New Jane Anderson Website

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way I would just like to say I am sorry if my points come across too head strong or for any offense I have caused, to Nell, Jane, others. I am not your enemy nor do I try to be.

I think 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.

I think there is one verse that is not in dispute in any translation:

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love

but the greatest of these is love

OK. We get it. Your shortlived "apology" has expired. You apologize for apologizing.

You do understand that God put enmity (hatred) between the serpent and woman; hence, it's not a stretch to understand that the serpent is the instigator of your hate toward Jane? You have really gone overboard on your ranting...it doesn't even make sense. If not Satan, then who? What?

You do understand that the serpent is God's archenemy; that the serpent is the "father of lies"? He is a liar and the truth is not in him. What do you think Satan does all day? Satan is a deceiver, the original misogynist. His hate for women began in the garden.

Do you understand that you are actually DEFENDING Satan?

So much for I Cor. 13:13.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

OK. We get it. Your shortlived "apology" has expired. You apologize for apologizing.

You do understand that God put enmity (hatred) between the serpent and woman; hence, it's not a stretch to understand that the serpent is the instigator of your hate toward Jane? You have really gone overboard on your ranting...it doesn't even make sense. If not Satan, then who? What?

You do understand that the serpent is God's archenemy; that the serpent is the "father of lies"? He is a liar and the truth is not in him. What do you think Satan does all day? Satan is a deceiver, the original misogynist. His hate for women began in the garden.

Do you understand that you are actually DEFENDING Satan?

So much for I Cor. 13:13.

Nell

Something has gone overboard. I'm not sure what you are saying sis Nell. Are you saying that if we attack Jane we've joined leagues with Satan?

When a husband follows Gen. 3:16, and rules over his wife, has he joined leagues with Satan?

Wouldn't that reverse who's doing the ruling? Given that logic, then, if women ruled over men would they be bruising Satan's head?

[Drake]

"Something has gone overboard. I'm not sure what you are saying sis Nell. Are you saying that if we attack Jane we've joined leagues with Satan?"

awareness,

Not attack, but if you disagree with Jane's teaching you have joined league with Satan. That is the fallacious argument of guilt by association.

Drake

[zeek]

Nothing new here just Christians accusing other Christians of being satanic again because they disagree.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Nothing new here just Christians accusing other Christians of being satanic again because they disagree.

You're just the devil accusing us good loving Christians out here.

But really. Christian's accuse just about everyone of being Satan. We take after Jesus, who accused Peter of being Satan. We even accuse the serpent in the garden of being Satan ... and nothing in the Genesis account says that.

However, seems to me we also believe Satan is omnipresent. But according to Jane is more in men than women ... especially when they are translating verses about women.

How about male bias in verses concerning men? If the translators tried to subjugate women in their translations wouldn't they also be biased in promoting men's dominance?

So are are men in league with Satan when they subjugate (rule over) women? Or are women in league with Satan when they rebel against their husband ruling over them?

[Drake]

"You do understand that God put enmity (hatred) between the serpent and woman; hence, it's not a stretch to understand that the serpent is the instigator of your hate toward Jane?"

Nell, its not working. There is no hatred of Evangelical toward Jane. Disagreement is not hatred.

Yet your enmity argument cuts both ways.... and it is not a stretch that the serpent is once again deceiving by the tried and true method of questioning God's Word...."hath God said...?"

In my opinion, the whole Satanic lemon verses line of attack is a very dangerous path to head down. Alarms go off. I'm just glad that someone cares enough about Jane to challenge her teaching in this forum. Not easy to do and it shows care on his part, not hatred. Still, if you think that Jane's argument is reasonable and convincing then you could, like I suggested to John, post her Satanic lemon verses teaching in a bible based forum where Jane and her history are not known. Remove that variable. That would be one way of validating the soundness or not of her teaching on their own merits.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

"You do understand that God put enmity (hatred) between the serpent and woman; hence, it's not a stretch to understand that the serpent is the instigator of your hate toward Jane?"

Nell, its not working. There is no hatred of Evangelical toward Jane. Disagreement is not hatred.

Yet your enmity argument cuts both ways.... and it is not a stretch that the serpent is once again deceiving by the tried and true method of questioning God's Word...."hath God said...?"

In my opinion, the whole Satanic lemon verses line of attack is a very dangerous path to head down. Alarms go off. I'm just glad that someone cares enough about Jane to challenge her teaching in this forum. Not easy to do and it shows care on his part, not hatred. Still, if you think that Jane's argument is reasonable and convincing then you could, like I suggested to John, post her Satanic lemon verses teaching in a bible based forum where Jane and her history are not known. Remove that variable. That would be one way of validating the soundness or not of her teaching on their own merits.

Drake

I'm not saying it's right, of course it's not. But it's hard to hate, or love for that matter, Jane if Jane is not here to hate.

And we can't hate sister Nell. She's just a innocent shill for Jane. Plus, watch out. She's got woman power.

Back to God's word to Women. I'm reading it. Bushnell seems to be well informed and smart. But I question some of her premises and assumptions. That is, maybe, if I understand her. Maybe the Holy Spirit is just not revealing it to me.

Take this statement :

"A candid acceptance of the testimony as to its history proves that the original text has been preserved in manuscripts with scarcely an important change."

That just isn't true. But maybe it could be for the women verses she's focused upon. Maybe they're all the same in all the manuscripts, all the way back to the 2nd century. I don't know. Maybe Bushnell will explain it further into her book. I'll see.

Or maybe John can fill us in. Her and Jane's book changed his life, he says -- is he Janes' husband -- and so maybe he can help. All books require commentaries and footnotes ... even the Bible ... or especially the Bible. Witness Lee taught us that.

[Drake]

"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.)"

Hi John,

Don't blame me. Given the build up to your arrival I expected a "Quinn the Eskimo" moment of some sort!

But seriously, the least desirable scenario has unfolded in your post in that the expectations were way overstated and yet were way undelivered.

First, the irony of your post is that you attempt unsuccessfully to apply several fallacies of argumentation to Evangelical and yet your entire post is the prime example of an ad hominem argument as evidenced by this comment of yours in #78:

"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. "

And you have rightly said you wouldn't address substance and you didn't.

Second, I would have advised you to accept the olive branch extended by Evangelical in Post #70 and find common ground to agree on the things you can and agree to disagree where you can't. Instead, you craft this disingenuous reference of his post as if you did not have it in your possession when you began writing yours and so you continued to build on the ad hominem argument.

"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."

Finally, the whole premise of your post is completely wrong and you could have saved yourself several hours this past weekend writing it:

"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..."

... you see John, you can know for sure. It has already been stated. This has nothing to do with Jane Anderson per se, she has become the spokesperson for this strange doctrine from Bushnell. Had anybody else championed Satanic "lemon" verses the way Jane is doing they would also receive the same treatment from Evangelical and me. The only reason you can get away with proposing that doctrine unchallenged here is because you share a history in the local churches with ex-members. Had anyone else championed the Satanic lemon verses teaching most of the members in this forum would have jumped all over him/her in the same way as they rightly reacted to Bart Ehrman's doctrines.

If you don't think so you can prove it by posting the Satanic lemon teaching on a more traditional evangelical and bible based forum and see how well it is received. However, you won't be able to ascribe personal motives to those who disagree with Jane's teachings there so you will need to come up with a new defense. Good luck with that.

Drake