New Jane Anderson Website

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a fact that women have a more difficult time bearing children than any other species, this is a biologic consequence of our walking on two legs.

As a result of this it is also a fact that human children require years of training, much more than that of any other mammal.

The fact is that bearing and rearing human children is a much more difficult process than for any other species on this planet.

These facts are referred to in this very same verse when God says He will "I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children". Whether you want to refer to it as "the context" or to "one of the things included in the context" does it make any difference? Either way why would God be warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help?

The question is if a change in translation of this verse from the word "desire" to "turn to" results in changing the interpretation to God warning the woman not to turn to man for help.

Gen. 3:16 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.

Please point me to the verse that says God is warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help.

Thanks,
Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

Gen. 3:16 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.

Please point me to the verse that says God is warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help.

Thanks,
Nell

#13: The Big Lemon: Genesis 3:16 (Part 3)

“God was warning Eve that because of her turning to Adam, Adam would rule over her. Rather than a command for the man to rule over woman, this was a warning to Eve of what was going to happen to her as a consequence of her choice.”

This is from the Blog on Jane Anderson's website. This is the interpretation that she presents for this verse and the one I feel is fatally flawed.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

#13: The Big Lemon: Genesis 3:16 (Part 3)

“God was warning Eve that because of her turning to Adam, Adam would rule over her. Rather than a command for the man to rule over woman, this was a warning to Eve of what was going to happen to her as a consequence of her choice.”

This quote is neither from the Bible nor does it contain the word "help"... implying "help with the kids". You said:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Either way why would God be warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help?

The question is if a change in translation of this verse from the word "desire" to "turn to" results in changing the interpretation to God warning the woman not to turn to man for help.

Short answer...it didn't and He didn't. "Desire" and "turning" are two different things. "Desire" implies physical desire, and historically a man's desire toward a woman is epically stronger than a woman's desire toward a man. That's why "desire" is not a good fit.

Gen. 3:16 isn't about Eve asking Adam for help raising the kids, or not. That wasn't what the warning was about. The warning was that there would be consequences if she "turned to" and relied on man, instead of God, to meet her needs. Her needs were greater than man has the capacity to meet, and worse, man would rule over her .... and he still wouldn't help with the kids! Remember, she was to be his helper, not the other way around! We can almost hear him saying "and don't you forget it!"

Practically speaking, this paragraph could represents half of the problems in marriages on the earth today. That's why "turning" is a better fit than "desire". The truth is, apart from God, neither men nor women can meet the needs of the other. Man "ruling over" woman is the trump card that buries her.

This is a woman's perspective. No man's perspective can change the way she views this issue because she is still living with the consequences of her decision to this day.

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

This quote is neither from the Bible nor does it contain the word "help"... implying "help with the kids". You said:



Short answer...it didn't and He didn't. "Desire" and "turning" are two different things. "Desire" implies physical desire, and historically a man's desire toward a woman is epically stronger than a woman's desire toward a man. That's why "desire" is not a good fit.

Gen. 3:16 isn't about Eve asking Adam for help raising the kids, or not. That wasn't what the warning was about. The warning was that there would be consequences if she "turned to" and relied on man, instead of God, to meet her needs. Her needs were greater than man has the capacity to meet, and worse, man would rule over her .... and he still wouldn't help with the kids! Remember, she was to be his helper, not the other way around! We can almost hear him saying "and don't you forget it!"

Practically speaking, this paragraph could represents half of the problems in marriages on the earth today. That's why "turning" is a better fit than "desire". The truth is, apart from God, neither men nor women can meet the needs of the other. Man "ruling over" woman is the trump card that buries her.

This is a woman's perspective. No man's perspective can change the way she views this issue because she is still living with the consequences of her decision to this day.

Nell

I have no issue with changing "desire" to "turning to".

So if I understand you correctly, the interpretation for

Gen. 3:16 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.

is as follows:

"Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and I am warning you not to turn to man from God because if you do he shall rule over thee."

Is that how you understand this verse?

Because that is how I understand it. I reject it because of my previous post. So unless I have missed something my previous analysis stands.

[Nell]

You didn't cite the verses for this position:

Either way why would God be warning the woman not to "turn to" the man for help?

The question is if a change in translation of this verse from the word "desire" to "turn to" results in changing the interpretation to God warning the woman not to turn to man for help.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have no issue with changing "desire" to "turning to".

So if I understand you correctly, the interpretation for

Gen. 3:16 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.

is as follows:

"Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and I am warning you not to turn to man from God because if you do he shall rule over thee."

Is that how you understand this verse?

Because that is how I understand it. I reject it because of my previous post. So unless I have missed something my previous analysis stands.

16 Bushnell's translation: Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased hy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.

Location 1234 of 6777, A Woman of Chayil, Kindle

[John]

As to my posts, please excuse the fact that I put out more than one of them at a time, amounting to a lot of text, and that they are often responding to things posted much earlier. I’m not very well suited to the quick retorts (or the quick anything).

So, as to some past posts, here are my thoughts:

• One poster has asked more than once about what Jane’s mission is. The mission, should you choose to accept it, can be easily found by looking at the title of this thread. That’s a hint, by the way. Let’s see, “New Jane Anderson Website.” Have you looked at the website yet? There is an “Our Mission” tab on the home page.
  
  
• Another poster thinks, I guess, that if something is repeated often enough that people will eventually believe it. If you want to know what Katharine Bushnell and Jane Anderson think, you will have to read their books. If you believe what you read on this thread from others about what Jane and Katharine wrote … well, let’s just say that you will be left with a twisted, inaccurate presentation. I finally got tired of reading about the hermaphrodite view that Bushnell and Jane supposedly believe in. Here is what Bushnell states in her book:

We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family. (God’s Word to Women, para. 41) [underline added]

She wrote, “possible.” Katharine does not have a stated belief in the hermaphrodite, and Jane does not even mention it at all! If you are going to post with integrity, you should accurately reflect what someone wrote. By the way, this thread is supposed to be about Jane’s work, not Katharine’s. Although posting about Bushnell is not a bad thing, to do it to associate her with Jane in order to try to discredit Jane is wrong; or, to do it just to avoid engaging with Jane’s presentation is also wrong.

• Another couldn’t see the connection between male gender bias in the Bible and John and Jane’s marriage. The following sequence is an over-simplified presentation to, hopefully, get the connection across:

1. John and Jane believe in Jesus and the Bible.
2. John thought about and treated Jane according to a traditional understanding of the Bible.
3. John did not feel right about this, and Jane did not respond as John expected.
4. John wondered why what he understood as the traditional perspective seemed to run counter to what Jesus taught.
5. John read God’s Word to Women, in which he learned that there was apparent bias in the translation and that the bias was likely due to the male perspective of the translators.

Jane and I have seen, up close, many failing or failed Christian marriages (many of them because of the Local Church). The most infamous, without a doubt, was the Local Church elder who carried on an affair with another Local Church elder’s wife that led to both of them divorcing their spouses and marrying each other! One large, contributing factor was that the wife believed that she had to submit to her husband (and the elders) in everything, even in things that were wrong; and, their marriage suffered as a result. She eventually threw off her marriage and the Bible, rejecting a God whose Word had consigned her to such a subservient role and miserable life.

Jane wrote Chayil, mostly to speak to Christian women; but, of course, men can learn from it, too. Hers is a fairly comprehensive look at the topic, more than these posts would lead you to believe. The writings that I post are my appeal to the men, but in a much briefer way, to try to get them to at least consider the topic more thoroughly.

• There has also been some attempt to connect Jane to feminism and equality for women and similar political endeavors. I’ll just state that it is obvious to me that those kinds of comments come from those who have not read her book, those who do not understand what they have read, or those who deliberately want to distort the issue and discredit her. Jane does not call herself a Christian feminist or Christian egalitarian, as some women do today.

I decided to reply to these responses because they caught my eye during my scan since my last post. As for things I did not respond to, maybe the things I write in upcoming posts will help clarify what is true and will facilitate moving forward.

Speaking of responses, I still haven’t noticed anyone taking on the unusual translation of a Greek word for “mastering the house” and a Hebrew word for “strength, power, and wealth,” especially when the Hebrew word was translated differently when it was applied to women rather than men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by John

[*]Another poster thinks, I guess, that if something is repeated often enough that people will eventually believe it. If you want to know what Katharine Bushnell and Jane Anderson think, you will have to read their books. If you believe what you read on this thread from others about what Jane and Katharine wrote … well, let’s just say that you will be left with a twisted, inaccurate presentation. I finally got tired of reading about the hermaphrodite view that Bushnell and Jane supposedly believe in. Here is what Bushnell states in her book:[/LIST]

We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family. (God’s Word to Women, para. 41) [underline added]

She wrote, “possible.” Katharine does not have a stated belief in the hermaphrodite, and Jane does not even mention it at all! If you are going to post with integrity, you should accurately reflect what someone wrote. By the way, this thread is supposed to be about Jane’s work, not Katharine’s. Although posting about Bushnell is not a bad thing, to do it to associate her with Jane in order to try to discredit Jane is wrong; or, to do it just to avoid engaging with Jane’s presentation is also wrong.

Appreciate you taking the time to clarify the difference between Bushnell and Jane. I did not get the sense that Jane believed in Bushnell's hermaphrodite theories, but Bushnell uses those theories to advance some of her arguments about what took place in Genesis, and you have put forward Bushnell's book and Jane's book together, so you may be able to understand why Bushnell and Jane's book have been considered together, and concerns raised about it.

One point of difference between Bushnell and Jane may be that Bushnell presented the hermaphrodite thing to advance her argument that Eve was not taken from Adam's side. I am wondering if Jane believes Eve came from Adam's rib? I'm guessing yes if she does not support Bushnell's proposition of Adam's hmm hermaphroditeness...hermaphroditity?

Bushnell seemed to doubt the bible's statement that Eve came from Adam's side:

The Bible is not a treatise on science, but wherever rightly translated it is found not to
contradict science. Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve
was made from a single bone taken from Adam's body. We have already (par. 24, and
Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the
human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the
present time within the human family.

Bushnell seems supportive of the view that Adam was a hermaphrodite, that's why she presented it in the first place. If one postulates that something is possible then that is a stated belief in that possibility which amounts to a belief. Whichever way you try to justify it, Katharine entertained the possibility that Adam was hermaphrodite, to achieve support for her fantastical spin on the Garden of Eden story.

You've presented Bushnell's work and Jane's together in numerous places, and Jane did not clearly distinguish her views from Bushnell's it would seem. Did Jane ever state that Bushnell was wrong about the hermaphrodite thing? If not then her views are implicitly tied to it, because if Jane accepts Bushnell's view about the Garden of Eden, she implicitly accepts whatever support Bushnell had for those arguments as well. You have encouraged people to read either Katharines or Janes book almost as if they are sequels.

These are some quotes from you where you have associated Bushnell and Jane's work together:

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.

"The poster needs to spend thoughtful and prayerful time on Katharine’s or Jane’s book, or both"

"Persevere with her book, or Katharine’s"

If Jane accepts Bushnell's views on the Garden of Eden and presents them in her book, then implicitly she accepts what Bushnell has presented for support of those arguments, as well, such as Adam being a hermaphrodite. Jane seems to draw heavily from Bushnell in her sources, citing her opinions as givens. But this hermaphrodite example shows that Bushnell's opinions were not always solid, which casts doubt on her credibility as a scholar, and invariably ties Jane's views to those views as well if she ever refers to them in her book.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Nell

The truth is, apart from God, neither men nor women can meet the needs of the other. Man "ruling over" woman is the trump card that buries her.
This is a woman's perspective. No man's perspective can change the way she views this issue because she is still living with the consequences of her decision to this day.

Nell keeps trying to "bottom line" the wider issue(s) covered in all of Jane's writings, but Mr. Z and others want change the subject. Jane (and Nell and most Christian women in general) have a certain perspective. To start with, their perspective is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong and neither biblical or unbiblical. No man can see through a woman's eyes or walk in her shoes. Just as men, women have an "unalienable", God-given right to their own perspective. For centuries, Christian men have been attempting to deny, nullify and denigrate women's rightful possession of this God-given perspective. They have even used the misinterpretation, misapplication and misunderstanding of certain biblical words, phrases, verses, passages and whole stories to deny, or at least de-legitimatize women's perspective.

Katharine Bushnell's book is nothing more, and nothing less, then a presentation of one Christian women's perspective. Bushnell brings to bear strong linguistic and reasoned proofs of her understandings and contentions in God's word to women. Jane has found these understandings and contentions enlightening, enabling and energizing. Jane then brings to bear some understandings and contentions of her own, backed up by ton of experience, biblical study and just plain feminine moxie (aka Girl Power). I, for one, admire her efforts. She is up against a tsunami of testosterone that has been raging for thousands of years. Good for her. You go, sister, you go!
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

and just plain feminine moxie (aka Girl Power). I, for one, admire her efforts. She is up against a tsunami of testosterone that has been raging for thousands of years. Good for her. You go, sister, you go!
-

Hey, hey, hey, you literally took the words out of my mouth ... but I believe you deleted them.

Still ... girl power!!! ... you go sisters (including Nell)!!!

Now when is the local church going to have women elders and leaders? I think that maybe there should be The Blended Sisters.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nell keeps trying to "bottom line" the wider issue(s) covered in all of Jane's writings, but Mr. Z and others want change the subject.

Nell said the key issue for her was "were the lemon passages translated correctly or not". I responded to that. I have no interest in the rest. I did not change the subject nor do I have any interest in changing it.