who should teach is not a matter of righteousness.

Would you consider the bible commentators I post and the theologians like Wallace etc to be "good Spirit-filled people who work at studying and understanding what is written" ? If not, what type of people are you referring to? Mystics? TV-evangelists?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jane says that our bibles today are Satanic:
"Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations".
wow. She is not just saying that these verses have been misused or misapplied, but that God is unable to preserve His Word, or worse, that He allowed Satan to corrupt them.

Incredible. All these nuggets of wisdom coming from a guy who's guru taught that one of the producers of the divine revelation (aka the Bible) was himself "devoid of the divine revelation"! Witness Lee changed the Word of God, sometimes literally, other time by his heretical interpretations, hundreds upon hundreds of times. Jane couldn't catch up to Lee in this regard if she had another 10 lifetimes.

Jane Anderson is just one little member who has a burden to see that Christian women have an opportunity to take their rightful place and function along side of their brothers in the Body of Christ. Is she the one sister with the one burden on earth or the only sister speaking as God's oracle? Nah, she hasn't even implied that, much less came right out and said such preposterous nonsense, like Witness Lee did.

Mr. E, you and yours have a lot of housecleaning to do before you go about whining about a few crumbs on the floors of others....so off with ya my lad...you've got lot's a work to do.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Incredible. All these nuggets of wisdom coming from a guy who's guru taught that one of the producers of the divine revelation (aka the Bible) was himself "devoid of the divine revelation"! Witness Lee changed the Word of God, sometimes literally, other time by his heretical interpretations, hundreds upon hundreds of times. Jane couldn't catch up to Lee in this regard if she had another 10 lifetimes.

Jane Anderson is just one little member who has a burden to see that Christian women have an opportunity to take their rightful place and function along side of their brothers in the Body of Christ. Is she the one sister with the one burden on earth or the only sister speaking as God's oracle? Nah, she hasn't even implied that, much less came right out and said such preposterous nonsense, like Witness Lee did.

Mr. E, you and yours have a lot of housecleaning to do before you go about whining about a few crumbs on the floors of others....so off with ya my lad...you've got lot's a work to do.
-

It's stink bait. A straw woman. You know, straw women are part and parcel of forums like this...right? It's time for a good laugh. I expect a phone call from Jane any second. Ah! There it is...later...

.

[Evangelical]

We can actually name some of these translators who Jane claims were under the influence of Satan as they translated the Wycliffe bible (some of many translations of the bible into English)

These were:

Nicholas of Hereford , John Purvey and John Trevisa
Nicholas [of] Hereford was a Fellow of The Queen's College, Oxford [1] and Chancellor of the University of Oxford in 1382.[2] He was a Doctor of Theology, which he achieved at Oxford University in 1382
John Purvey (c. 1354 – c. 1414)[1] was one of the leading followers of the English theologian and reformer John Wycliffe during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.
John Trevisa (or John of Trevisa; Latin: Ioannes Trevisa; fl. 1342 – 1402 AD) was a Cornish writer and translator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif...nd_controversy

Jane would have us believe that these translators were inspired by Satan as they translated the verses she disagrees with (the lemon verses) and as soon as they moved onto the other verses they were inspired by God again?

If she has a "burden to see that Christian women have an opportunity to take their rightful place and function along side of their brothers in the Body of Christ.", she is going about it in a strange way.

I can imagine all of the theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary finding ways to change those lemons into grapes....

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jane says that our bibles today are Satanic:

"Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations".

You do understand that "Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations" is not the same as "Jane says that our bibles today are Satanic." ? Right?

wow. She is not just saying that these verses have been misused or misapplied, but that God is unable to preserve His Word, or worse, that He allowed Satan to corrupt them.

Jane didn't say that. You did.

You do understand that the original Greek text is not the same as the text translated by men into English? Right? The original Greek and Hebrew text has been preserved by God for all time.

You do understand that it is possible for men to make mistakes? Right?

Apparently the bible is a mixture of grapes (God verses) and lemons (Satanic verses)

Uh...8 verses. Jane discusses 8 verses which she believes were translated with influence of male bias which changed the meaning of the verses. She makes her case, and suggests that the translators should take another look at the verses.

This is in stark contrast with this view of preservation:

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.

Are you talking about preserving the original Greek or the multitude of translations which were translated by men who are subject to bias and prejudice?

Take you for example. You are so biased and prejudiced against Jane that you can't carry on a rational discussion about what Jane actually said without twisting and perverting it into something she didn't say. I'm certain, however, that the Bible translators are honorable, sober minded men with integrity.

Her website is basically proclaiming that we cannot trust the Scriptures because God did not sovereingly oversee the process of transmission.

Will you stop? No. Jane's website does not "proclaim" such ludicrous assertions. Everyone who believes this, please go to Jane's website and find out for yourself at www.lemonstograpes.com what disingenuous fake news pours from this man.

If this man tells you what day it is, better check the calendar.

In Lemon 1 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 she says:

"It seems evident that the translators weren't really sure what Paul was saying" ~ seems evident according to her expertise as a scholar?
"The way they translated his words suggests they were under the influence of male bias". ~ of course, she knows exactly what the translators were thinking, she's the expert right?

"It seems evident that the translators weren't really sure..."

You do understand that seems evident is a statement that opens the door to a possibility but is not definitive. Then she explains how she came to pose the possibilities.

"The way they translated his words suggests they were under the influence of male bias". ~ of course, she knows exactly what the translators were thinking, she's the expert right?

You do understand that suggests means that she DOESN'T know exactly what the translators were thinking? She never claimed to be an "expert".

She also changes God's Word just to match her views:

"I accomplish this by changing 'I would' to 'would I" in the opening phrase of verse 3"
"I conclude the quote with a question mark"

So she unashamedly changes God's Word from "I would...". to "would I...?" and completely reverse the meaning of the passage.

You do understand that Jane didn't actually change God's Word? Right? She suggested a possible change in the translation that would make said translation make sense?

She then says:

"I am not a bible translator" but hopes that the changes will stimulate new thought and inspire some translators to do the work to "de-lemonise" the passages.

And the problem with this is? If something is translated incorrectly, isn't it the responsibility of Bible translators to get it right?

In other words, "I hope some real bible scholars will come and support my amateurish modifications".

The approach she takes is:

First presume that the lemon passages exist, and that the translators were under the influence of male bias which was in fact Satanic - i.e. God is unable to preserve His Word.
Then proceed to change verses here and there to match her presumptions - i.e. change God's Word
Then hope that these modifications will inspire serious bible scholars to fix the problems which she claims to exist .

This pathetic diatribe says more about you than it does about Jane. But I must admit, you've outdone yourself on this one.

Does denigrating Christian women make you feel good?

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

You do understand that "Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations" is not the same as "Jane says that our bibles today are Satanic." ? Right?
l

Generally the bible translators are thought to have performed their work with the oversight of the Holy Spirit. But if they are influenced by Satan as they translated then...?

Satan is behind part of the KJV bible?

In some places she ascribes the mistranslation directly to Satan:

"By changing Genesis 3:16 as he did, Satan mispresented God and how His authority works". ~ from lemon 1 "1 Corinthians 11:1–16".

So this is no longer just man and his natural male bias translating the Bible, but Satan himself translating the bible. Or is she referring to Satan as in his influence, or Satan the person?

Originally Posted by Nell

You do understand that the original Greek text is not the same as the text translated by men into English? Right? The original Greek and Hebrew text has been preserved by God for all time.

I think we can all agree they are not the same. Something is always lost in translation which means the Greek or Hebrew is superior to the English. But the doctrine of biblical preservation says that God preserves the meaning even in translation.

By the way, the "original" New Testament could have been written in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, there's no clear cut "original". What we say is the "original Greek" may not be the original.
If we believe that God preserved the translation from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek or whatever the "original language" truly was, we must also believe He preserved the translation from Greek into English.

Originally Posted by Nell

Uh...8 verses. Jane discusses 8 verses which she believes were translated with influence of male bias which changed the meaning of the verses. She makes her case, and suggests that the translators should take another look at the verses.

46 verses in total if I count correctly. It seems significant to me, because when I think about it, the number of verses inserted by translators to support the doctrine of the Trinity are no more than 5 or so.

Errors, insertions and deletions happen, I'm just not sure it's as many verses that the book claims.

Originally Posted by Nell

I'll ask again, are you talking about preserving the original Greek or the multitude of translations which were translated by men who are subject to bias and prejudice?

Like you. You are so biased and prejudiced against Jane that you can't carry on a rational discussion about what Jane actually said without twisting and perverting it into something she didn't say.

The doctrine of biblical preservation says that God is able to preserve the meaning of the translations, not just the original Greek (which are themselves possibly translations from an original language, Hebrew or Aramaic).

Originally Posted by Nell

Will you stop? No. Jane's website does not "proclaim" such ludicrous assertions. Everyone who believes this, please go to Jane's website and find out for yourself at www.lemonstograpes.com what disingenuous fake news pours from this man.

If this man tells you what day it is, better check the calendar.

When a website says that 46 verses of the bible are lemons, translated by Satan, I can't think of any other way to put it.

It says that Satan changed the bible right here:

"By changing Genesis 3:16 as he did, Satan mispresented God and how His authority works".

page 13, http://lemonstograpes.com/eight-lemo...d-into-grapes/.

People can look for themselves if interested.

Maybe she didn't mean Satan himself, but "Satan" indwelling the natural man, like Lee taught. If so then it sounds better.

Originally Posted by Nell

"It seems evident that the translators weren't really sure..."

You do understand that seems evident is a statement that opens the door to a possibility but is not definitive. Then she explains how she came to pose the possibilities.

"The way they translated his words suggests they were under the influence of male bias". ~ of course, she knows exactly what the translators were thinking, she's the expert right?

You do understand that suggests means that she DOESN'T know exactly what the translators were thinking? She never claimed to be an "expert".

She likes to guess what the translators were thinking, even to suggest what translators were thinking is to me an impossible task. If the Greek translation is wrong, then the right approach to me would be to review the Greek translation and make the corrections into English. Argue from the point of view of the Greek not the English. This is what Prof Wallace etc do. They know the Greek language, they know the typical usesage, the structure, verbs, nouns, and all that. They know, that a verse at the end of a chapter relates to a verse at the start of the next, because of the structure, the beginning and the ends.

Originally Posted by Nell

You do understand that Jane didn't actually change God's Word? Right? She suggested a possible change in the translation that would make said translation make sense?

She hasn't changed anything I agree. But she did change some things around to make it make sense (to her).

Originally Posted by Nell

And the problem with this is? If something is translated incorrectly, isn't it the responsibility of Bible translators to get it right?

I agree. But it's not clear that it is translated incorrectly. Does Jane even detail when and where these errors came into being? Was it Wycliffe's translation comittee? Was it the KJV? Was it all of them?

The English Revised Version has done a good job at fixing most of them. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Britain. American scholars were invited to co-operate.

Has none of the hundreds of people involved in bible translation found these errors? Are they all influenced by Satan? Is every male influenced by Satan just because he is male?

If Jane is right then this could be a very significant thing. She could get in touch with bible publishers and ask them to look into it, or something like that if she hasn't already. There must be female bible translators on the bible translation committees these days I would think.

[Drake]

"You are so biased and prejudiced against Jane that you can't carry on a rational discussion about what Jane actually said without twisting and perverting it into something she didn't say."

No objective reader can claim Evangelical is not carrying on a rational discussion. It is, if nothing else, rational through and through. That Is exactly what is bothering people the most. Folks may not like his interpretation of what Jane said, but it is a rational presentation on his part.

Nell, your friendship and care for Jane is commendable but your last post is the epitome of irrational conversation. Your explanation of "seems evident" is about as weak a defense one could present. Actually, it seems evident that what Jane meant by "it seems evident" is that a most plausible explanation is being advanced and one that is pretty darn close to definitive in her mind. Otherwise, she wouldn't say it seems evident, because it would not seem evident at all.

For instance, when some people say something like "it seems evident that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians" they mean to convey something much more definitive along the line that he did and not that it opens the door to a possibility that he did.

It is a glaring example of the irrational defense oft repeated throughout your last post. I'm really not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, yours or Jane's, but that is how I saw it.

Drake