New Jane Anderson Website

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know sis, but I highly doubt it. Her subject matter is not likely to make the best seller list. Her target market is the local churcher's. She should ask LSM if they'll publish her books. In the end, they're prolly a labor of love, and I hope she's made more than a dime, at least, and not lost money.

You're calling me "sis" today when yesterday you called me an ugly name that was "moderated" or moved or whatever happened to it? What does "sis" mean to you?

Nell

[UntoHim]

While I understand and appreciate the concerns of those who don't think that the issues raised by Jane Anderson on her website are appropriate for discussion on our forum, I feel this is something that needs to be addressed by current and former members.

I would make a request of anyone who wants to participate on this thread: Please do your best to address the issues at hand, and refrain from getting "personal" by hurling accusations and throwing out ad hominems. We all understand that these issues can be controversial and contentious, but let's all try our best to constrain ourselves. Let's think the best of each other, not the worst. There will enough misunderstanding to go around without misunderstanding on purpose.

Regardless of where one might stand on these issues, I believe we would all do well agree with Jane in this prayer posted on the website:

Dear heavenly Father, may whatever truth women learn from this website about their freedom in Christ be written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. May each become the godly woman that You have called her to be and may each fulfill the specific purpose to which You have called her.
Bless all who visit this website and all who contribute to its content. Help women learn the life-changing truth from Your Word about how You view them.
Help us gather, compile, and make available a storehouse full of biblical truth about your view of women...to the shame of Your enemy and the glory of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

-

[John]

I didn’t notice anything that addressed what seems to me like bias regarding the one Greek word I wrote about in post #105. I was scanning, so maybe I missed it. To continue, let’s go back to the KJV translation question about bias and try to get another person-off-the-street interview.

Asking a person off the street

“Sir, could you help us with a survey today about language?”

“Sure, if it doesn’t take too long.”

“It’ll only take a couple of minutes. Are you a member of any religion?”

“No, I’m an agnostic.”

“Okay, no problem. Here’s my question: There was a translation done of a book that was written in a foreign language. One of the foreign words occurred in many different places in the book and was translated into a number of different English words.

“Are you following me so far?”

“Yes, keep going.”

“Okay, I’m going to show you a list of all of the English words that were used in translating this one foreign word and the number of times that each of these English words was used. What I want you to do is to tell me what you notice about the English words that were used. Are you ready?

“Yes, let me see it.”

“Okay, here it is:

English Meanings of One Foreign Word

Nouns

The book uses these English nouns, the following number of times, to show the meaning of the one foreign word:

• “army” and “war”—58
• “host” and “forces” —43
• “might” or “power”—16
• “goods,” “riches,” “substance,” or “wealth”—31
• “band of soldiers,” “band of men,” “company,” or “train”—4
• “activity”—1
• “valor”—28
• “strength”—11

Adjectives and Adverbs

The book uses these English adjectives and adverbs, the following number of times, to show the meaning of the one foreign word:

• “valiant” or “valiantly”—35
• “strong”—6
• “virtuous” or “virtuously”—4
• “able”—4
• “worthy” or “worthily”—2

“Alright, I’ve finished.”

“So, what did you notice, if anything?”

“The nouns are mainly about war and armies, along with valor and strength, plus riches and wealth. The adjectives and adverbs seem to fit with the sense of the nouns, more or less, except for two.”

“Which ones are those?”

“Virtuous” and “virtuously.”

“Okay, I know you’re in a hurry, so I’ll let you go. Thank you for your participation.”

Note: The data above is adapted from God’s Word to Women by Katharine Bushnell and presented slightly differently. Doing a word search in online Bibles may yield some different but similar results. For example, the online Blue Letter Bible (BLB) yields “army”—56 and “man of valor”—37, and so forth. Regardless of these somewhat minor discrepancies, the BLB shows that the word is translated with the sense of strength, action, wealth and so forth, the vast majority of the time. It is translated as “virtuous” and “virtuously” only 4 times out of over 240.

Be a translator

I could have gone on with the interview, but you may be just as tired of it by now as I am. So, let me just continue with a simplified “for dummies” presentation. Does it matter that “virtuous” was used amidst all the other definitions? What would be your next step if you had discovered this? If you had the time and interest, you would probably read all of the verses and try to figure out why “virtuous” was used.

To quickly get to the point, as it turns out, all of the verses with “virtuous” or “virtuously” used for the translation (four in all) are about women! The Hebrew word I am referring to as being translated this way is chayil, which is why Jane Anderson titled her book, A Woman of Chayil; and, one of the places where the word occurs is in a famous passage, often referred to as “The Proverbs 31 Woman.” Here it is:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. (Pro. 31:10, KJV)

Christian men, have you ever wondered about this? Okay, everyone, how would you translate this word in this verse? Read all of Proverbs 31 again from verse 10. This woman is strong. She brings food from afar. She considers a field and buys it. There is no mention of her even checking with her husband. Consider the verses from a perspective of power rather than one of virtue, which, especially in KJV days, referred more to a woman’s chastity. The power perspective fits well in context and is very compelling, adding new meaning to the passage.

More questions?

The next thing you could ask yourself would be this: Why is “virtuous” (and “virtuously”) used as a translation in all the verses with chayil that pertain to women? Do you think that it could have anything to do with gender bias? Notice what happened: First of all, we found that there was one rather unusual translation of this Hebrew word. Next, we investigated where this somewhat odd translation was used. Finally, we discovered that it was used only in verses that were about women. And, to wrap it up, if you’re willing to go this far, we can ask ourselves why this happened. The answer, it seems to me, is because the translation committee was biased in favor of a traditional male perspective, which doesn’t see powerful words as appropriate for describing a woman. What if, for example, you had been reading for years about “the mighty men of virtue” (which is the way chayil was translated in the book of Joshua? Would this have influenced your thinking about these men?

As I stated in post #105, the unusual translation of one Greek word, oikodespoteō, that occurred once in the New Testament KJV is probably not enough to convince anyone that something questionable has taken place. Now, we have 240 plus instances of one Hebrew word in the Old Testament that has been given a number of English meanings that are in a similar vein except for four of them, and the thing that the four have in common is that they all have to do with women. Some may want to label me as a conspiracy theorist, but doesn’t this cause you to wonder what was afoot? Could this possibly be four instances in which the translation of chayil was influenced by the natural understanding related to gender? Let the reader decide.

There is a lot more that I could say about this; but, I will just recommend God’s Word to Women for more detail, since Katharine Bushnell describes it in great detail. I have simply packaged here a very small amount of what I have received and passed it on to you in my own style as a Christian man. This, possibly, lets me write more forcefully without having to worry that I am not in my proper place, as women often feel they have to do. My Christian brothers, however, may hang this on me as a negative, thinking that I’m just too weak or that my wife is “too much” or something similar to this. Well, I will just defer to what the Bible states about a Proverbs 31 woman.

Examples from the Local Church

As I write this, I can’t help but think again about the Local Church husband who thought that he had to control his wife in every detail. She eventually quit the Local Church. When their marriage was not working out, a Local Church elder counseled him to divorce her. He did so and then married another who was more “absolute for the ministry.” Another story comes to mind when considering my Local Church past. A deacon (or service office brother) was told by a leading elder something to this effect: “If you ever expect to become an elder, you better get your wife in line.” This former elder is now a main leader. It is this kind of thinking and behavior that permeates the system and has resulted in so many devastated marriages and families.

I hope to continue posting some; and, in my posts, I plan to keep using the Local Church as an example, not because I have a vendetta against them, but because this is the Local Church Discussions forum and discussion about Local Church practices fits here. (I was told that Ron Kangas stated something like, “We’ll discuss our doctrines with anyone, but we’re not going to discuss our practices,” when he was asked something about Local Church practice.) Well, in the Local Church system, women have been poorly treated by Christian men who have practiced male dominance and required female submission. I have two decades of experience in that system, and my own life and marriage were greatly impacted by their practices. (In fairness, ill treatment of women is found in other Christian churches also, to varying degrees, not just the Local Church.)

Good Christian men, rejoice!

Don’t be afraid, Christian men, to look with fresh eyes at the Word of God. Personally, I am thankful to be married to a woman of chayil. If you, Christian husbands, do not think that your wife is such a woman, encourage her in this line. Make room for her; don’t try to control her. Trust her. Work together in harmony with God.

Think about it: What if God’s work is hampered because about half of the body of Christ—Christian women—are hobbled in their walks with Jesus and have their God-given spiritual gifts squelched? What if we could release the spiritual gifts of this half by just realizing that God may have more in store for them than the roles we men have assigned to them due to a misunderstanding of some parts of the Bible? And, what if our misunderstanding was because of slight changes in translations of verses, like the one I pointed out in Proverbs 31 and in my previous post about ruling the house?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by John

Asking a person off the street

“Sir, could you help us with a survey today about language?”

Like Bushnell says in Lesson 1 Fundamental in Point #39 :
"We could have said all this, in fewer words,"
Bushnell, Katharine C.. God's Word to Women (Annotated) (Unabridged) (Kindle Location 792). God's Word to Women, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Originally Posted by John

"To quickly get to the point, as it turns out, all of the verses with “virtuous” or “virtuously” used for the translation (four in all) are about women! The Hebrew word I am referring to as being translated this way is chayil, . . .

The next thing you could ask yourself would be this: Why is “virtuous” (and “virtuously”) used as a translation in all the verses with chayil that pertain to women? Do you think that it could have anything to do with gender bias?

It could have. But as far as I know it hasn't been proven to be factually so. All I see concerning male bias is inference, no cause and effect direct link to proof that that is what the translating committees did. Do we have any first hand evidence, like primary source testimonies, or even one?

Originally Posted by John

]As I stated in post #105, the unusual translation of one Greek word, oikodespoteō, that occurred once in the New Testament KJV is probably not enough to convince anyone that something questionable has taken place. Now, we have 240 plus instances of one Hebrew word in the Old Testament that has been given a number of English meanings that are in a similar vein except for four of them, and the thing that the four have in common is that they all have to do with women. Some may want to label me as a conspiracy theorist, but doesn’t this cause you to wonder what was afoot? Could this possibly be four instances in which the translation of chayil was influenced by the natural understanding related to gender? Let the reader decide.

240 instances is still not actual evidence of wrong doing by the translators. Get me some eyewitnesses of that is what the translators were doing and this reader will not have to decide. This reader will believe the facts as recorded by an eyewitness that was there.

Originally Posted by John

There is a lot more that I could say about this;

Well keep trying brother. You haven't got there yet.

Originally Posted by John

but, I will just recommend God’s Word to Women for more detail, since Katharine Bushnell describes it in great detail.

As I've stated, we're digging into God's Word to Women on Alternative Views. And we'd like your view point. I wish when Untohim ported the thread to AltVs, he could have blended this one with that one, so posts here would also be printed on the AltV thread.

Originally Posted by John

Good Christian men, rejoice!

Don’t be afraid, Christian men, to look with fresh eyes at the Word of God. . . .
Think about it: What if God’s work is hampered because about half of the body of Christ—Christian women—are hobbled in their walks with Jesus and have their God-given spiritual gifts squelched? What if we could release the spiritual gifts of this half by just realizing that God may have more in store for them than the roles we men have assigned to them due to a misunderstanding of some parts of the Bible? And, what if our misunderstanding was because of slight changes in translations of verses, like the one I pointed out in Proverbs 31 and in my previous post about ruling the house?

But John, you and your wife are speaking to Bible inerrantists. And these are a stubborn minded bunch.

Now if you are trying to reach Christian men, that have appreciated The Enlightenment, you're wasting your time. They're already there. As I pointed out already (it may have been deleted) the secular world made an end run around the Bible and has come a long way at making women equal.

[Evangelical]

One of the issues I have with Bushnell is that she attacks the very definition of man by stating or at least toying with the idea, in her book, that Adam was a hermaphrodite.

The implications of this view is that if Adam was a hermaphrodite, then Jesus as the "second Adam" was a hermaphrodite.

This is another example how Bushnell's books go beyond merely correctly interpreting the text, and espouse other theories which obviously come from the innate feminist bias in her.

Because of these things it is hard to trust that her interpretations of singular Greek or Hebrew words do not contain any feminist bias.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

One of the issues I have with Bushnell is that she attacks the very definition of man by stating or at least toying with the idea, in her book, that Adam was a hermaphrodite.

She toys with a lot of stuff ; science, Darwin, the classical Greeks of old, and even that the Talmud teaches that before the fall Adam was so tall his head touched the firmament. That Adam was a giant.

But what do we know for sure. None of us were there.

Originally Posted by EvanG

The implications of this view is that if Adam was a hermaphrodite, then Jesus as the "second Adam" was a hermaphrodite.

I don't know about that. That may be reverse engineering. But given the verse in question, Gen. 1:27 :

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

It sure more than implies that if Adam was a hermaphrodite, God is a hermaphrodite too. That's silly, that God has ambiguous genitalia ; that God has genitalia at all. I guess it depends on how literal you take "image" to mean.

Originally Posted by EvanG

This is another example how Bushnell's books go beyond merely correctly interpreting the text, and espouse other theories which obviously come from the innate feminist bias in her.

I don't know that yet. I haven't finished her book. But Bushnell is undeniably going at all this from a feminine perspective. She claims that that is what the translating committees should have done. That they were missing the female perspective.

Originally Posted by EvanG

Because of these things it is hard to trust that her interpretations of singular Greek or Hebrew words do not contain any feminist bias.

Bushnell states clearly that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inviolable word of God, but only the originals, not our English translations. Our English translations were missing female translators, and so weren't balanced.

So we weren't there, and what do we know? According to Bushnell we know what the scriptures tell us, if only we can get at the unbiased original languages. Then we'll see that the Bible doesn't make women inferior, if translated correctly, with feminine influence.

However, that the Bible makes females inferior goes much deeper than the translations. It goes also to the original texts.

And fight as they may, female Christian's could have a feminist movement -- like the secular world -- but they're not going to defeat the Bible, unless they do it like Thomas Jefferson, and cut the verses out that they disagree with.

If they become radical feminists, they'll even have to cut one of the ten commandments out, cuz it groups women in with livestock :

"Exo 20:17* Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

[awareness]

Bushnell was wrong about there not being feminine translators.

The year Bushnell was born, 1855, Julia E. Smith Parker translated the Bible. It was considered the first complete translation of the Bible by a female :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_...er_Translation

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

One of the issues I have with Bushnell is that she attacks the very definition of man by stating or at least toying with the idea, in her book, that Adam was a hermaphrodite.

The implications of this view is that if Adam was a hermaphrodite, then Jesus as the "second Adam" was a hermaphrodite.

This is another example how Bushnell's books go beyond merely correctly interpreting the text, and espouse other theories which obviously come from the innate feminist bias in her.

Because of these things it is hard to trust that her interpretations of singular Greek or Hebrew words do not contain any feminist bias.

The slippery slope just gets plain nutty.

Drake

[awareness]

I feel to point out that Julia Smith Parker is not mentioned in Bushnell's "God's Word to Women."

Given that Parker published her first complete translation of the Bible by a female, when Bushnell was born, and given Bushnell's wide range of being informed of just about everything, it's not likely she didn't know about Parker's translation.

So she either wasn't through in her research, or she ignored a female translation because it didn't support her thesis that the male translators inserted male bias into our translations.

Until I hear otherwise I'm going with the latter.

For this reason I'm hoping the supporters of Bushnell/Jane/Chayil haven't throw in the towel, since this female translator has been introduced.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

You're calling me "sis" today when yesterday you called me an ugly name that was "moderated" or moved or whatever happened to it? What does "sis" mean to you?

I called you sis because I consider you a sister in the Lord. And didn't I compliment you? I called you innocent.

I do admit to some sarcasm. I said something like : "Watch out. She has women power."

But I only said that because we are discussing Jane & Bushnell, and woman power, in the Bible (as well male bias too - male power).

Hey sis (in the good sense) you and I are tough characters. We're both strong minded. So please don't take it personal when I'm disagreeable, with you, Jane and/or Bushnell.

Personally I'd like you, and John, to join us on the same thread on Alternative Views. We're presently digging into "God's Word to Women."

So come join us, so we can perchance disagree some more. I look forward to it. I promise to be nice, and only agree or disagree with the content of discussions. If you noticed, sister, I can be agreeable at times.

Blessings . . .