New Jane Anderson Website

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend Harold, didn't your mommy teach you that "good things come to those who wait". Your running ahead and trying to force the ending before we even get started. That may play well over on Alt Views, but not over here on the main floor of this popcorn stand.

One of the great loses we suffered under the ministry of Witness Lee was the rejection of systematic theology. (Lee also taught his followers to reject, even mock, biblical theology...but that is a subject for another day).

Short excerpt from Wiki:
Systematic theology draws on the foundational sacred texts of Christianity, while simultaneously investigating the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history

I thought it might be helpful for us to take a step back and "begin at the beginning" as it were. I'm sure there will be plenty of agreeing to disagree as we go along, but I think we can at least come to some common understanding of "the course of history" as recorded in the Bible. Obviously these makes the start line the opening chapters of Genesis.
-

My bad. So how long should I stay in the hole this time?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

My bad. So how long should I stay in the hole this time?

Bro awareness, is that the same as the doghouse?

[Drake]

Post #57

Nell,

If you prefer to repeat Jane's teaching in your posts that is fine with me, however, you don't need to do it for my sake. For I agree that Satan is attacking women, and that he deceived Eve by his "Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God" as JP Lewis succinctly stated (I'll come back to this point shortly). Eve and women were not cursed, rather it was the serpent that was cursed. Women are not inferior, neither are they less then men. Of course Satan seeks revenge on women and wants to attack her promised Seed and could, if successful, exact a revenge on women as you suggest here... "Satan working through male biased translators" would be a master stroke."

But that is not really relevant because the question is not "would it" be a master stroke, but rather "was it?". Or to bring it current in our conversation... is it?

That is where I part with Jane Anderson and you on in this topic. You present a hypothetical about what would be a Satanic master stroke and then search for evidence to support the hypothetical in a very dangerous way , that is, by adjusting scripture to fit the theory, in this case Genesis 3:16. I say dangerous because anyone can do that about anything and there is no end to it.. it becomes the proverbial slippery slope yet with the Word of God and that is very dangerous.

An example of rewriting scripture to fit the narrative is found in the writings of Bart Ehrman (this is the same Bart that got his hat blown off by UntoHim when awareness brought Bart to the party through the front door a few posts back. This is why I asked to leave those posts as part of our conversation now). Here is the summary on Amazon about the book "Misquoting Jesus":

"For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions. Religious and biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes."

Now you don't agree with Bart, I don't, Jane does not, UntoHim already threw Bart and his shot up hat out into the street.... only awareness seemingly agrees with Bart (yet frankly I have my doubts that he really does, and suspect our brother entertains by being provocative).However, any doctrine, teaching, belief can be justified once you start down that path. What Jane Anderson is doing is what Bart is doing. Same method, same approach, different topics.

Finally, on the ""Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God". Examining that incident carefully reveals that the Satan deceived the woman by suggesting a different version of what God really said or meant. "Did God really say this or that? Is that what God meant?" Jane argues that happened again when Satan used male biased translators to change the true meaning of Genesis 3:16. However, it is just as plausible, and I would argue more plausible, that Jane and you are falling for the same Satanic trick he used on Eve by misinterpreting the scripture to fit your hypothetical. The burden of proof is on Jane and you to demonstrate there was male-bias written into the Word of God by translators. It is not enough to present the hypothetical, theories, suggestions, could be, might be when it comes to the Word of God... the believer's standard must be higher. Much higher. Evangelical analyzed the translations and the gender composition of those teams and made a compelling case for there being no male bias.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

Post #57

Nell,

If you prefer to repeat Jane's teaching in your posts that is fine with me, however, you don't need to do it for my sake.

Just so you know, Drake, I don't need your permission to post on this forum and...doing something "for your sake?" Really? Uh. No.

For I agree that Satan is attacking women, and that he deceived Eve by his "Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God" as JP Lewis succinctly stated (I'll come back to this point shortly). Eve and women were not cursed, rather it was the serpent that was cursed. Women are not inferior, neither are they less then men. Of course Satan seeks revenge on women and wants to attack her promised Seed and could, if successful, exact a revenge on women as you suggest here... "Satan working through male biased translators" would be a master stroke."

But that is not really relevant because the question is not "would it" be a master stroke, but rather "was it?". Or to bring it current in our conversation... is it?

No. MY statement was "that would be a master stroke," implying that if that's what happened it would be "master stroke"...the serpent using God's word against him. Make your own argument as you see fit, but please do not change mine and declare mine "irrelevant" then make some grandiose rebuttal as though it were mine. I believe this is called a strawman. Something you no doubt learned from your buddy, Evangelical.

Evangelical analyzed the translations and the gender composition of those teams and made a compelling case for there being no male bias.

Drake

There is enough evidence that it's reasonable for the translators to take another look at the 8 passages to determine the accuracy of the translations.

Evangelical made a "compelling case" for there being "no male bias." Jane made a compelling case that there was male bias. Why don't we put the issue to the translators to verify the veracity of the translation? Why is that such a problem to you and your buddy?

Nell

[Drake]

"Evangelical made a "compelling case" for there being "no male bias." Jane made a compelling case that there was male bias. Why don't we put the issue to the translators to verify the veracity of the translation? Why is that such a problem to you and your buddy?"

Ok, let's compare the two "compelling cases".

Jane alleges male bias in the KJV.

Evangelical compared several translations and the gender composition of those translators and showed clearly that the translations that had women were more aligned with KJV than others.

Jane has a hypothesis but no analysis. An opinion is not a compelling case.

If Jane, or you, want to refute his analysis you have the very same resources at your fingertips. He even provided the links he used. If you want to put it to translators then do it. That is part of your perogative in making your case.

It makes no difference to me personally whether you do or not.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

"Evangelical made a "compelling case" for there being "no male bias." Jane made a compelling case that there was male bias. Why don't we put the issue to the translators to verify the veracity of the translation? Why is that such a problem to you and your buddy?"

Ok, let's compare the two "compelling cases".

Jane alleges male bias in the KJV.

Evangelical compared several translations and the gender composition of those translators and showed clearly that the translations that had women were more aligned with KJV than others.

Jane has a hypothesis but no analysis. An opinion is not a compelling case.

If Jane, or you, want to refute his analysis you have the very same resources at your fingertips. He even provided the links he used. If you want to put it to translators then do it. That is part of your perogative in making your case.

It makes no difference to me personally whether you do or not.

Drake

That's right.

Actually this male bias assumption is also found in Bushnell's "God's Word to women":


While in China as a medical missionary, Bushnell discovered that the Chinese Bible was
mistranslated to support cultural prejudice against the ministry of women. She
wondered whether the same male bias might prejudice English translations as well and
renewed her study of Hebrew and Greek.

So apparently because the Chinese biased their translation, she thinks the Egyptians, Greeks and English , Germans and everyone else did as well?

She does not really go into proving that this male-bias is a thing. It could equally be a result of her being affected by confirmation bias - seeing something there which is not really there because she is looking for it.

She see the male-bias in the verses she sees but does not see the times when the male translators translate verses in favor of women. This indicates her own confirmation bias.

What is disturbing to me is that Bushnell puts forward a view that the translators were not overseen by the Spirit but their "unconscious self-interest":


It is well known that when a man gets lost on the prairie, he begins to go round in
a circle; it is suggested that one side (the right, generally), being stronger than the other,
he pulls unconsciously with greater strength upon the corresponding guiding rein of his
horse. Just so does the translator; he pulls unconsciously on the strong side of
preconception or self-interest. This may not be intended, but it is none the less inevitable
221 to the uninspired hand.

She clearly does not believe in God's guiding and preserving hand on the translators.

Bushnell's book contains the same unsupported presumptuous nonsense:

But it almost looks as though our English translators took no care, as to the
precise language here



If one wants to make a "compelling case" that male-bias exists because of a majority of males, then they should have some facts and figures to back it up. Jane's analysis is mostly on the text and meaning of the "lemon verses", not the driving idea about how those lemons came to be there in the first place. It's possible that this is found in Bushnell's book and Jane expects us to read that.

Jane does not have much analysis for the idea of male-bias influencing translations, but this "sets the scene" for the rest of the textual analysis which she does do fairly well.

Biblehub has 22 versions of the bible. ISV seems the most friendly towards Jane's view, but has a male-majority on the translation committee.

None of the others seem friendly, some are actually worse than the KJV and reinforce a patriarchal view despite having females on the committee.

Simply having a certain number of females on a committee does not seem to guarantee a female-friendly outcome. I would have thought that female members on a committee provide oversight and would have picked up the problem with Genesis 3:16 if there truly was a problem with it. Some of the female members of the CEB for example are professors in Hebrew and such and it would be well within their capabilities.

It would also depend upon whether the person who was responsible for translating Genesis was male or female and what their particular leanings were.

So I think to do a proper further analysis we have to find whether or not the female-translated versions of Genesis are matching the male-translated versions.

The first problem is to find female-translated versions of Genesis.

Another aspect to consider is that the all-male Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew seems to favor Jane's view because it translates teshuqah as "turning", not desire. Again, I don't think there is much correlation between a translator's gender and their rendering of the verse.

[Evangelical]

In her book, "God's Word to Women", Bushnell writes:

But it almost looks as though our English translators took no care, as to the
precise language here


Her basis for the claim of "male bias" comes from her observations of the translation of the Chinese bible and somehow that means all the English were affected as well.

She claims that the devout Christian men familiar with ancient languages, who translated the KJV and sought the Spirit's help as they did so, were guided by some Satan-inspired unconscious bias rather than God's Spirit.

Let us consider exactly who she is claiming "took no care" in translating the Bible:

from:
http://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB)

They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests.


They all had a familiarity with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and often many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian, Gordon Campbell, has observed:

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time.



They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith "craved the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer" as they proceeded in their work.

Yet Bushnell expects us to believe that these men were guided unconsciously by male-bias utilized by Satan, just because she saw some Chinese doing it?

[Evangelical]

Throughout history, there have been two translations of the word teshuqah. One is "desire", one is "turning". Jane's book discusses that.

The "turning" version is found in the Greek Septuagint and permeates the churches that prefer the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint was the first translation of the Hebrew into another language.

Because the Greek Septuagint translates teshuqah as "turning", it would be hard for anyone to claim that male bias was behind the translation from Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint , right?

Jane is probably correct that "turning" is the proper translation. The problem is that despite the Eastern churches using the "correct" translation of teshuqah, to mean turning, does it mean men and women enjoy equality in the Eastern Orthodox church? I don't think there is much correlation between the "correct" translation of that verse and how women are treated. Eastern Orthodox have treated women the same as Catholics.

Simply translated as "turning", does not necessarily support Jane's narrative either.

In Greek, the word is apostrophe and means turning.

The same word is used in Genesis 16:9 regarding Hagar and Sarah:

Genesis 16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

That is a passage about turning and submission.

Another place where teshuqah is used is:
Song of Solomon 7:10 I belong to my beloved, and his desire is for me.

It can mean woman desiring or turning towards man or man desiring or turning towards woman.

[awareness]

Okay, I'll be a good boy, and play along. You want to start at the beginning? That would be Genesis chapter 1 ; where it says first God created man, and gave him dominion over everything. Then shortly on it says God created male and female in His image, gave them dominion, again, and told them to get busy procreating.

Seems male and female are equal so far, in Gen 1. So far so good ... in pre-fall paradise, between men and women.

Any disagreements?