New Jane Anderson Website

[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?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

There is a general flaw in modern theology — actually going back almost all the way to Martin Luther.

For all the faults with the RCC, at least they generally took the initiative to dig into areas of theology. Since it was a closed system, change was slow. But there generally was change. The problem in Martin Luther's time is that the Pope was corrupt and was behind the things like indulgences. He didn't want the topic discussed. And some of the others as well.

But starting there, the same thing has become the norm. Theologians, groups, etc., silo themselves from all external thought on theology such that their only interaction with it is to spend time debunking it. And all branches of theology spend a lot of time debunking virtually all the other branches of theology. At least on certain issues. Rather than be open to continued discussion, Luther said "no" and thus the first Pretestant split. And from there through each split — Anabaptists, Methodists, etc. — rather than discuss what it is that some see and the "stalwarts" do not, they just separated and let it be. No more willingness to allow for difference of opinion as the truth is studied.

And the same can be said today about so many of the theologians that I personally think very highly of. They do not seek to do this as a matter of will. But they have generally started their journey on a particular track of theology and live their lives defending it. They "believe" it is the right thing to do. Seldom actually studying alternative understandings. Only sharpening their skill at skewering it without true understanding.

I realize that I am overstating it at some level. But the tendency for bias in study is very real. And it often stays so because they are employees or members of groups that have positions that they expect to maintain. This is true of many seminary professors, preachers, writers, etc. Oddly, at the level of local pastor/preacher, the dogmas often are less severe. They learned from a particular school of thought, but they deal with the Bible with reference to the lives of their flock rather than the theological bent of their group. They acknowledge that there are many thoughts on various topics. And they admit that they have an opinion on the subjects, but are more likely to admit they could be wrong.

Yes, those Bible commentators are generally good spirit-filled people. But they are too often studied in a closed system and are unfamiliar with the idea that theology is a philosophical study, not a scientific study based on past "proofs" that are not questioned. Science doesn't even work that way. But theology too often does. Just as you assert every time you trot out any particular commentator that said something you agree with. No matter his pedigree, he is not the final arbiter of truth. Just a voice stating (and often fighting for) a particular version of what could be true. It is a position to be considered. As are other positions. There is no rule that says certain sources are more acceptable. An evangelical theologian v a Catholic theologian. Both should be studied and considered. Either, neither, or both could be right.

That goes for everyone outside of the actual scripture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a general flaw in modern theology — actually going back almost all the way to Martin Luther.

For all the faults with the RCC, at least they generally took the initiative to dig into areas of theology. Since it was a closed system, change was slow. But there generally was change. The problem in Martin Luther's time is that the Pope was corrupt and was behind the things like indulgences. He didn't want the topic discussed. And some of the others as well.

But starting there, the same thing has become the norm. Theologians, groups, etc., silo themselves from all external thought on theology such that their only interaction with it is to spend time debunking it. And all branches of theology spend a lot of time debunking virtually all the other branches of theology. At least on certain issues. Rather than be open to continued discussion, Luther said "no" and thus the first Pretestant split. And from there through each split — Anabaptists, Methodists, etc. — rather than discuss what it is that some see and the "stalwarts" do not, they just separated and let it be. No more willingness to allow for difference of opinion as the truth is studied.

And the same can be said today about so many of the theologians that I personally think very highly of. They do not seek to do this as a matter of will. But they have generally started their journey on a particular track of theology and live their lives defending it. They "believe" it is the right thing to do. Seldom actually studying alternative understandings. Only sharpening their skill at skewering it without true understanding.

I realize that I am overstating it at some level. But the tendency for bias in study is very real. And it often stays so because they are employees or members of groups that have positions that they expect to maintain. This is true of many seminary professors, preachers, writers, etc. Oddly, at the level of local pastor/preacher, the dogmas often are less severe. They learned from a particular school of thought, but they deal with the Bible with reference to the lives of their flock rather than the theological bent of their group. They acknowledge that there are many thoughts on various topics. And they admit that they have an opinion on the subjects, but are more likely to admit they could be wrong.

Yes, those Bible commentators are generally good spirit-filled people. But they are too often studied in a closed system and are unfamiliar with the idea that theology is a philosophical study, not a scientific study based on past "proofs" that are not questioned. Science doesn't even work that way. But theology too often does. Just as you assert every time you trot out any particular commentator that said something you agree with. No matter his pedigree, he is not the final arbiter of truth. Just a voice stating (and often fighting for) a particular version of what could be true. It is a position to be considered. As are other positions. There is no rule that says certain sources are more acceptable. An evangelical theologian v a Catholic theologian. Both should be studied and considered. Either, neither, or both could be right.

That goes for everyone outside of the actual scripture.

If you want to see biases in action check out the YouTube debate between Wallace and Ehrman.

Both are top textual critics. Both read and write Koine Greek and know the manuscripts inside and out. Both are top rated Bible scholars, in the circle of Bible scholars.

Can you spot the biases?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyABBZe5o68&t=249s

[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...

.

[UntoHim]

I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-

Good idea. Oh John???

[John]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-

UntoHim,

I appreciate your invitation to reply to Evangelical, which was seconded by Nell (#25) and, then, mockingly mentioned by Drake (#31). (Drake’s post reminded me of Goliath’s taunt, but I am not trying to compare myself to David.)

Some problems with posts

Let me explain, from the perspective of readers, how I view problems in posts, and use some of Evangelical’s and Drake’s posts as examples of these problems. I give readers credit for being able to recognize when a post:

1. Does not differentiate between fact and opinion. For any interested, there are writings available that point out fallacies in argumentation. (Some of Evangelical’s posts could be used as examples of what not to do in argument. I pointed out problems with just a few paragraphs of one of his posts [“Woman’s Role” thread, #96]. Most of what I listed probably doesn’t even rise to the level of proper argument on his part but are simply problems with his use of English and lack of logic.)
   
   
2. Avoids an issue by just ignoring it. (Example: In “Women’s Role” #96, I wrote fourteen points about Evangelical’s opening paragraphs in one of his posts. He responded to only half of them by number and didn’t address all of the issues in the numbered items that he did address.) When I see this kind of behavior, I realize that the person is not being intellectually honest.
   
   
3. Avoids an issue by addressing a different issue, addressing it as if it was the same one. (Example: I brought up in “Women’s Role” #106 that Evangelical stated that Satan sowed Judas, and I cited a verse stating that Jesus chose Judas. I requested that Evangelical retract and repent. Instead, he gave an explanation that Judas was a tare (which was not the point) and concluded with, “God allowed Satan to use Judas.” As if that wasn’t enough, he then joked about it (#116) by seconding Drake’s joke on the matter (#110). This kind of sleight-of-hand does not clear him of ascribing to Satan what the apostle John attributed to Jesus. This kind of behavior is either disingenuous or displays an inability to understand the point being made.
   
   
4. Is guilty of hypocrisy. (Example: Read Evangelical’s posts in this thread [“New Jane Anderson Website”] about Jane’s statement that the devil was behind lemon translations and compare it to his ascribing to Satan what Jesus did (as explained in #3 above.)
   
   
5. Displays an attitude that belies its words. It’s somewhat captured in the saying, “What you are is speaking so loudly that I can’t hear what you’re saying.” (Example: Some of Evangelical’s posts have given away some of his true thoughts and feelings about women and what he thinks that their place should be. And, yes, this is an opinion; and, yes, this is something that I cannot know for sure. Note that I am not the first one to express such.)
   
   
6. Reveals an agenda. (Example: This thread began when Koinonia posted one night what was basically just a notice that Jane Anderson had a new website. Evangelical, early the next morning, began a personal attack against Jane. He was joined by Drake, who mounted another personal attack. Next, Evangelical turned it into a joke and, this time, Drake was the one who joined in with the joke.) One thing that people do when they do not have a good answer to a question or response to a statement is to respond with a personal attack or a joke.

Motives of those in the Local Church and related entities

Why would Evangelical and Drake engage in such personal attacks against Jane Anderson, even mocking her and her writings? Of course, I can’t know for sure what their motives are, but here’s what I think: It is apparent to me that they are members of the Local Church. As such (and I speak from twenty years of experience), they basically have a duty to protect and defend, at all costs, the Local Church, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), associated ministries (like Defense and Confirmation Project [DCP] and A Faithful Word [AFW]), Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee.

Jane wrote a book (The Thread of Gold: God’s Purpose, the Cross, and Me) giving her personal testimony of her experiences in the Local Church, as well as experiences with the LSM of Witness Lee. This book was denounced from the podium by Benson Phillips, one who became a main ministry leader after Witness Lee’s death. As far as the leaders are concerned, Jane has to be denounced whenever possible, because her exposé negatively impacted them and their movement. One of the things that her story showed was the Local Church’s poor treatment of women. Regardless, her book has helped hundreds, if not thousands, understand how the Local Church operates, and her book has helped many recover from their experiences there.

Why is Jane Anderson still being attacked?

The Thread of Gold, which was published twelve years ago, is still having an impact today. After its publication, Jane began posting on Internet forums, first on what’s known as “The Bereans” and then on this one, “Local Church Discussions.” As those of us who were in the Local Church movement know, members are asked to present a good image to the outside world, and some even go into this “ministry” on a full-time basis. After one of Jane’s posts, a former elder in the Local Church wrote to AFW, stating that her post was not true. AFW, trying to discredit her, posted the man’s letter on their website. When Jane found out about it, she wrote a long response to the attack.

My point here, of course, is that those associated with the Local Church and LSM will try to disparage Jane in any way they can. Objective readers can ascertain for themselves whether the level of attack in this thread is warranted, what might have caused the attack, and whether or not Evangelical and Drake are simply hanging out on this forum to try to prop up the images of the Local Church, LSM, Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, etc.

John’s reasons for this post

I would ask all interested readers to conduct a simple analysis: In my post about Evangelical’s post (#96 on the “Women’s Role” thread), did I make one disparaging or mocking comment about his person? My answer would be, “No,” but I leave the reader to decide. In this post, however, since he has, from the starting gun, attacked Jane personally, I have definitely tried to shine a light on him and Drake and some of their tactics. I am not claiming to be perfect, but I am trying to be straightforward and fair-minded.

My involvement on a thread will not be governed by Evangelical’s or Drake’s antics. I write this so that readers will understand why I do not post every time either of them makes some claim that reflects some of #1 through #6 above. If they would address all of my comments in this thread (which also covers things they wrote on the “Women’s Role” thread), then I would consider treating them differently, depending, of course, on how they would respond.

My attitude and posture towards Evangelical’s and Drake’s posts will be that they all contain some amount of what I outlined above. My suggestion to readers would be to take every post of theirs with several grains of salt. You might think of their posts as I do—leaven. Therefore, no matter how logical many of their statements appear to sound, they are probably not logical and probably poorly thought out when scrutinized (for example, see my #96 on “Women’s Role” thread).

About this Satan stuff

Now, to the substance of Evangelical’s and Drake’s attack, which I will not spend much time on or go into much detail about for the reasons stated above. Their histrionics seem to be mainly directed toward one quote from Jane’s book, A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies. As you are aware, Jane is posting excerpts from this book on her blog at LemonsToGrapes.com. She first posted “Lemon One: 1st Corinthians 11:1–16,” which occurs around page 149 of the paperback book. (By the way, it is gratifying to know that Evangelical actually read the portion that was posted, or some of it at least.) Unfortunately, however, the presentation that answers his attack is on pages 31–34. As Nell might write to him, “You do realize that the quote you are going crazy about is from a book, don’t you?” As Matthew might write, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23, KJV). For thoughtful persons, this should be enough to answer the Satan charge.

So, the bottom line here would be that if Evangelical is really interested in doing more than simply castigating Jane for what he thinks is a great “got-cha,” he might read the entire book first; and, in the process, he might actually learn something—from a woman. Oh, wait a minute, in some of his later posts, I see that he is actually admitting that Jane could be right regarding the translation in Genesis 3:16 (“turning”). Although he grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of the translation change, he still doesn’t want to admit to more. I hope that he continues to read A Woman of Chayil, even if he is only reading it piecemeal. Maybe his Local Church perspective will be shaken some in the process. (And, this just in, he has now admitted this: “Jane’s book makes some very good points and is worth a read, as is Bushnell's. I have learnt things I did not know before” (#70). Well, what do you know, Evangelical was taught by a woman (er … make that two women)! Actually, I do appreciate him admitting this. It’s too bad that he had to go to such lengths to try to inflict damage before getting to this point.

Conclusion

I hope that this post has been helpful to some. I just wanted to let folks know that I think that people who are posting like Evangelical and Drake don’t really deserve a response from me. I just wanted to let readers know why I plan to treat them somewhat like static on a radio. This does not necessarily mean that I will never address things they bring up; I will just do so as I notice it and as it seems appropriate. For example, in “About this Satan stuff,” I quickly refer to some of the attacks, as they occurred to me. I didn’t, however, make a full and complete rebuttal.

I do plan for my next post to be more in line with the spirit of the opening post on this thread, that is, something related to the content on the Lemons to Grapes website. Actually, my next post will cover some introductory material and set the stage for the following one that will actually get into the real meat (lemon?) of the subject: translation.

[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....

[UntoHim]

Where does it literally say that "Jesus is the Spirit"? Where does it literally say "Jesus is the Father"? Actually, these were Witness Lee's decidedly unorthodox and even heretical INTERPRETATIONS of what the Lord Jesus and the scripture writing apostles actually wrote. There is a very good reason that no widely accepted, orthodox, evangelical teacher/scholar teaches that Jesus is or became the Holy Spirit or that Jesus is or became God the Father.

Just like your guru you seem to have a big problem with basic communication in the English language. Jane has made it perfectly clear what is the cause and source of the mistranslations. You either can't understand plain written English, or your reasoning abilities are so pickled with Lee's junk theology that you can't understand solid, reasonable and biblical proofs when they are presented right before your eyes.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where does it literally say that "Jesus is the Spirit"? Where does it literally say "Jesus is the Father"? Actually, these were Witness Lee's decidedly unorthodox and even heretical INTERPRETATIONS of what the Lord Jesus and the scripture writing apostles actually wrote. There is a very good reason that no widely accepted, orthodox, evangelical teacher/scholar teaches that Jesus is or became the Holy Spirit or that Jesus is or became God the Father.

Just like your guru you seem to have a big problem with basic communication in the English language. Jane has made it perfectly clear what is the cause and source of the mistranslations. You either can't understand plain written English, or your reasoning abilities are so pickled with Lee's junk theology that you can't understand solid, reasonable and biblical proofs when they are presented right before your eyes.
-

If you think Jane is correct, then please explain how it is possible for the translators to be inspired by Satan for some verses and inspired by God for others? How did it happen? Did Satan enter the translators as they wrote the "lemon verses" and then left as soon as they had finished? It sounds like an implausible conspiracy theory to me.

She has not made it perfectly clear at all. She quotes Bushnell sometimes but most of the time we have to take her word for it. She has not addressed obvious questions that people will raise like the one I just have. I don't think you know the difference between a professional and an amateur - "solid, reasonable and biblical proofs" are what Dallas Theological Seminary produces, Wallace et al. People with degrees, scholarly books and articles to their name, and some degree of reputation. I have not seen anything from Jane on the same level. It would not matter if Jane consulted the experts and quoted them, but she hasn't, probably because they are all men influenced by Satan too right?

Let me give an example of plain and literal and compare that with Jane's approach.

We can say that 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit says plainly, "Jesus is the Spirit"

But Jane can't support her views with such simple bible reading. She has to explain how the original Greek was mistranslated by people under the influence of Satan and how if you change this word here and turn it into a question mark, only then does it mean what she says it means.

She's like a person who doesn't know what they are doing trying to fix a car by taking out a bolt here and putting it there, with no understand of what they are doing, and most likely going to break the whole thing. Like when she turned Paul's command "I would" into a question "would I?", might break the whole thing.

A plain and literal reading of this verse is that Jesus is the Father:

Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Strange how every other name means what it plainly says in that verse except the one "Everlasting Father".

[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

[Evangelical]

The book has claimed that "all male translation committees" are responsible for mistranslating the bible. I can show that this logic is faulty, and it's not so simple, because some bible versions which have all-male members on the translation committee translate in favor of her views, and some bible versions on which females are well represented translate it the same as the KJV! If Jane's logic is correct, then it should be the other way around!

One way to verify (or not) these claims is to compare the verses said to be mistranslated due to male bias, with the same verses translated in bible versions where women are well represented on the committee.

Sound reasonable? Then let's begin. If not, then I'd like to hear why you think my comparison is not reasonable.

This site says which bible versions have females on the translation committee:
http://margmowczko.com/female-bible-translators/

CEB seems the best one, where women are well represented:
The Contemporary English Bible (CEB 1995) had 120 translators of which about 20 are women. And women are well represented among the contributors of their excellent study Bible..

Now let's compare.

Here is Genesis 3:16 in the KJV, an all-male translation team which is influenced by male bias.

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.

As Jane says, Genesis 3:16 is a lemon because Satan via male bias, changed it to misrepresent God and how His authority works. He made it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife. She then calls its a "poor translation". This is all on page 13 of this site: http://lemonstograpes.com/eight-lemo...d-into-grapes/

Now let's compare Genesis 3:16 in the CEB where women are well-represented. Genesis is available for download here: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/explore/downloads

It says:
"......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". (CEB)

Side by side:

KJV says: "... and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - the male-biasd, Satan influenced version, and poor translation
CEB says: "......You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you". - the translation where women are well represented on the translation team

I can't see a difference (other than one being ye olde English), can you? Both use the word "desire", and the words "rule over".

In fact the CEB translation is arguably worse because it says "but he will rule over you". The "but" implies that the female desire must be ruled over by the husband. The word "but"reinforces a patriarchal interpretation of the passage, which is not going to help Jane's argument at all. What were those female bible translators thinking?

Where does this leave Jane's claim that Genesis 3:16 is a poor translation, changed by male-bias to make it sound like God mandated that the husband was supposed to rule over the wife?

It shoots it to pieces I would think, because the CEB version which is not an all-male translation team, says the same thing and even reinforces the patriarchy. How can even the female experts in Hebrew not pick up on this error?

A full list of names, and female contributors and their credentials is found here:
http://www.commonenglishbible.com/ex...eb-translators


How is it that none of these female experts have picked up on this translation error?

I'd like to continue this analysis on the other lemon passages but I don't have a version of the CEB.

However I could perform the same analysis on other bible versions which are known to have females on the translation team.

Let's try the NIV, where there are 13 women on the team.

The NIV says:

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

Says the same thing as the KJV.

Let's just take a look at all of the translations then:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

There are 22 bible versions.

Most of them say "desire" and "rule over you".

The ones that don't, say dominate, like the ISV. Dominate is a much stronger word than rule I think. And only the ISV says "turning":

""since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you."

ISV is the most friendly version towards Jane's view, yet it has less female members than the CEB.

Other than the ISV, there are no bible versions that I can find that lighten up on the language of "desire" or "rule over you" which would support Jane's view.

So is Jane correct that Genesis 3:16 is a lemon passage, mistranslated by Satan via man, and a poor translation? Unlikely, given that no bible version, even those with women well represented, translate this verse differently. It seems that this lemon might actually be a grape.

Is Jane correct that all-male translation teams are responsible for mistranslating Genesis 3:16?

I don't think so, because the CEB version where women are well represented, actually reinforces a patriarchal interpretation, and the ISV which does not have any females on the translation committee (one or two females on the supporting scholars I think) seems to translate it correctly by using the word "turning" and not "desire". So I think the gender of the translation team has no bearing on the accuracy of the translation.

[Drake]

Re -1

Now as we await the arrival of the familiar plethora of irrelevant accusations of pots, kettles, gurus, misogyny, sexism, "denigrating Christian women", PL, Daystar, Chinese culture, Mao, Communists, and personal character assassination of the poster, etc. is there anybody here that will step up and provide a thorough and well thought out analysis of Genesis 3:16, the many translations of it, the gender composition of the various translation staff, in support of Jane Anderson's lemon teaching on this verse to challenge Evangelical's rational and logical presentation in refuting it?

Or do we have to wait for John?

Drake