Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Writings of Former Members > The Thread of Gold by Jane Carole Anderson

The Thread of Gold by Jane Carole Anderson "God's Purpose, The Cross and Me"

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2017, 10:14 PM   #1
Koinonia
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 429
Default New Jane Anderson Website

Jane Carole Anderson, author of The Thread of Gold has a new website and blog at: When Lemons Become Grapes.... The website appears to be focused on Jane's thoughts regarding Christian women. It looks like it will also be a repository for her other writings.
Koinonia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 03:57 AM   #2
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koinonia View Post
Jane Carole Anderson, author of The Thread of Gold has a new website and blog at: When Lemons Become Grapes.... The website appears to be focused on Jane's thoughts regarding Christian women. It looks like it will also be a repository for her other writings.
She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 04:42 AM   #3
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.
Like the aphorism "the kind of Bible you have depends on the kind of person you are".
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 04:53 AM   #4
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Like the aphorism "the kind of Bible you have depends on the kind of person you are".
So what sort of person has a "lemon bible"? he he he
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 04:59 AM   #5
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
So what sort of person has a "lemon bible"? he he he
She'd probably argue that she has a grape Bible and its everyone else that has a lemon Bible and that she is just "raisin" the issue.

I know, its a groaner.
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 05:06 AM   #6
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wedemark, Lower Saxony
Posts: 3,733
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
She's just picked out all the verses of the Bible that disagree with her views and claims they are lemons.

I don't know how she can trust the Bible to be inspired if she thinks it has so many (logical, doctrinal) errors.
Perhaps the issue was more of translation & transmission & interpretation, not composition. (I'm guessing, here).

Compare this to Lee, who said something like 75% of the composition of the Psalms was "natural", "fallen human concepts" & not revelatory of God.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 05:13 AM   #7
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Perhaps the issue was more of translation & transmission & interpretation, not composition. (I'm guessing, here).

Compare this to Lee, who said something like 75% of the composition of the Psalms was "natural", "fallen human concepts" & not revelatory of God.
Whatever the reason, I can't find much support in the Christian scholarly literature for the idea that all of these passages are mistranslated, other than Bushnell. She doesn't really have a case unless all of the verses that disprove her view are "lemons" and I don't think it is likely that all of them are mistranslated to the degree claimed.

Before I came to the Recovery and still now I believe in the doctrine of biblical preservation:

https://www.gotquestions.org/preservation-Bible.html

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.

the differences are extremely small and insignificant and do not in any way affect the basic teachings or meaning of God’s Word

If Scripture were not supernaturally preserved, there would be no way to ensure the consistency of the message it contains.


The claims of mistranslations I think go beyond "extremely small and insignificant differences".
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 06:59 AM   #8
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Let's all praise Jane Carole Anderson.

Witness Lee made me sensitive to big egos. So I'm cautious whenever I bump into one.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 07:29 AM   #9
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Low blow Mr A, really low blow. Just because Jane starts a website she has a big ego...even like Witness Lee? Enjoy while you can.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 07:37 AM   #10
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Low blow Mr A, really low blow. Just because Jane starts a website she has a big ego...even like Witness Lee? Enjoy while you can.
-
Brother Untohim, I don't know Jane Anderson from Adams' cat. But from what I see from her so far, and know of a little bit, she seems quite taken with herself. Sorry, if I'm wrong about that. She's doing the writings, so if I'm wrong, I'm either reading her wrong, or she's presenting her writings wrong.

Hey, she's got a website. Let her come out here and explain how she doesn't have a disproportionately sized ego. Ma Culpa if I am. Like I said I'm cautious.

I'd love to be wrong.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 11:36 AM   #11
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Low blow Mr A, really low blow. Just because Jane starts a website she has a big ego...even like Witness Lee? Enjoy while you can.
-
Unto---

That's rich...JANE has a big ego. The pots calling the kettle black?

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 08-29-2017 at 12:07 PM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 12:07 PM   #12
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 12:28 PM   #13
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 01:28 PM   #14
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 04:33 PM   #15
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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???
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 04:42 AM   #16
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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 .
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 05:21 AM   #17
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,917
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 05:47 AM   #18
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 12:18 PM   #19
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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.

-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 04:50 PM   #20
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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...

.
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 05:07 PM   #21
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 05:46 PM   #22
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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....
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 06:13 PM   #23
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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.

-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 06:27 PM   #24
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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".
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 06:29 PM   #25
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-
Good idea. Oh John???
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 08:00 PM   #26
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Let's examine UntoHim's claim that Jane presents "solid, reasonable and biblical proofs" by addressing the core of the matter - how Satan influenced the bible translation.

This is the book's claim about how Satan influenced the bible, from Chapter 2 of the book:

"There were no female members on early bible translation committees. So it was easy for Satan to use innate male bias to influence the translation of verses that pertained to women's roles"

She gives no citations or references whatsoever for these claims, but vaguely refers to Bushnell.

Let's examine each part.

"There were no female members on early bible translation committees"

That is factually correct. Also none to my knowledge on Wycliffe's translation committee, or the KJV and many others.

"So it was easy for Satan" ~ lack of female members on a committee makes it easier for Satan to influence?

From a common sense point of view, I don't know how the presence of one gender over another guarantees protection from Satan's influence. Satan can use man's "male bias" but cannot use the females?

The presence of a man and a woman in the Garden of Eden didn't stop the fall, but arguably the man would not have been deceived if the woman had not been there. Satan did not even try to tempt Adam, he knew his best chance was with the woman. Last time I read Genesis, it was the female who was deceived by Satan, not the man. It was the woman, Eve, who made it "easier" for Satan to influence Adam. Based on Genesis, if any particular gender should be removed from a committee, it would be the female gender.

What is "innate male bias"? Let's examine this term.

The word innate means "inborn, natural, inbred, congenital, inherent, intrinsic, instinctive, intuitive, spontaneous, unlearned, untaught;"

So "innate male bias" simply means "being a man".

In other words, Satan used the fact that the translators were male, to influence the translation of verses pertaining to women.

The next part:

"to influence the translation of verses that pertained to women's roles"


So wherever there was a verse that pertained to a woman, Satan used the fact the translators were male, to mistranslate the verses.

If that were possible, then I wonder what other verses in the bible Satan influenced via the fact that he was a man? Apparently, God was unable to prevent mistranslation of the bible into English simply for the fact that the translators were all male.

In summary:

Is it solid? No, it is based upon a view that an equal number of genders on a committee provides protection against Satanic influence and no references are given to support this claim.
Is it reasonable? I would say no. Jesus's "committee", the 12 disciples were all male. This makes it easier for Satan than if Jesus chose 50% male 50% female? That does not seem reasonable to me.
Is it biblical? No. As the story goes in Genesis, it was the woman deceived by Satan, not the man. There are biblical examples of Satan influencing both men and women. I don't think the presence of both genders on a committee provides any guarantee or protection from Satan.

This is probably the only Christian forum where the forum moderator declares books by non-experts (without much support for their claims from real experts), to be "solid, reasonable and biblical proofs" and Greek NT experts from Dallas Theological Seminary are disregarded.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 08:19 PM   #27
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 08-30-2017 at 08:55 PM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 10:15 PM   #28
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 10:53 PM   #29
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

"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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 11:13 PM   #30
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default How do male-only versus male+female bible versions compare?

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.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 05:12 AM   #31
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 05:27 AM   #32
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
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?


It's truly incredible how much effort you current members will invest in order to discredit a book by an ex-member, yet will never apply those same efforts into critiquing LSM's aberrant teachings and practices.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 05:46 AM   #33
leastofthese
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 195
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
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
Praying for you Drake
__________________
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
leastofthese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 06:36 AM   #34
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese View Post
Praying for you Drake
Appreciate that. Always.

Thanks,
Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 09:07 AM   #35
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
..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?

Great idea about taking this verse by verse. Let's start with Genesis 3:16. I think Jane started with this verse so it makes a lot of sense to follow in the same order.

Jane has made the claim that certain translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by all-male translation committees. Maybe we could start with this hypothesis. Let's all try our best to address the actual issue(s) at hand, and steer clear of side issues and especially ad hominems. ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND NOT THE POSTER.

-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:09 AM   #36
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanG
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 .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
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
It didn't make me feel good to say Jane has an oversize ego. I've made it obvious that that makes me cautious.

However, I'm with Jane on this male bias thing. I think both the Bible AND the translators have been way toooooooooo male biased. Add to that also, the fact that, there were no female scribes copying the books of the Bible.

Maybe some of the Greek manuscripts would agree with each other if there had been. But women were held down, and made to be illiterate back then. They weren't allowed to be scribes. They would have prolly been better at transcribing the text, and less likely to tamper with it.

Male dominance of the Bible is even reflected in Paul's possible pseudepigraphal books - like Timothy, but not Corinthians - tho evidence exists in the manuscripts that it too has been tampered with - again by males.

So I say, go with gusto sister Jane. Stir it up. In this day and age of equality, it's about time we had some female influence on the Bible.

However, all the female gusto in the world will, ironically, not undo the male dominance of the Bible. In the end -- prolly sadly to Jane -- males dominate, and ain't nothing going to change that. Male dominance of the Bible has been Canonized.

But Kudos to Jane for trying. It's about time I tell ya, about time, the Bible had some female bias. So Jane ... YOU GO GIRL !!!!!!

Sadly, your ego, even on steroids, will never be powerful enough to even make a dent in the male dominance of the Bible. Now, for the sake of at least some female influence on the Bible, I wish your ego was as big as all out doors.
Caveat:
It doesn't matter a hang to me if women preach and teach in church. After Witness Lee, I don't cotton to preachers, male or female. And I'm with Paul -- in one of his undisputed books, Galatians -- in Christ there's no male or female.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 01:25 PM   #37
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

I think it might be good to start with three basic things.

#1 What was God's original plan/intention/order in the creation before the Fall? Obviously woman was created 2nd. Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer.

#2 What were the immediate affects of the Fall on Man's relationship with Women? What were the immediate affects of God's relationship with Men and Women? Again, let's use the account in the opening chapters of Genesis to find the best answer.

#3a What part did man-made culture/religion play in the relationship of Men to Women in the period from just after the Fall until the appearing and ministry of the Lord Jesus and the original apostles?

#3b What part did man-made culture/religion play in the relationship of Men to Women from the end of the apostolic era up until today.

These are not rhetorical questions! Let's be Bereans guys (and gals)!
As far as we are able, let's keep it as basic and simple as possible. The easiest answer might be the best. I have no objection to employing the use of linguistic scholars/experts to a certain extent, but's lets not get into a battle of "your expert says this but mine says that". Somewhere I've heard something like this "My interpretation can only be as inerrant as I am, and that's good to keep in mind."

-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 05:14 PM   #38
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
I think it might be good to start with three basic things.

#1 What was God's original plan/intention/order in the creation before the Fall? Obviously woman was created 2nd. Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer.

#2 What were the immediate affects of the Fall on Man's relationship with Women? What were the immediate affects of God's relationship with Men and Women? Again, let's use the account in the opening chapters of Genesis to find the best answer.

#3a What part did man-made culture/religion play in the relationship of Men to Women in the period from just after the Fall until the appearing and ministry of the Lord Jesus and the original apostles?

#3b What part did man-made culture/religion play in the relationship of Men to Women from the end of the apostolic era up until today.

These are not rhetorical questions! Let's be Bereans guys (and gals)!
As far as we are able, let's keep it as basic and simple as possible. The easiest answer might be the best. I have no objection to employing the use of linguistic scholars/experts to a certain extent, but's lets not get into a battle of "your expert says this but mine says that". Somewhere I've heard something like this "My interpretation can only be as inerrant as I am, and that's good to keep in mind."

-
It would be good to differentiate between the original Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible as opposed to translations of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Confusion continues regarding "changing the Bible" and taking another look at translations which may have translated by men according to male bias thus changing the meaning of the original text.

"guys (and gals)" could also use an edit and remove the parenthetical on women. :-)

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:47 PM   #39
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Let's not battle. But I think this relates to this subject, and should be considered.

This is from a respected textual scholar, that is a professor of Koine Greek, and expert on the Greek manuscripts, and early Christian writings :

Women
...
-- Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus (p. 183). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Is your "respected textual scholar" yet another man?

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:50 PM   #40
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

-2

Bro Awareness, what does your reference source say about Genesis 3:16?

Thx
Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:09 PM   #41
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Is your "respected textual scholar" yet another man?

Nell
I don't believe I have ever met a woman named Bart. It's possible I suppose.

Yet Nell, if your argument is going to pivot on the gender of the scholars referenced that will be a short lived conversation. I assume that male posters in this forum are permitted to comment on this topic.... therefore, male scholars can be referenced in this topic. Disagree with argument, the teaching, the doctrine of the "scholar".

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:13 PM   #42
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
I don't know brother Drake. I'd have t o look into it. But isn't 3:16 encompassed in the 613 Jewish laws? Are we too, as Christians, to live under those laws? Just wondering?
I mention it because Jane mentioned it as a lemon, Evangelical refuted it, and UntoHim suggested to start with it.

Thx
Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:17 PM   #43
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default The meaning of Genesis 3:16

To me Jane's line of logic is puzzling. There is no reason why she can't simply explain the true meaning of "he shall rule over you" like Gotquestions.org does with a caveat about its potential misuse:

It is important to note that this judgment only states what will take place. God says that man and woman will live in conflict and their relationship will become problematic. The statement “he shall rule over you” is not a biblical command for men to dominate women.

Why does Jane take the view of Satan-inspired male-biased translation committees for which there is no evidence? That just casts doubt on every bible translation with an all-male committee.

As my previous analysis has found, there is no correlation between the translation of Genesis 3:16 and the number of women on a bible translation panel.

Jane's claim that "translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by all-male translation committees" is doubtful.

But she is possibly correct that the word "desire " should be translated as turning according to the early manuscripts.

I found this website which gives a comprehensive review of the translation of Genesis 3:16

http://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/

It is possible that the word "desire" should be translated as "turning". But it does not mean the word desire is wrong, or that the meaning of the verse is affected. Nor does it mean Satan is affecting God's Word via the translators just because they are male. Nor does it mean that changing the word will get rid of the "innate male bias" in every man.

The most straightforward meaning of Genesis 3:16 is to say that there will be increased conflict between men and women.

Jewish websites also say this:
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the...rule-over-you/

GotQuestions.org takes this viewpoint as well
https://www.gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html


Interestingly, the same word in Hebrew used in Genesis 3:16 is the same word used in the verse about Cain:


I’ll mention as an aside that the exact same phrasing (take a look and compare them, it’s very striking) is found in the words of G-d to Cain, when he speaks to him about his jealousy of his brother Abel. G-d says, “Sin crouches at the door, and his desire is to you, and you should rule (timshol) over him.” Just as Man lost the smooth functioning of his relationship with Woman, he also lost the smooth functioning of his relationship with his own desires. He was supposed to be the leader over his faculties, and he still can be, but now there’s going to be a lot more resistance.


Both Jewish and Christian folk seem to agree that the verse is about the increased conflict between men and women. The verse should not be used to say that men can control their wives, but at the same time there is no real conspiracy of male-biased translators deliberating twisting the Word of God to make it say that.

I think Jane has misplaced the cause of the problem between men and women. She seems to blame the bible translators and their male bias. I don't think there is anything much wrong with the translation as "desire", and bible versions which have female translation committee members don't seem to have a problem with it either.

I think it's not the male bias of the translators, but the male bias in every man which misinterprets the verse as a command for men to rule women, rather than as a statement of fact that conflict between men and women is a result of the fall. So maybe it's not a lemon, but a grape which is used in a sour way.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:55 PM   #44
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
I think it might be good to start with three basic things.
#1 What was God's original plan/intention/order in the creation before the Fall? Obviously woman was created 2nd. Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer. -
Anyone want to take a shot at this one?
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 09:10 PM   #45
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Is your "respected textual scholar" yet another man?

Nell
Good point, and great question. How many women Bible scholars are there?

So I googled it, and found a list :https://womenbiblicalscholars.wordpress.com/

But none of them are textual scholars.

You sisters need to get busy. Ain't nobody holding you down now.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 09:12 PM   #46
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Anyone want to take a shot at this one?
-
That's already been addressed. It was written by men.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 09:26 PM   #47
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:

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.

4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:12 PM   #48
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:18 PM   #49
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant anymore than the translators were farmer biased. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:

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.

4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Applying Jane's lemon reasoning in Gen 3:16 to Gen 4:7 leads to the idea that Satan used the farmer (Cain) bias of the translators to subjugate the cattlemen (Abel) in order to keep them from fulfilling their God designated role.

Of course that is an argument lacking credibility.

Drake
That's a good point. If there was bias in translating the word teshuqah as desire in Gen 3:16, then there would also be bias in translating the same word used in 4:7.

http://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/
In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament, teshuqah is translated as apostrophē.[15][16] The etymology of apostrophē gives the meaning “a turning away”, but it is has a broader range of meanings, some of which are conflicting.

Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), arguably one of the best lexicons of Ancient Greek, has several definitions for apostrophē. Most don’t fit the context of Genesis 3:16 at all. For definition III, however, the LSJ says that apostrophē is used rhetorically when one turns away from all others to one person and addresses him specifically.[17] This meaning makes good sense in the contexts of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Since the preposition pros (“towards”) also occurs in Genesis 3:16 (“your turning (apostrophē) will be towards (pros) your husband”), I think the meaning of a woman turning away from others to turn towards, or even long for, her husband may well be what is intended here.[18]



The interpretation that Jane takes is this one:

“But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syriac Pe****ta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Eve’s mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Eve makes Adam her priority . . . .”[19]

For Cain, Cain's mistake would be of turning his principle devotion towards his sin rather than God.

Whether it means turning or desire, does not change the second part of the verse: "he shall rule over thee".

Translated "desire", it implies the man's ruling is positive - most Christian and Jewish scholars take this view, and bible translators (men and women). This is the patriarchal view.

Translated "turning", it implies the man's ruling is negative ie "If you turn towards your husband he shall rule over you".

Then again "turning" and "desire" can also mean the same thing, and have no bearing on whether the man's rule is positive or negative.

Considering Cain, if Jane is correct, that Gen 3:16 means "If you turn towards your husband he shall rule over you".

Then when this interpretation is applied to Cain:

"And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

It doesn't really make sense.

In other words

If Eve turning toward her husband and her husband ruling over her is a bad thing

Then Cain turning away from sin and ruling over his sin is a bad thing.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:22 PM   #50
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-
You are factually incorrect that the desire of Gen 3:16 is very different to the desire in Gen 4:7. You are correct that these are two different circumstances, but you are incorrect that they are very different when we look at the original text.

In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 the word desire is the same Hebrew word, teshuqah, or in the Septuagint, both are translated as apostrophē.

So whatever changes are to be made to Gen 3:16, then Gen 4:7 is affected as well. If Gen 3:16 is a lemon, then Gen 4:7 is a lemon as well. If translators were male biased, then they were also "farmer biased" in Gen 4:7.

This is related to my earlier question, - how come male translators were influenced by Satan only on the verses pertaining to women?

The common meaning between Gen 3:16 and 4:7 is that there would be a struggle and there is something to rule over. Eve's struggle was with man, and Cain's struggle was with sin. I think this is the reason that most bible versions translate both as "desire".

Jane's reasoning is not so solid at all. She has to argue from the Syriac or Coptic translations, and her interpretation is one of many more plausible interpretations, which by the way, do not necessarily support the case she is arguing against. A simple interpretation is that this verse means "men and women will struggle with each other" .
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:41 PM   #51
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
..Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer.
Mr. E, while I admire your persistence and tenacity (as misguided and misplaced as it is), why don't you take a second from your lengthy diatribes and simply answer the question. Was Woman created anything less or intrinsically inferior to Man?
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:48 PM   #52
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default The connection with childbearing and Jewish perspective

So far it's been neglected that the first part of verse 16 is about a woman's pain in childbirth:

Genesis 3:16

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Reading this in a plain way would suggest that there is a connection between the first part and the second. There is a connection between childbirth and the husband's ruling.

One perspective which comes from Judaism is that the husband would rule over the woman (sexually) and she would have to bear children in pain. These are two sorts of punishments related to childbirth. One, the cause of childbirth (men) and secondly the childbirth itself.

Now the Jewish interpretation of Gen 3:16 from the Hebrew.

Gen 3:16 in Hebrew is:

"v'el isheich t'shukateich, v'hu yimshol bach."

The word yimshol means "rule over" and the root word for yimshol is moshel means a dictator, one who rules by force.

Anyone who knows Hebrew can maybe confirm or check if this is correct.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:51 PM   #53
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-
UntoHim, null and void? Heavens no. Desire and rule are the same words in both verses. The sentence structure is the same. Two pairs of relationship and the relationship in each pair is the same. You can't apply desire and rule one way for Gen 3:16 and a different way for Gen 4:7.

Evangelical covered it in more detail in Post 49 and 50. If Jane's logic to change up 3:16 is applied to 4:7 it does not make sense.

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 10:58 PM   #54
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Mr. E, while I admire your persistence and tenacity (as misguided and misplaced as it is), why don't you take a second from your lengthy diatribes and simply answer the question. Was Woman created anything less or intrinsically inferior to Man?
-
Your question is related to my previous post about the Jewish perspective.

I would say that woman was created weaker, but not inferior, to man.
Woman was subjected to inferiority as a consequence of the fall. In Judaism, a woman could be divorced at will etc. According to the Hebrew rendering of Gen 3:16 - it's a dictatorship, not a democracy. It should have been a democracy, but became a dictatorship. What was foretold in Gen 3:16 came to pass in Judaism.
She has been restored to her original position in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and is no longer inferior, but remains weaker.

I think Paul's restrictions on women are due to weakness not inferiority. 1 Peter 3:7. It's like on a farm job, you don't give a woman a job she is not strong enough to do. It does not mean she is inferior, just weaker. In a physical sense men have broad shoulders to carry out physically demanding work, women have narrow shoulders. I could say like Paul does relating to head coverings, "does not even nature tell you that women are weaker".
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 11:22 PM   #55
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Mr. E, while I admire your persistence and tenacity (as misguided and misplaced as it is), why don't you take a second from your lengthy diatribes and simply answer the question. Was Woman created anything less or intrinsically inferior to Man?
-
I'll bite.

No, not icreated nferior or less. She came solely out of Adam, is of Adam, her existence is because of Adam, she is one with Adam. She is man (male and female He created them).

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 11:31 PM   #56
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,898
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Your question is related to my previous post about the Jewish perspective.

I would say that woman was created weaker, but not inferior, to man.
Woman was subjected to inferiority as a consequence of the fall. In Judaism, a woman could be divorced at will etc. According to the Hebrew rendering of Gen 3:16 - it's a dictatorship, not a democracy. It should have been a democracy, but became a dictatorship. What was foretold in Gen 3:16 came to pass in Judaism.
She has been restored to her original position in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and is no longer inferior, but remains weaker.

I think Paul's restrictions on women are due to weakness not inferiority. 1 Peter 3:7. It's like on a farm job, you don't give a woman a job she is not strong enough to do. It does not mean she is inferior, just weaker. In a physical sense men have broad shoulders to carry out physically demanding work, women have narrow shoulders. I could say like Paul does relating to head coverings, "does not even nature tell you that women are weaker".
Genesis 3:16 is an origin narrative. The story answers the question: Why is it that women are inferior to men? To a large extent, women were held to be inferior and treated accordingly in ancient Hebrew society as were they in much of the world until the late modern era. Genesis 3:16 justifies that situation. Again, it's not surprising that a patriarchal society would have text justifying its practice. Nor is it surprising that traditionalists would seek to maintain patriarchy by sacralizing such an ancient text.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 04:33 AM   #57
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
In Jane Anderson's reasoning the lemon verses were influenced by Satan working through male biased translators for the purpose of subjugating women to prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

First, what I agree with... Satan wants subjugate women and prevent them from fulfilling their God designated role.

I disagree with the argument that the tools of Satan were the male bias of the translators. I don't believe that male bias in translators is relevant. When Jane's reasoning on Genesis 3:16 is applied to the similar verse of Genesis 4:7 her whole argument falls flat, crashes through the floor, and into the basement. Here the two verses are juxtaposed for clarity:
...
Drake


Genesis 3:13-16
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Satan was cursed by God because he deceived the woman. Got put enmity between the the serpent and the woman and her seed. Ultimately the serpent met his END because of the seed of woman...the serpent's head was bruised and will ultimately be cast into the lake of fire.

It should be obvious that the serpent works through any means possible to exact revenge on the woman. "Satan working through male biased translators" would be a master stroke. Satan using God's own word against him to recruit men, and in fact, women themselves, as his accomplices in his campaign to defeat woman and her seed...Jesus Christ. God's was merciful toward the woman, and later a virgin woman, who would ultimately bring forth his only begotten Son...not born of man. The serpent was cursed, and Adam received this punishment:

Gen. 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Adam was held responsible for the fall.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Satan's working to inspire men's animosity toward women on every level is rooted here. The serpent was cursed by God, and the woman was blessed with the ultimate blessing...her seed would ultimately defeat the one who deceived her. She was warned that her lot in life wasn't going to be easy. So the serpent deceived men, and women, to fight his war against women for him.

Because of this enmity, Satan declared war on women. It would be naive to think that Satan was not behind any mistakes in translations of the Bible that may exist. In fact, it is a brilliant, though Satanic, strategy. Worst of all, it's working.

From War on the Saints by Jesse Penn-Lewis
Henceforth it is also war by Satan upon the womanhood of the world, in malignant revenge for the
verdict of the garden. War by the trampling down of women in all lands where the deceiver reigns.
War upon women in Christian lands, by the continuance of his Eden method of misinterpreting the
Word of God; insinuating into men's minds throughout all succeeding ages, that God pronounced a
"curse" upon the woman, when in truth she was pardoned and blessed; and instigating men of the
fallen race to carry out the supposed curse, which was in truth a curse upon the deceiver, and not the
deceived one (Gen. 3: 14).

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said God, as well as between "thy seed and her
seed," and this vindictive enmity of the hierarchy of evil to woman, and to believers, has not lessened
in its intensity from that day.


It would be a mistake to underestimate the workings of Satan.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-01-2017 at 05:43 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 06:32 AM   #58
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
I think it might be good to start with three basic things.
#1 What was God's original plan/intention/order in the creation before the Fall? Obviously woman was created 2nd. Does this mean she is anything less or intrinsically inferior to man? Let's use the opening account of creation in Genesis in our attempt to ascertain the best answer. -
Of course we aren't privy to God's original plan or intentions for women before the fall. And I find it interesting that Untohim wants to restrict our ascertainment to Genesis, and not the whole Bible, that depicts women as inferior.

But none of that concerns me. After reading this thread I wonder what's being defended. I see a defense against Jane's claim, that, the translators were biased men against women.

My concern is if all of the defense against Jane is actually a cover for defending that women should be subjugated by men.

If that is so, and I'm not sure it is, that's shameful. But it wouldn't be foreign in the local church. One of the elders in the c. in Detroit, where Ron Kangas was lead elder, ruled his house with his fist. I saw it. And a brother that lived with the elder that gave me the boot told me he ruled his wife and kids with his fists. So to me this is a very important matter.

If that's what is being defended then those defending would likely want to take care of Jane with their fist. And that's completely shameful. Maybe that's why Paul said not to touch a woman.

Sorry. I just had to say it. Please, those defending against Jane, tell us outright just what you are really defending. I would hate to find that we have members out here that believe women should be subjugated by any and all means.

I don't believe that that is what God intended for women.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 08:12 AM   #59
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 08:43 AM   #60
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 09:53 AM   #61
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
My bad. So how long should I stay in the hole this time?
Bro awareness, is that the same as the doghouse?
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 09:57 AM   #62
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 11:05 AM   #63
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-
I asked Jane to send me the passage in her book where she discussed Genesis 4:7 in her book Woman of Chayil.

Nell
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Genesis 4-7 excerpt requested by Lanell.pdf (384.0 KB, 22 views)
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 11:46 AM   #64
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 03:35 PM   #65
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 04:30 PM   #66
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

"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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 04:51 PM   #67
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 05:05 PM   #68
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
"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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 05:53 PM   #69
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Is Bushnell the Biased One?

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2017, 07:07 PM   #70
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 07:44 AM   #71
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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
I thought, if the translators are biased, which one is not? So I searched for Bushnell's translator and found "God's Word to Women." So I bought it for Kindle.

We're not actually talking about Jane's book. Jane get's it from Bushnell, a woman, btw. The problem with Bushnell is there's no evidence that she went to any university to learn Greek and Hebrew. Apparently she's self taught.

And if men translators are biased, what about women translators? Are they not biased?

Will someone please point me to a translator that's not biased? That's the translation that I want to read.

I find it interesting that in Bushnell's book I found in her footnotes this statement:

These facts we gather from the highly valuable work of Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," and of Burgon and Miller, "Causes of Corruption in the Traditional Text of the N. T.”
~Bushnell, Katharine. God's Word to Women (Abridged) (Kindle Locations 3237-3238). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

And the dreaded (by Untohim who is clearly biased, so out here rejected), true scholar of Greek, Dr. Bart Ehrman, who writes text books for Universities and Seminaries on it, has a book: "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

That aside, I find it interesting that here on LCD we reject a professional Greek and Hebrew scholar as biased, and accept an amateur on Greek and Hebrew as not biased.

Talk about bias and confirmation bias, we've got plenty of both out here. We've got bias out the ying-yang.

So enough of condemning biases. Bias is everywhere to be found. We're all biased. Talk about the pot and kettle thing, we take the cake.

Now bro Untohim, time to censor me again, and delete another of my posts. But let's condemn all other "biased" people, including me, and let Bushnell, and Jane, slide.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 08:02 AM   #72
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And the dreaded (by Untohim who is clearly biased, so out here rejected), true scholar of Greek, Dr. Bart Ehrman, who writes text books for Universities and Seminaries on it, has a book: "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."

.
Ehrman is rejected by orthodox evangelicals because he has rejected the faith, and has become an athiest. Why in the world would we want further bias from his outspoken biases?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 08:33 AM   #73
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Ehrman is rejected by orthodox evangelicals because he has rejected the faith, and has become an athiest. Why in the world would we want further bias from his outspoken biases?
Because we seek the truth, or should. Inerrantists hate studies of the Greek manuscripts. Cuz the fact that there are over 5500 Greek manuscripts, some of them the size of a credit card, and none of them agree with each other (there are more variations in the manuscripts than there are words in the NT), dispels inerrancy, and also dispels the notion that God preserved the Bible down thru the years. So in order to reject this fact, we shoot the messenger ... someone that knows the Bible better than anyone out here, and better than Nee & Lee.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2017, 09:37 AM   #74
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Off Topic. Move on.
-
Right on. So back to the translators. Can Jane and/or Bushnell point us to an unbiased translation? I've got about 50 translations at my finger tips. Which one is the unbiased one? Or is there another one that I haven't found yet, that's completely unbiased?

Methinks that between the mass of translations we, that are said to be biased, and Bushnell's and Jane's take on the women verses, we've got nothing short of a battle of biases.

And both come from the lens that the Bible is inerrant, and any problem or inerrancy comes from the translators.

Seems to me then, we should eliminate those middlemen, and go to the source ourselves. Then we'll run into a problem of which manuscript we take from ... a huge problem for all translators.

I posit that Bushnell was an egalitarian, who fought for women's rights, and saw thru those lenses. And that biased her.

But still, I shout : Thank you Bushnell. Cuz once the cat was out of the bag, secularism picked up the cause, made an end run around the Bible, and has come a long way at making women equal. True, women today don't make the same pay as men. But secularism is working on that too.

And our modern secular world today, here in America, allows us to meet, or assemble as a church, any way we wish. If some want to gather, and blindly follow corrupted translations of the Bible, and keep women silent, they have the freedom to do so. That doesn't make them any less Christian. And in our modern secular world women don't have to go to those churches.

And if believers don't like churches, like Lee's Recovery, that don't allow women leaders, they don't have to go to those churches. We're free. Women are free. Amen.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2017, 07:42 PM   #75
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Ehrman is rejected by orthodox evangelicals because he has rejected the faith, and has become an athiest. Why in the world would we want further bias from his outspoken biases?
He is a hypocrite. He says one thing to the Christian public but agrees the NT is reliable when speaking to academics:

http://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-...efutes-ehrman/

Bushnell would be more reliable than Ehrman I think.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 06:15 AM   #76
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
He is a hypocrite. He says one thing to the Christian public but agrees the NT is reliable when speaking to academics:

http://crossexamined.org/is-the-new-...efutes-ehrman/

Bushnell would be more reliable than Ehrman I think.
Where's the bona fides?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 11:23 AM   #77
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Posts and Reactions

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
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.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 11:29 AM   #78
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Setting the Stage for Male Gender Bias

Before presenting one lemon that was likely caused by male gender bias, I will try to focus us because of all of the distractions. This may help posters and readers to be on the same page, at least to start, as regards my posts here.

Brief history of the King James version

As I understand it, generally speaking, the King James version (KJV) was about the only version of the Bible in English available to the general populace for hundreds of years. As such, it held sway over the English-speaking world for maybe 300 years or so, even being referred to as the Authorized Version. In fact, there are still a number of Christians today that believe that the KJV is the best version and that the newer ones are adulterated.

Impact of the King James version

Also, most have heard that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time. Until the newer translations, the KJV was in this position of authority. Most have also heard that the Bible is the most quoted book in all of literature, which would be applicable to the KJV until the newer versions.

The point is that the KJV has had a huge impact on our culture, both Christian and secular. In my generation, we memorized the so-called Lord’s prayer, complete with its “Thy’s” and “Thine,” and recited it in unison, even though I didn’t know the meaning of “hallowed” or “trespasses.” To finish the point, the Bible gets into us; and, as Christians, that’s what we want—but we do want it to be true to what God intended. For many Christians, the KJV somewhat set the standard due to its first-to-market status, market share, and longevity in the marketplace. It sort of established a precedent that remained for hundreds of years. As we know, it is often difficult to make changes to the status quo; and the KJV became the Bible of record, if you will.

Therefore, when we embrace a biased translation of a verse (including its punctuation and sentence structure)—“a lemon,” if you will—we have self-indoctrinated an understanding that is not actually according to God’s Word, but simply one that is according to what the translators thought at the time. (In this regard, keep in mind that members of the Local Church dutifully penned the changes in their KJV Bibles that Witness Lee dictated until the 1980s, at which time he was able to publish his own version.)

Many readers probably know Bible history facts better than I do. I am just asking all readers to consider the impact that the KJV has had on our Christian culture and how we view the Christian community and our places in it as a result.

Is there male gender bias in the KJV?

Recently, on this forum, three different threads have in some way touched on the issue of male gender bias in the Bible: “Women’s Role,” “A Woman of Chayil …,” and “New Jane Anderson Website.” I would like to address this question: “Is there male gender bias in the KJV Bible?” To keep things more manageable, I will try to keep the KJV as the touchstone, since it has had such a tremendous impact on our Christian culture, almost like it’s in our DNA, that is, at least for those of us who were reading our Bibles fifty years ago or so.

An objective person, let’s say, a non-Christian who knows nothing more about the Bible than having seen an end-zone banner with “John 3:16” on it, would probably grant that there was, indeed, male bias in the KJV translation when given one simple fact: There were no women on the KJV translation committee. I would, therefore, conclude that gender bias, regardless how small, would be self-evident to an intelligent, logical person.

As a side note to those who would say that there are now women on translation committees and that that should solve the problem, consider these things: How would you like to be the one woman in the room (or in the review group) who has to try to point out to all the males that the translation that they have been agreeing with probably most of their adult lives might not be accurate in this regard? I don’t state this as proof that there is still gender bias in all newer translations; I state it to show that it is not so simple to uncover and stand up against gender bias as some would have us believe. The other comment I’d make is that portions of the Bible would, I would think, get divided up among the translation participants, so we don’t even know if one of the women got to see any particular passage, unless, of course, that information has been made available. In the same vein, if a woman’s specialty is Greek, she most likely wouldn’t be commenting on Genesis 3:16. These are just a few quick thoughts that came to me when reading some of the superficial claims made earlier; and, as I wrote previously, I won’t spend time going into the details.

In the final analysis, I don’t plan to get bogged down discussing how many women were on any particular translation committee. First, the fact is that there were no women on the precedent-establishing KJV committee; and, second, proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men. Jane, in fact, wrote that there are women who are solidly in the traditional camp, holding to what is referred to as a complementarian or patriarchal position. The writings of these women, in fact, might agree largely with what I understand of Evangelical’s position.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 11:39 AM   #79
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default More Information and a Testimonial

For those who are really interested in pursuing this topic, reading Jane’s or Katharine’s books with an open mind will probably help you more than you expect. I know that I have been greatly helped by reading these books as well as others.

Note: There are several editions of God’s Word to Women available on the Internet. At least one of them, readily available on Amazon, is abridged and not nearly as good as the full text, I am told. One place I know of to get the unabridged is GodsWordToWomen.org. (The ebook version from this site looks to be complete but lacks Katharine’s timeline diagram of teshuqa.) Personally, I started with Jesse Penn-Lewis’ The Magna Carta of Woman, which is a condensation of Katharine Bushnell’s book but which didn’t have enough meat in it for me. It might be a good place to start for some, however. Katharine Bushnell’s book is the seminal work and very erudite. (This book should not just be skimmed quickly and then denigrated just as quickly, as some are wont to do.)

These two books had such an impact on me that I wrote a very brief synopsis of what I thought at the time (about nine years ago) were the most important parts: “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.” It has honestly taken years for the import of the message of these books to get through my male brain, to the extent that it has, and into my wicked heart, and impact my own innate male bias and behavior. I should also add that my relationship with the Lord has deepened in correspondence with my behavioral change which is due to repentance (to which my wife attests).

Jane’s book culminates with the need for repentance by both males and females in order to remove a huge, longstanding relationship wound in the body of Christ (which has offended the Spirit). She points out that, historically, it is repentance that paves the way for blessing and for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit on the earth. This, I would say, is the main point of Jane’s book.

Learning from Jane

I actually have followed Jane’s example, which is seen modeled in The Thread of Gold as well as in A Woman of Chayil: When I am reading Jane’s writings, it seems that she is always referencing her relationship with the Lord and how she contacts Him for guidance in her Bible study. (She has even been disparaged for this; apparently, it’s not scholarly enough. Katharine Bushnell was even criticized for noticing cultural bias in the Chinese translation and starting with that; apparently, some have not heard of or thought of inductive reasoning.) As to me, I prayed about whether or not to answer the request to post again and about what and how to post, and the Lord brought to me the explanation of the Greek word, oikodespoteō. At first, I didn’t see the beauty of this approach. After further thought, I realized that the opposers (which is what the Local Church leaders call people like us) are picking up statements and reworking them to fit whatever narrative they want to create and attack, and then making it look like Jane Anderson and Katharine Bushnell are really just some misguided, irrational, feminist imbeciles, without any approved capital letters after their names. I then realized that a “male gender bias for dummies” approach, taking one word at a time, could possibly begin a fissure in those brains, without getting too bogged down in other vagaries of Greek translation.

Well, this is enough for now. The books are available; and, in addition, Jane is dispensing some of the contents of Chayil in small portions on her blog. I am hoping to take up another Greek word sometime soon, but I might post more about repentance next.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 11:39 AM   #80
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,898
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

The biblical inerrantists here want to make Bart Ehrman the issue. The fact is that there is a broad scholarly consensus that women had a more significant and public role in the early church that was later suppressed. The problem is, the suppression begins in the New Testament not merely in translations that came after it. Most NT scholars, not just Ehrman think that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul but by one of his later, second-generation followers.

For example, the NT scholar E.P. Sanders states:
Quote:
Some scholars think that Paul was eventually released and went to Spain, where he wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters, however, were written by a follower after his death, and probably he was martyred in Rome.

Sanders, E. P.. Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (p. 20). OUP Oxford.
Jesus scholars Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan also share this opinion on this and elaborate on the subject in their book The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon (pp. 55-56).

Quote:
According to an almost equally strong consensus, three letters were not written by Paul: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, commonly known as the “pastoral letters” or simply the “pastorals.” Scholars estimate that they were written around the year 100, possibly a decade or two later. These are seen as “non-Pauline” because they have what looks like a later historical setting and a style of writing quite unlike Paul’s in the seven genuine letters. Thus the letters to Timothy and Titus were written in the name of Paul several decades after his death. In case some readers may think that writing in somebody else’s name was dishonest or fraudulent, we note that it was a common practice in the ancient world. It was a literary convention of the time, including within Judaism.

Borg, Marcus J.; Crossan, John Dominic. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon (p. 14). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
They go on to analyze 1 Tim. 2:11–15 an excerpt of which is as follows:

Quote:
In what scholars call the pastoral letters, Timothy and Titus are imagined as left by Paul in charge of Ephesus and Crete, respectively. The subject of female leadership within the Christian assembly arises in a letter of pseudo-Paul to Timothy, and in this (in)famous text it is absolutely forbidden:
Quote:
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
We call this passage “reactionary” and not just “conservative,” because it is clearly reacting to what has been happening. There would be no reason to forbid what nobody had ever imagined. There is, for example, no Roman decree forbidding female senators, because nobody ever imagined that possibility, let alone practiced it.
Arguing against the scholarly consensus on this subject because of a presupposition of inerrantism is a bit like arguing with physicists about the Big Bang Theory because you have presupposition of a literal six day creation 6000 years ago. You have no foundation except Judeo-Christian tradition which can be explained much more simply without recourse to supernatural metaphysics.

Therefore, Anderson is mistaken if she supposes that the suppression of women is strictly a matter of extra-biblical translation. But those who suppose that it was Paul who forbade women to teach men are mistaken as well.
__________________

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 12:39 PM   #81
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: More Information and a Testimonial

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
For those who are really interested in pursuing this topic, reading Jane’s or Katharine’s books with an open mind will probably help you more than you expect. I know that I have been greatly helped by reading these books as well as others.

Note: There are several editions of God’s Word to Women available on the Internet. At least one of them, readily available on Amazon, is abridged and not nearly as good as the full text, I am told. One place I know of to get the unabridged is GodsWordToWomen.org. (The ebook version from this site looks to be complete but lacks Katharine’s timeline diagram of teshuqa.) Personally, I started with Jesse Penn-Lewis’ The Magna Carta of Woman, which is a condensation of Katharine Bushnell’s book but which didn’t have enough meat in it for me. It might be a good place to start for some, however. Katharine Bushnell’s book is the seminal work and very erudite. (This book should not just be skimmed quickly and then denigrated just as quickly, as some are wont to do.)

These two books had such an impact on me that I wrote a very brief synopsis of what I thought at the time (about nine years ago) were the most important parts: “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.” It has honestly taken years for the import of the message of these books to get through my male brain, to the extent that it has, and into my wicked heart, and impact my own innate male bias and behavior. I should also add that my relationship with the Lord has deepened in correspondence with my behavioral change which is due to repentance (to which my wife attests).

Jane’s book culminates with the need for repentance by both males and females in order to remove a huge, longstanding relationship wound in the body of Christ (which has offended the Spirit). She points out that, historically, it is repentance that paves the way for blessing and for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit on the earth. This, I would say, is the main point of Jane’s book.

Learning from Jane

I actually have followed Jane’s example, which is seen modeled in The Thread of Gold as well as in A Woman of Chayil: When I am reading Jane’s writings, it seems that she is always referencing her relationship with the Lord and how she contacts Him for guidance in her Bible study. (She has even been disparaged for this; apparently, it’s not scholarly enough. Katharine Bushnell was even criticized for noticing cultural bias in the Chinese translation and starting with that; apparently, some have not heard of or thought of inductive reasoning.) As to me, I prayed about whether or not to answer the request to post again and about what and how to post, and the Lord brought to me the explanation of the Greek word, oikodespoteō. At first, I didn’t see the beauty of this approach. After further thought, I realized that the opposers (which is what the Local Church leaders call people like us) are picking up statements and reworking them to fit whatever narrative they want to create and attack, and then making it look like Jane Anderson and Katharine Bushnell are really just some misguided, irrational, feminist imbeciles, without any approved capital letters after their names. I then realized that a “male gender bias for dummies” approach, taking one word at a time, could possibly begin a fissure in those brains, without getting too bogged down in other vagaries of Greek translation.

Well, this is enough for now. The books are available; and, in addition, Jane is dispensing some of the contents of Chayil in small portions on her blog. I am hoping to take up another Greek word sometime soon, but I might post more about repentance next.
Thanks for posting John. But should I trust you? You're a man.

I bought the abridged version from Amazon for Kindle. BTW, on the link you provided www.GodsWordToWomen.org neither the ebook or pdf are available. I really prefer it in ebook, so I can read it on the go. And I'm unhappy with the abridged version.

Personally, I'm offended by male bias in the Bible, by the translators and scribes, inserting their male biases down thru the ages.

But it all comes out of patriarchal times (prolly going back to caveman days). The secular awakening has come a long way at making women equal. But religion -- Islam, Judaism, & Christianity -- as usual, hasn't caught up.

Christians that believe the KJV was good enough for Paul, so is good enough for us, will prolly never catch up, as well as those that deny the Greek manuscripts, that our translations come from, have had male biases added into them, by wayward and dishonest scribes, down thru the days of copying by hand.

So this male bias in our current Bibles needs to be addressed in both the corrution of the Greek manuscripts and in the translations.

I'm still looking for the truly unbiased translation, as well as eliminating the added male biased changes in the manuscripts.

And zeek, thanks for posting other Bible scholars that agree with Ehrman. There's strong prejudice against Ehrman out here. Maybe I should have introduced Dr. Elaine Pagels (another Princeton graduate) instead. But then we'd get the Gnostic take on women in the early church, and Untohim would just delete it too. Jeez, I can't win.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 01:47 PM   #82
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

awareness,

Both the abridged and the unabridged versions of the ebooks are available on Amazon. Unfortunately, the abridged is the easier one to find when on their site.

This link should take you directly to Amazon's unabridged version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BD8ZB3O/Kindle.

The link I first provided going via the GWTW website shows a purple book in the upper right-hand column. Under it is a link, called "Kindle," that will also take you there.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 03:30 PM   #83
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
awareness,

Both the abridged and the unabridged versions of the ebooks are available on Amazon. Unfortunately, the abridged is the easier one to find when on their site.

This link should take you directly to Amazon's unabridged version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BD8ZB3O/Kindle.

The link I first provided going via the GWTW website shows a purple book in the upper right-hand column. Under it is a link, called "Kindle," that will also take you there.
Thanks John, for helping this idiot.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 04:54 PM   #84
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Where's the evidence?

Bushnell, etc believe in an unsupported claim, a conspiracy rather, that the KJV and other translations were or are affected by Satan-inspired male-bias.

There are two questionable ideas in this conspiracy:

(1) That the translator's of the bible were affected by Satan-inspired male bias

(2) That the translation of the bible is somehow responsible for the problem of gender discrimination and that correcting the translation will fix the problem.

That it is a conspiracy is somewhat demonstrated by John's previous post where he wants me to "admit more" on the basis of ignorance:

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 did not "want to admit more" because I have found there is nothing more to admit and there is not provided enough evidence to convince.

Further, WHY do I (or anyone) have to ADMIT MORE? Egalitarians are quite capable of making a biblical argument in support of women without resorting to a Satan-male-bias conspiracy theory.
I think there is little correlation between the male-bias of the translators and how one interprets the verse. Are the conspiracy theorists so naive as to think that male-bias exists only in the translators and not in the readers?

Rather, I have found:

(1) No apparent correlation between bible translator gender and rendering of the word teshuqa in Genesis 3:16. In fact, all-male translation committees have translated the word in favor of Bushnell's view before.

This somewhat dilutes Bushnell's assumption that translators were biased simply for being male.

(2) Rendering teshuqa as "desire" which Bushnell et al disagrees with is found predominantly in the bibles of the Western churches.

In the early Greek translations from the Hebrew, apparently they translate teshuqa as "turning" in the Greek, which favors Bushnell's view, yet the Eastern churches are no less patriarchal than the West.
This somewhat dilutes a view that the translation of a single word in Genesis 3:16 is responsible for patriarchy in the church and that resolving this translation issue will fix the problem.

From here:
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/phys...sis/3.asp?pg=2

Yet in Greek, the word is ἀποστροφή meaning "turning".

The translation from Greek to English is "and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

Perhaps this translation from "turning" to "submission" is another conspiracy theory all on its own.

Now if we exam further the first part of the conspiracy (1).

The first is that Satan "inspired" or even translated himself, the Scripture, using man's "innate male bias".

"innate male bias" to me seems to be just a fancy term that Bushnell thought of which doesn't mean anything really. It just means "being a man", because the word innate means "inborn; natural".

I can see how it would be better for her to use this term than to write what it really means:

"Parts of the bible were translated by Satan because all the translators were men".


We can see how John places his trust in the Spirit in Jane:

When I am reading Jane’s writings, it seems that she is always referencing her relationship with the Lord and how she contacts Him for guidance in her Bible study. (She has even been disparaged for this; apparently, it’s not scholarly enough. Katharine Bushnell was even criticized for noticing cultural bias in the Chinese translation and starting with that; apparently, some have not heard of or thought of inductive reasoning.)

But does not consider that the 60 men who translated the KJV were craving the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer as they did their work:

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.


Finally, I just realized something ironic:

The "conspiracy theorists" ( for lack of a better word, until they can start providing evidence), believe "there is no male nor female in Christ" where it concerns female leadership.

But when it concerns the translation of the Bible it's all about those male-biased translators isn't it?

In other words, the folk that don't want to make much fuss about gender in the church, sure make a big deal out of it when it's about bible translations.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 05:12 PM   #85
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Posts and Reactions

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
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.
I don't see how this is relevant to this thread/discussion.

But I will say that John was mistaken in reading "Satan sowing Judas" to mean the same as "Satan choosing Judas". Thus he constructed a straw man argument first without seeking clarification, and then felt holy enough to try and make me feel guilty about it. On that point, who is John to ask me or anyone to retract and repent over an apparent misunderstanding? Is he not satisfied with Drake's offer of waterboarding? If John needs some kindling for the fire I think I know where he can get some, however he best use the paperback version not the Kindle version.

However more seriously now, I believe that Satan's sowing himself is a temporal, not permanent thing best illustrated by this verse:

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas Iscariot

There is a difference between sowing and choosing. A person's view on this will depend upon their view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Awareness would probably have chimed in with some comment about the gospel of Judas.

But I will say that I believe both that Jesus chose Judas, and Judas was a tare sowed by Satan. These two views were reconciled by my statement: "God allowed Satan to use Judas".

John seems to have taken a rigid interpretation of the word "sown" as meaning "from birth", but instead of clarifying my statement, sought to use that against me.

But I think if there was anyone more fitting for being a "tare growing among the wheat" it would have been Judas Iscariot, whether from birth, from choosing, or some time later before the crucifixion. How Judas came to be there does not seem so relevant to me.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 06:07 PM   #86
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: Posts and Reactions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I don't see how this is relevant to this thread/discussion.

But I will say that John was mistaken in reading "Satan sowing Judas" to mean the same as "Satan choosing Judas". Thus he constructed a straw man argument first without seeking clarification, and then felt holy enough to try and make me feel guilty about it. On that point, who is John to ask me or anyone to retract and repent over an apparent misunderstanding? Is he not satisfied with Drake's offer of waterboarding? If John needs some kindling for the fire I think I know where he can get some, however he best use the paperback version not the Kindle version.

However more seriously now, I believe that Satan's sowing himself is a temporal, not permanent thing best illustrated by this verse:

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas Iscariot

There is a difference between sowing and choosing. A person's view on this will depend upon their view of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Awareness would probably have chimed in with some comment about the gospel of Judas.

But I will say that I believe both that Jesus chose Judas, and Judas was a tare sowed by Satan. These two views were reconciled by my statement: "God allowed Satan to use Judas".

John seems to have taken a rigid interpretation of the word "sown" as meaning "from birth", but instead of clarifying my statement, sought to use that against me.

But I think if there was anyone more fitting for being a "tare growing among the wheat" it would have been Judas Iscariot, whether from birth, from choosing, or some time later before the crucifixion. How Judas came to be there does not seem so relevant to me.
I don't see how this is relevant to this thread/discussion.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 06:22 PM   #87
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Posts and Reactions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
I don't see how this is relevant to this thread/discussion.

Nell
Why didn't you tell that to John then?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 06:31 PM   #88
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: Where's the evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Bushnell, Jane, Nell and now John, believe in an unsupported claim, a conspiracy rather, that the KJV and other translations were or are affected by Satan-inspired male-bias.
The translation work of the KJV was a monument to "King James" and not King Jesus. Have you ever read the "Epistle Dedicatory" to "Your Majesty, the Most Dread Sovereign" the head of the church of England at the first page of the KJV? Look it up sometime. Talk about male ego bias with a side of alpha dog. That Dedicatory is simply pathetic.

The KJV became known as the "authorized" version. Authorized by who? God? Of course not! Authorized by the hot-headed King of England! For nearly 3 centuries the British monarchy prevented better and more accurate translations, and not tied to the Textus Receptus.

Did you know that the translators added a word to I Cor 13.5 "love is not easily provoked," with King James in mind. Who knows how many more verses were influenced by ole King James!?!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 06:56 PM   #89
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

I find it interesting that John is trying to argue the case from his idea of what a non-Christian would say, citing them as "objective people" . Would objective intellectual people believe Bushnell over modern day female professors and experts in ancient Greek/Hebrew? Being non-Christians, would they even care? Would objective people discount my previous analysis on how verses are translated and the gender of the translators? I think objective people would appreciate the additional information I provided.

I think that all-male committees may have gender bias, regardless how small. But we are not talking about a little bit of gender bias here, but more of a conspiracy that Satan used the male-bias in men to mistranslate 46 verses (no small number) of the bible which has permeated a majority 99% of the bible versions we use today, and for which, no female experts in Hebrew or Greek have picked up on, despite being involved in the translation to some degree.

Given that it is the year 2017 and not 1960, I don't think that John's view that it would be hard for women on translation committees has much weight. The women involved are experts, some Professors of Hebrew/Greek in their own right and having attained to such a position, surely are not the "precious flowers" John implies they are. What's the probability of Bushnell being correct given that all women of the many different translation committees have not influenced the translation in support of Bushnell's view?

By John stating "proving that women were on a translation committee does not prove that the translation produced was not biased toward men" he has basically just lost the argument because it admits that a certain gender on the committee does not really prove that the translation is biased.

When Jane writes

""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by all-male translation committees" it may not be the case.

There are possibly a 100 different other reasons why things are translated the way they are. It would have helped the case perhaps, to omit speculation about the cause being male gender bias, and just focus on what the proper translation should be.

It does not change the meaning whatsoever if it was written something without referring to gender:

""translations of certain words, terms or phrases were affected by bad translation committees"

I think in this day and age, to refer to anything as being caused by one gender or another could be considered gender discrimination:

e.g. "My mathematics textbook has errors in it because all of the author's were male".

I just don't see the correlation between translation accuracy and gender if both male and female are trained to the same high degree in their profession.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 07:31 PM   #90
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Where's the evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
The translation work of the KJV was a monument to "King James" and not King Jesus. Have you ever read the "Epistle Dedicatory" to "Your Majesty, the Most Dread Sovereign" the head of the church of England at the first page of the KJV? Look it up sometime. Talk about male ego bias with a side of alpha dog. That Dedicatory is simply pathetic.

The KJV became known as the "authorized" version. Authorized by who? God? Of course not! Authorized by the hot-headed King of England! For nearly 3 centuries the British monarchy prevented better and more accurate translations, and not tied to the Textus Receptus.

Did you know that the translators added a word to I Cor 13.5 "love is not easily provoked," with King James in mind. Who knows how many more verses were influenced by ole King James!?!

You are preaching to the converted in regards to the KJV. Look, I don't think anyone doubts that bias can affect translations, I certainly don't. There was bias added to favor the Church of England hierarchy and ensure none of the Lutheran or Calvinist heresies were added. I know that much.

In the KJV's defense, the translators had a wide variety of views:

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.

Regarding the additions in the KJV, part and parcel of translation is to add words to make it more intelligible but without changing the meaning. I think most of these additions are benign.

I can't see the real change in meaning between "love is not provoked" and "love is not easily provoked". Many modern versions choose to use the "not easily provoked" version.

The big difference is there is lots of evidence for what you are saying here, and all that happened with the King of England. Many of these biases have been removed in other, more modern versions.

But there is not so much evidence for Bushnell's views and the modern versions don't seem to do anything much with Genesis 3:16. Further, Bushnell's views involve a complete change in meaning of the text.

Either that means there is really no problem to begin with, the translation is accurate as best is humanly possible, or the translators know there is a problem but don't think it is worth fixing (complacency). I just don't think that something of such magnitude as Bushnell claims, 46 verses, begin mistranslated, would be able to escape the attention of all the male and female scholars over the years. If she is asking them to have another look at it and they won't, there is a reason why they won't do that, and I don't think it's because they are men.

And if they do find something, and change all the bibles to favor Bushnell's view, then I don't think much will change. Because "innate male bias" is in all men if it is truly innate.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 08:50 PM   #91
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: Where's the evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
But does not consider that the 60 men who translated the KJV were craving the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer as they did their work:

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.


Finally, I just realized something ironic:
What I find ironic about the translation of the KJV is, Richard Thomson, translator of Genesis (Gen-Kings), sure did get inspired by the spirit, or rather spirits, as he was an alcoholic, that drank from morning all day long.

However, as I understand it, his alcoholism allowed him to do his translation work routinely, without adding biases. But maybe that's why there's so much drinking in the Bible ... you know, like alcoholic biases ... haha.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 09:22 PM   #92
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Where's the evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
What I find ironic about the translation of the KJV is, Richard Thomson, translator of Genesis (Gen-Kings), sure did get inspired by the spirit, or rather spirits, as he was an alcoholic, that drank from morning all day long.

However, as I understand it, his alcoholism allowed him to do his translation work routinely, without adding biases. But maybe that's why there's so much drinking in the Bible ... you know, like alcoholic biases ... haha.

He had a clear head in the morning to do the translation work:
At any rate, even if Thomson did drink, Paine tells us that “he arose in the morning with his head clear enough to go forward competently with the day’s work.”

http://www.febc.edu.sg/v15/article/d...manite_answers

Or no, he rather started drinking just before putting pen to paper on Gen 3:15, and stopped by Gen 3:18. The rest of Genesis is untainted by bias, only Gen 3:16, that's the only lemon.

But it raises a good point. Clearly it is the gender biases in Bushnell who only see the fact that the translators were male, and not that a particular translator may have been affected by alcohol or illness. One of possibly 100 different reasons why things are translated the way they are. And maybe the Chinese translators she observed were affected by opium, who knows?

But it's the narrative behind Bushnell's book which draws the crowd, that Satan was using men's bias to translate the bible. Remember, Bushnell believes Satan translated the bible, or a good part of it, 46 verses in fact. It was to her, Satan hitching a ride on the back of men's masculinity, salivating and giggling with sinister glee as they translated "teshuqa" from "turning" to "desire", when it may just have been alcoholic men on a bender (not that I believe that to be the case or anything).

By the way, my reference to Satan's giggling is taken from Bushnell:
"Satan could not cause that Judaizing teaching to succeed in Paul's day, but now he giggles as he has blinded ministers to try and silence God's ministry
through the female sex of the body of Christ by changing God's truth into a lie"
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 09:52 PM   #93
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: More Information and a Testimonial

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
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.
I'm sure it helps everyone to know, that Jane makes a good 4 page presentation about why she believes Satan translated parts of the bible. But really, it's all coming from Bushnell anyway.

I still do not see the purpose in writing that Satan translated parts of the bible, regardless of where it occurs in the book:

"By changing Genesis 3:16 as he did, Satan misrepresented God and how His authority works". ~ from lemon 1 "1 Corinthians 11:1–16".

She could have said men, she could even have said alcoholic men, she could have said, as Lee might say "fallen human nature". But no, it was men, driven by the fact they were male (innate male bias is the terminology used) which was Satanic. It was according to "Satan's economy" to deceive mankind by placing the husband over the wife.

It was Satanic why? Because Bushnell thinks it was.

Bushnell writes in "God's Word to Women":
The third chapter of Genesis, rightly translated and interpreted, reveals to us the fact that lordship of the husband over the wife, which began when man sinned, was Satanic in origin.

Then if we turn to the Dictionary of definitions at the back:

It says:
"Lordship of male over female", satanic in origin, 167.

So her belief that it was Satanic in origin is wholly unsupported by any other source, reference, citation, early church father (or mother) or any other thing. She states it, and then defines it herself in her dictionary as being satanic, without any evidence.

Although if she uses the term Satan in that sentence in the Witness Lee sort of way, invoking Matt 16:23, then she doesn't really mean Satan as in the person of Satan with devil horns and a tail. To use Lee terminology, she might mean "fallen human nature", and that is something I can understand.

My first thought is that if lordship of husbands over wives is Satanic, then so is painful childbirth, so are thorns and briars and other consequences of the fall. It's hard to tell what is Satanic and what is not, and I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not all bad things are from Satan and all good things are from God.

In any case, I should point out the irony in that the man who wants repentance for saying Satan sowed a tare in Judas, defends a view that 46 verses of the bible were sowed by Satan. It's a view which as far as I can tell, comes solely from Bushnell's speculation.

Is Bushnell's speculation reliable? Bushnell was rather speculative about what actually happened in the Garden and the roles which Adam, Eve and Satan played. Her ideas and thoughts about Satan in the Garden fit the pattern of someone who has read more into Scripture than is really there, someone who can't discern between fact and fiction.

To her credit, Jane has tried to avoid Bushnell's speculations, as was acknowledged in Nell's post in another thread:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=223

Bushnell could have constructed a fine scholarly work if she had kept to the facts, but unfortunately it is clouded by the food for thought speculations.

It is therefore my speculation that Bushnell's view that Satan was behind it all, scheming to rule over men by causing them to mistranslate the word "teshuqa", is another of her Garden of Eden fantasies, unless it can be proven otherwise by some means.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2017, 11:31 PM   #94
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Posts and Reactions

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
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.
Given the history, John's assessment is understandable, however misguided, for the following reasons.

Is it really fair to pass judgement on Lee for saying the Psalms are natural, but give a free pass to a book which says 46 bible verses are put there by Satan?

All of my posts are focused on the present and analyzing the text of what Bushnell/Jane wrote according to freely available scholarly literature and not related to Lee/Nee in any way.

My motivation is very simple and it is based upon defending the Bible. If anyone writes a book saying that 46 verses of the Bible are lemons inspired by Satan I would not care who they were. I would present the same analysis as I presented here. As far as I can tell the book has not attacked anything related to the LSM so to claim that I would be arguing against it on that basis is not well supported.

As anyone can see, I have not addressed any parts of the book which may relate to LSM, LC, DCP etc. Only the parts presented on the blog, relating to the "lemon verses", which attacks the credibility of the Bible. My analysis has consulted various sources, gotquestions.org, bible.org, Prof Wallace and other experts, biblehub commentaries. None of these to my knowledge have any association with LSM/LC etc.

In that respect I have behaved no differently than a typical Evangelical would when confronted with a view that 46 verses of the bible are in error. I believe that the contextual bubble in which Jane's book is viewed favorably on this forum would burst if it was presented on a standard Evangelical forum which does take the bible's reliability and writings from gotquestions, CARM, bible.org, biblehub etc more seriously.

In summary, Jane's book does not seem to attack the LSM/LC in any way. However it does seem to attack the Bible's authenticity and it is from this point of view that we defend the Bible, or at least present an analysis which would pass scrutiny on any serious non-liberal evangelical forum.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 03:56 AM   #95
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-05-2017 at 04:34 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 07:22 AM   #96
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 07:53 AM   #97
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

"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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 08:40 AM   #98
zeek
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,898
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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

Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick
zeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 08:53 AM   #99
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

"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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 08:57 AM   #100
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek View Post
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?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 10:28 AM   #101
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

"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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 11:11 AM   #102
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
"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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 11:57 AM   #103
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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

Absolutely. There is a lot of talk of hate and such but I do not harbor such feelings toward Nell, Jane, John, or anyone in this place. I understand the propensity to circle the wagon in this forum because Jane wears a white hat.

Still, I will not remain silent on this one. Its up to her and her supporters to either join her in making a logical case for her Satanic lemon verses teaching or save her from going over the edge by pushing back on it.

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 01:30 PM   #104
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Male Gender Bias for Dummies #1

I just discovered that I didn’t post this one yesterday. It was supposed to be before “More Information and a Testimonial (#80), because that post ended with a reference to a Greek word that I mention in this post. Please excuse my mistake, and here is the post:

I would like for readers to think about the possibility that there is male gender bias in the KJV translation, and that this bias has greatly affected how we view our Christian roles and behaviors in the 21st century.

Male gender bias for dummies

Although an all-male translation committee is probably proof enough for non-Christians of male gender bias in the KJV translation, some Christians have disputed that it exists, some insisting that it is not in the KJV. My position is that male gender bias is now at work among today’s Christians (male and female) at least in part due to the aforementioned impact of the KJV and the men who translated it. In addition, this bias goes largely unnoticed and is accepted as “gospel.”

By the way, I use the words “for dummies” simply to let readers know that this is a very simple presentation, not that those of us who are males are dummies. Male gender bias in the KJV is not the main thesis of A Woman of Chayil anyway. Also, male gender bias does not just refer to the fact that the KJV committee was made up of all men. The point being made in this post is that male gender bias is in the translation, not in the sexual makeup of the committee. Females have also bought in to the male gender bias that is in the KJV, as Jane’s book brings forward.

It’s Greek to us—or is it?

I will provide in this post only one evidence of the bias. So, for this installment of male gender bias for dummies in the KJV, here goes:
Oikodespotēs (pronounced oi-ko-de-spo'-tās) is a Greek compound noun.

It is made up of two Greek words: oikos and despotes.

Oikos means house, as well as household or family.

Despotes means master or lord. This is the same Greek word from which we get our English word, “despot,” which means a ruler who has absolute or unlimited power over others. This was the biblical word used in the slave/master relationship.
Man (woman?) off the street interview

If we take a non-Christian, non-Greek speaker off the street, give him or her the previous data about oikodespotēs, and ask that person to give us an English definition of it, what would we expect? Most would probably say something like “master of the house,” and they would be right. Score one for common sense. And, as we would expect, that is the way that the word is translated in the KJV (Matt. 10:25, and Luke 13:25 and 14:21).

If we ask the same person to give us an English meaning for a verb form of this noun (assuming that the person off the street had the capability), what would we expect? We would expect, I think, to get something like “master the house” or “be lord over the household.” Some might even come up with something like “rule the household” or “rule the family.”

Well, here is the Greek verb, and it occurs once in the New Testament:
Oikodespoteō (pronounced oy-kod-es-pot-eh'- ō)
How is it rendered in the KJV? Is it translated something like our non-Christian, non-Greek, off-the-street helper would probably have suggested? Would you be surprised in any way to see this wording presented: “guide the house”? Our person off the street probably would be, but this is exactly what the KJV translators used.

Christians familiar with Bible translations may recognize this kind of phraseology. So, where does it occur, and what is the context? Here it is:
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. (1 Tim. 5:14, KJV)
Master of the house

Is this an example of male gender bias? I think that the non-Christian off the street would say that it is, but my Christian brothers and sisters, influenced by traditional Christianity, may not want to admit it, even to themselves. Why? I would say that it is because it does some amount of damage to the perspective that most Christians (and even non-Christians) in our culture have been taught: the man is to be the head of the house or master of his house. In my opinion, the translators, having this bias (in addition to the fact that they were working for the king of England), changed the logical word choice to one that suited their idea of the proper role of wives.

If you’re a Christian and you do accept that a more logical translation would contain some form of “master” and “house,” what would your acceptance do to your assumptions? For one example, who is supposed to be the final authority in the house, the husband or the wife? If I plucked you off the street (a Christian) and asked you this question (in other words, you weren’t reading this thread on this forum), you would likely have reflexively answered, the husband. If so, you would have been wrong according to the literal, logical reading of Paul to Timothy in this verse, taking into consideration the meaning of the compound noun as presented. In other words, it goes against everything in our culture to have a kind of queen-of-the-castle interpretation. How could a translator, with a traditional background, render the meaning of the verb according to its correspondence with the noun that has the same linguistic roots when doing so would stand tradition on its head?

Barefoot and pregnant?

If you’re a man and your view has been that women-folk are just supposed to “guide the house” by only doing things like cleaning house, washing clothes, buying groceries, and cooking for the family, maybe you need to consider expanded possibilities for them. If you’re a woman who has had the same view, maybe you need to step up to the plate (and not the dinner plate at the sink) and become the “master” of the house that Paul indicated you should be.

I realize that many Christian men would want to bring in other passages from the Bible to try to re-establish absolute male authority in the home, but did Paul really think that way? Was he hoping that women would do more than simply “guide the house,” whatever that means? This is not the only instance of this kind of thing in the KJV, as you can find out by reading Jane Anderson’s A Woman of Chayil or Katharine Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women.

Just think about it, my Christian brothers: Maybe Christian women are not to be “masters” in the home (I say “maybe” because it’s such a tough pill to swallow), but does that mean that they are to be subjugated because of other verses? I knew a Christian wife (who was in the Local Church, by the way) who could basically do nothing without her husband’s direct approval. And, when I say “basically nothing,” I mean that she had to get permission to drive the car, buy groceries, or almost anything else. He was a tyrant. It was the exact opposite of the verse (1 Tim. 5:14). In his mind, she was to be his slave, to do all that he asked and nothing that he didn’t.

Katharine Bushnell was a scholar

In conclusion, I am not a Greek scholar and just use the helps that are available on the Internet. Also, I have worked with the books by Jane Anderson and Katharine Bushnell. In addition to Jane’s work being belittled on this forum, Katharine and her work have been, too. So, to tell readers just a little bit about Katharine Bushnell according to what I have gleaned, she was actually a medical doctor, quite a feat for a woman in the 1800s. She was considered a brilliant scholar and was proficient in both Hebrew and Greek. As for her work on her book, she moved to London to access the source material in the library there, where she spent a number of years working on it. And, yes, her work was reviewed by some male scholars of her day.

Common sense


Even though none of us are scholars in Hebrew or Greek, as far as I know, shouldn’t the translation of this one verb, oikodespoteō, be that which makes the most sense, based on the meaning of the compound noun with which it is connected, without bringing in our Christian or cultural gender bias? Be honest, now, but be careful how you answer. It could affect the rest of your life dramatically.

I would not expect that this one post about one Greek word and its translation would totally convince anyone that this is a big problem in the KJV. I would expect, however, that it would pique your interest and cause you to seriously consider the possibility and the possible ramifications on how you are living your Christian life.

Also, one more thing: Some of the crazy postings have given the impression that Jane Anderson and Katharine Bushnell have an agenda against males and are trying to prove that the KJV translators knowingly and purposefully changed their translation to keep women in their place, but I don’t think that either book has engaged in this type of male bashing, although, after you read them, you can’t help but wonder if the KJV committee didn’t make at least some translations with motive. By the way, because it has been sensationally suggested that the whole Bible is up for this kind of investigation, let me state that Katharine and Jane are only investigating translation problems in certain verses that have to do specifically with women.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 02:03 PM   #105
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post

Still, I will not remain silent on this one. Its up to her and her supporters to either join her in making a logical case for her Satanic lemon verses teaching or save her from going over the edge by pushing back on it.
When it comes to defending endless complaints of corruption and abuse at LSM, ole Drake vanishes into the cyber woodwork, but when it comes to a book written by a former LC member on women's roles in the church, ole Drake has got both six-shooters armed and blazing away.

What's the difference, you may ask? This book has nothing to do with LSM or the LC's. Therefore, it really has nothing to do with "Local Church Discussions." But Drake has got an itch to scratch on this forum, and by golly, he will not remain silent on this one!

Where was Drake when we discussed JCA's other book, The Thread of Gold, which thoroughly exposed LC leadership abuses she suffered first hand by upper management at LSM?

Man up Drake. You are behaving like a bully here. You go after the writing of a sister who is not even here to defend herself, yet always dodge the real issues at hand. Besides, she has more scriptural basis for her claims than Witness Lee had for us "becoming God."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 07:08 PM   #106
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Lordship is Satanic?

Any person by comparing what Bushnell writes with what the Bible says can see that Bushnell's ideas are opposite to what the Bible teaches.

Bushnell writes in "God's Word to Women" that lordship of husband over wife is Satanic:

The third chapter of Genesis, rightly translated and interpreted, reveals to us the fact that lordship of the husband over the wife, which began when man sinned, was Satanic in origin.

If she simply means that anything negative came from Satan, such as thorns and briars, sin, death etc, I would agree, these things came because of Satan originally. And if not for Satan, man and woman would enjoy the sort of gender equality which Bushnell seeks, and women would enjoy painless pregnancies and men would not have to work the ground so hard for a living. However I think she means more than that, that the God-ordained lordship and authority-submission roles are actually Satanic.

However the Bible says:

1 Peter 3:6 Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Sarah also called Abraham her lord in Genesis 18:20:

Genesis 18:20 Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

Since Sarah is commended for obeying Abraham, even calling him Lord, how then can it be Satanic?

I think Bushnell would have wished Paul to insert a caveat here "by the way, Abraham's lordship over Sarah was actually Satanic in origin".

Each of the verses claimed by Bushnell to be lemon verses is really a "did God really say?" argument, and the "did God really say?" argument is the same line Satan used to deceive Eve, who also used it to deceive Bushnell.

But that's why 1 Peter 3:6 is also said to be another "lemon verse", because Satan would want doubt to be cast upon any verse which speaks the truth as plainly written.

Saying that lordship of husband over wife is Satanic also has implications for other types of relationships, e.g. relationship between children and parents, relationship to governing authorities etc.

Rather than being Satanic, the concept of Lordship, submission and obedience, when properly and rightly observed, is ordained by God, and was practiced and taught for centuries in Judaism and Christianity. Lordship between husband and wife, parents and children, employer and employee, master and slave, Jesus and the Father, the believer and Christ, is not Satanic, but Godly. Many Christian couples reflect this sort of relationship in their daily lives and some women have even published books about this too.

I believe that Bushnell's work is not a neutral, scholarly pursuit of knowledge to uncover the proper or correct translation of the Bible, but rather a cleverly crafted twist on the Word of God that contains unbiblical and inventive food for thought speculations and claims such as that Lordship is Satanic. Any scholar worth their salt tries to remain objective and unbiased in this regard and avoid superfluous arguments.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 07:42 PM   #107
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default What is this "Innate male bias" really?

"Innate male bias", using the dictionary definition of "innate" as "inborn, natural", must simply mean "the male bias all men were born with".

What is this "male bias all men were born with"?

I don't think that anyone is born with bias that Satan can easily use to accomplish some sinister aim. Male babies do not have male bias towards female babies etc. It is just the fact that men are men and women are women. A man has innate male bias, a woman has innate female bias, a cat has innate cat bias.

Based upon what happened in the Garden of Eden, I don't think that innate male bias is something that Satan can easily use. At least, there is more biblical evidence that it is easier to use female bias than male bias:

Jane/Bushnell's argument goes:

There were no female members on early bible translation committees. So it was easy for Satan to use innate male bias

One could just as easily say, based upon what actually happened in the Garden of Eden:
It was hard for Satan to use innate male bias, given the fact that it was the woman deceived in Eden, not the man, and Satan never tried to approach the man directly.

This is the sort of argument Paul invokes in 1 Timothy 2:14, when he says that Adam was not deceived, but woman was deceived. (and yes I know Adam was deceived, but Paul's meaning here is that woman was the weaker creation and so was first to be blamed).

I think that Bushnell inserts food for thought speculations about what happened in the Garden, because she knew that the facts as plainly written speak for themselves - it is easier for Satan to use "innate female bias" than "innate male bias". In other words, recognizing that "innate male bias" is a nothing term that just means the fact a person is male, we could say that it is easier for Satan to use a female than a male if he wanted to accomplish some sinister purpose. Or why not just say that Satan can use either male or female bias, and the gender of the translation committee is irrelevant?
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2017, 08:28 PM   #108
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default A simple contradiction between John and Jane

There is now one glaring contradiction in what Jane wrote and what John has stated on this forum about the reasons why the lemon verses exist or how they came into being.

John wrote "the point being made in this post is that male gender bias is in the translation, not in the sexual makeup of the committee.".

I think that is a fair and accurate statement, as my previous analysis showed little correlation between gender and how a verse is translated.

If there are females with "male gender bias" on the committee, then clearly this bias cannot be "innate", which was the terminology Jane used. A known female with natural/inborn male bias does not make much sense.

Now for the contradiction. Jane in her book clearly said that the gender of the committee was a problem and a reason why the lemon verses exist:

Quoting from Chapter 2 of A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies she wrote:

There were no female members on early Bible translation committees, so it was easy for Satan to use innate male bias to influence the translations of verses that pertained to women’s roles.

Regardless of the reason why women were absent from translation committees, the simple fact remains: The female voice and perspective were not present in Bible translation efforts. Females would have been able to point out and challenge any translations pertaining to women that displayed male bias, something men would not be able to recognize easily. The absence of female input provides a rational explanation for why seven somewhat difficult to translate and interpret Bible passages in the New Testament stand out as anomalies among the more numerous grape passages.

In contradiction to what John wrote, it seems that Jane's reasoning is all about the gender of the translation committee, and that if they had female input these lemon verses would likely not have occurred.

What she writes here actually makes logical sense, until we look at the evidence - in a previous post I showed how the gender of a translation committee does not seem to correlate with how a verse is translated. It seems that John agrees, it is not about gender of the translation committee.

In summary we can see that:

1) a contradiction exists between what Jane wrote and how John has explained it here.
2) If nothing to do with gender of the committee ,then "innate male bias" in men is NOT to blame for lemon translations.
3) Awareness's view that the drinking habits of the translators are to blame, now seems more plausible than male bias.


If it is not about the gender of the committee, and if females cannot have "innate male bias" because they are female, then I think we can re-state the reasons for any bias in a way without referring to gender, such as:
Satan used whoever was translating at the time when it was translated (male or female) to mis-translate parts of the bible. Or we could just call them innocent human mistakes? Bushnell says no - Satan had a "grand scheme", an "economy" if you will (to use LC terminology), to do something sinister by mistranslating all and any verses which could be used to prove Bushnell wrong.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 06:56 AM   #109
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Just a note. Our illustrious leader has been protecting y'all from me on this thread, and has been deleting my posts. The last one was a response to brother John. Thinking I made a mistake I posted it twice ... before discovering that he PM'ed me, telling me he move it to Alternative Views.

So those who don't want to pussyfoot around, come to AltVs, where we don't have censorship.
localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/cmps_index.php?pageid=altviews

But sissies, like the weaker vessels -- sisters -- should prolly stay away. Haha ... That section is made up of biased males, that are busy holding up the coming of the bridegroom (according to Bushnell).
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 08:20 AM   #110
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Just a note. Our illustrious leader has been protecting y'all from me on this thread, and has been deleting my posts. The last one was a response to brother John. Thinking I made a mistake I posted it twice ... before discovering that he PM'ed me, telling me he move it to Alternative Views.

So those who don't want to pussyfoot around, come to AltVs, where we don't have censorship.
localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/cmps_index.php?pageid=altviews

But sissies, like the weaker vessels -- sisters -- should prolly stay away. Haha ... That section is made up of biased males, that are busy holding up the coming of the bridegroom (according to Bushnell).
Hey awareness, why not just cooperate with the desires of the moderator?

You can do it!

P.S. This book really has no business being debated on this forum. While it is perfectly fine to use the forum as "advertisement," since the author is an ex-LC member and a contributing poster on this forum, the actual content of the discussions of this thread do not match the mission of this forum setup by its owner/moderator.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 09:17 AM   #111
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 3,917
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken — Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 12:22 PM   #112
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Hey awareness, why not just cooperate with the desires of the moderator?

You can do it!
And not doing it got me kicked out of the LC. Go figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
P.S. This book really has no business being debated on this forum. While it is perfectly fine to use the forum as "advertisement," since the author is an ex-LC member and a contributing poster on this forum, the actual content of the discussions of this thread do not match the mission of this forum setup by its owner/moderator.
Maybe THAT'S why Untohim moved it to AltVs.

As I've mentioned, I'm reading Bushnell's book, God's Word to Women. John is right, it's an interesting book. So far, in the book, Bushnell covers just about all the ground proving male bias. I plan on posting my findings on the thread on AltVs. Maybe there will be interest, or not. I think there are many out here that are still stuck on the traditional take on women in the Bible, and they likely would like to tell Bushnell and Jane to just shut up. But I've had a lot of dealings with women and I find that never works. You've prolly had similar experiences.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 12:31 PM   #113
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
And not doing it got me kicked out of the LC. Go figure.


Maybe THAT'S why Untohim moved it to AltVs.

As I've mentioned, I'm reading Bushnell's book, God's Word to Women. John is right, it's an interesting book. So far, in the book, Bushnell covers just about all the ground proving male bias. I plan on posting my findings on the thread on AltVs. Maybe there will be interest, or not. I think there are many out here that are still stuck on the traditional take on women in the Bible, and they likely would like to tell Bushnell and Jane to just shut up. But I've had a lot of dealings with women and I find that never works. You've prolly had similar experiences.
Telling people to "Just shut up???"

Did it ever work with you?

How about zeek?

I didn't think so.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 01:28 PM   #114
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
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
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 02:51 PM   #115
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Telling people to "Just shut up???"

Did it ever work with you?

How about zeek?

I didn't think so.
Now you know why I don't subscribe to sisters shutting up. I'm with Bushnell and Jane on that one ... even tho they believe that the New Testament is just a bunch more laws added to the OT, and I don't.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 03:20 PM   #116
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
P.S. This book really has no business being debated on this forum. While it is perfectly fine to use the forum as "advertisement," since the author is an ex-LC member and a contributing poster on this forum, the actual content of the discussions of this thread do not match the mission of this forum setup by its owner/moderator.
All you need to do is take a look at chapter 1 of Jane's first book, The Thread of Gold to see the link between Jane's books and the place these books deserve on this forum. The Local Church "leadership", Benson Phillips, has tried to shut her up for 30 years. Chayil is a continuation of the experiences of Jane's walk with the Lord. The Local Church leadership would love to shut Jane up...they don't want the women in the LC to read her. The women members of this forum who have suffered at their hands deserve better.

How does "Alternative Views" belong on this forum but a discussion of Jane's books does not belong?

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-06-2017 at 04:35 PM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 03:36 PM   #117
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
All you need to do is take a look at chapter 1 of Jane's first book, The Thread of Gold to see the link between Jane's books and the place these books deserve on this forum. The Local Church "leadership", Benson Phillips, has tried to shut her up for 30 years. Chayil is a continuation of the experiences of Jane's walk with the Lord. The Local Church leadership would love to shut Jane up...they don't want the women in the LC to read her. The women members of this forum who have suffered at their hands deserve better.

How does "Alternative Views" belong on this forum and a discussion of Jane's books not belong?

Nell
Good point Nell. Except I haven't made a dime off AltVs. I'll have to talk to Untohim about that. I figure COO pay, at least, at around a hundred thousand a year will do it.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 04:19 PM   #118
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Good point Nell. Except I haven't made a dime off AltVs. I'll have to talk to Untohim about that. I figure COO pay, at least, at around a hundred thousand a year will do it.
So you are now the UnGrateful Servant?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 05:55 PM   #119
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Good point Nell. Except I haven't made a dime off AltVs. I'll have to talk to Untohim about that. I figure COO pay, at least, at around a hundred thousand a year will do it.
Are you saying that you think Jane is getting rich on her books?

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 07:00 PM   #120
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Are you saying that you think Jane is getting rich on her books?

Nell
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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2017, 09:02 PM   #121
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2017, 08:26 AM   #122
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2017, 11:14 AM   #123
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
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 . . .
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2017, 11:19 AM   #124
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Male Gender Bias for Dummies #2

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?
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2017, 07:35 PM   #125
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: Male Gender Bias for Dummies #2

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
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.


Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2017, 04:02 PM   #126
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Who was Adam?

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.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2017, 07:28 PM   #127
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: Who was Adam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2017, 08:02 PM   #128
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2017, 09:05 PM   #129
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
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

Her credentials are just as good as Bushnell's and she followed a strictly literal translation, staying true to the original texts:


Julia Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut had a working knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Her father had been a Congregationalist minister before he became a lawyer. Having read the Bible in its original languages, she set about creating her own translation, which she completed in 1855, after a number of drafts. The work is a strictly literal rendering, always translating a Greek or Hebrew word with the same word wherever possible.


A full version online is found at:
http://studybible.info/JuliaSmith/Genesis%203


She was obviously corrupted by inborn/natural male bias because this is how she translates Gen 3:16

Gen 3:16
To the woman he said, Multiplying, I will multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and to thy husband thy desire, and he shall rule over thee

No different from the KJV and other "male biased" translations.

This is why Bushnell's arguments about male bias are basically nonsense - they have not been able to show any examples of female-influenced bible versions that are free from their "male bias". Females such as Smith translated it faithfully, even too literally, according to the original text and it still disagrees with Bushnell's view.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2017, 05:26 AM   #130
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Her credentials are just as good as Bushnell's and she followed a strictly literal translation, staying true to the original texts:
Except Bushnell didn't create a translation of the Bible like Julia.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2017, 06:01 AM   #131
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: Who was Adam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
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
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2017, 06:44 PM   #132
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

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.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2017, 11:40 PM   #133
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Except Bushnell didn't create a translation of the Bible like Julia.
By herself too I see, quite an accomplishment:

Smith accomplished this work on her own in the span of eight years (1847 to 1855). She had sought out no help in the venture, even writing, "I do not see that anybody can know more about it than I do

A sole female translator, with an ego to match her accomplishment - if there was any bible version which should be biased towards females it should be this one.

The fact that she translated the word "chayil" as virtuous, and not "strong", just as the KJV does, blows Bushnell/Jane's theory about KJV male bias out of the water.

Yet by translating the bible herself, she demonstrated what women are capable of, without resorting to strange conspiracy theories about Satanic male bias. Because of this I think that Smith possibly had more strength and virtue than Bushnell.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 12:13 AM   #134
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Lessons 77-79 Sex Bias Influences Translators

It is interesting to note that Bushnell's discussion of Sex Bias begins with Lesson 77, paragraph 616. So far, this discussion of Bushnell has been mainly limited to "male bias" by the translators as though no other discussion existed, skipping over Lessons 1-76. This includes a freak-out factor of at least 8, regarding the influence of the serpent as biblically documented by the existance of enmity between the serpent and the woman. It should be noted that if Satan were not behind any bias that may exist, that would leave man himself as the sole source of abuse and mistreatment of women from time past until today.

I don't mean to imply that 77-79 are actually being discussed here...just being discredited as much as possible.

I find this statement by Bushnell of particular interest in paragraph 616:

"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 (generally, the right) being stronger than the other, he pulls unconsciously, with greater strength upon the corresponding guiding reign 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 nonetheless inevitable to the uninspired hand. For this reason, neither class nor sex should have exclusive right to set forth the meaning of the original text."

It seems that this piano only has 1 (one) note and is being pulled around in circles on the prairie.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 12:54 AM   #135
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,708
Default Re: Lessons 77-79 Sex Bias Influences Translators

Or Bushnell, Jane, etc could just be plain wrong. That's where the evidence is pointing so far.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 08:13 AM   #136
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: Lessons 77-79 Sex Bias Influences Translators

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushnell, quoted by Nell
"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 (generally, the right) being stronger than the other, he pulls unconsciously, with greater strength upon the corresponding guiding reign 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 nonetheless inevitable to the uninspired hand. For this reason, neither class nor sex should have exclusive right to set forth the meaning of the original text."
And did Bushnell fail to reference Parker because Julia got lost on the prairie and went in circles to the left (the weaker)?

You do realize sister (of the Lord) that this argument is specious to say the least ; I suppose male bias is the reason the Hebrews went in circles in the wilderness for 40 years.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 09:27 AM   #137
John
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 60
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Some may have been bothered about some of what has been written about Jane and me (some of which has been moved by the moderator). We don’t hold anything against anyone; we realize that all have their own difficult experiences in life, especially when it comes to marriage. I still remember being in meetings of the Local Church in which it was boasted that there were no divorces like in poor Christianity. Obviously, that was a long time ago.

About books and a website

In addition to our marriage being maligned, it was insinuated that we were in the publishing business for the money. Without going into detail, I’ll just state that we have not profited a penny off of all our books; we are still in the red. Why is this? It’s because Jane keeps giving books away. (She’s given away more than we’ve sold.)

In other words, our publishing is a ministry to the Lord; we don’t do it for the money. In fact, Jane wanted to give away all of The Thread of Gold books, but was counseled not to do so. She also did not want to market the book, stating that the Lord would do that. In fact, that happened on the old Berean’s forum when someone opened a thread about the book, unbeknownst to us. We were not involved in that forum at the time.

Jane is now trying to get the word out about the woman topic, since it affects so many Christians; her audience includes Local Church Christians but many others, too. She started a blog to this end, and she has informed a bunch of folks that she is blogging. Regardless, neither one of us started this thread on the Local Church Discussions forum, nor did we have anything to do with this happening. If anyone wants to use the thread to advertise Jane’s work, please, just use it to market the message of her books and blog—which is about helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other.

Freedom in marriage

I am writing as a married Christian male who has some things to say in particular to the other males here. I will try to be inclusive in what I write, with respect to the diverse audience (not all are married, some are women, some simply want to distort whatever I say), but I might not succeed. In other words, I am going to speak some things from my heart, and I hope readers can receive them in the spirit which I mean them.

Now, as to marriage: What if you, married Christian men, could be really free in your marriages? The following is an abbreviated description of my journey to freedom.

One day, I noticed that Jane was reading a book. I asked her about it, but she was reticent to show it to me. I pressed, and she did. It was God’s Word to Women. She was in the middle of it and said that I could read The Magna Carta of Woman while I waited for her to finish, which was like a condensed version of it. After reading both, I wrote “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.”

So, what is this freedom of which I speak? It is freedom from the doctrines and attitudes that I picked up while in the Local Church, as well as from our culture before that, as regards women. I used to think and feel that I was at least somewhat responsible for controlling my wife because it was what God expected of me. I believed all that I understood of what I had read in the King James version of the Bible (because that is what the Local Church used at the time), including all I understood that it said about women.

One thing that Jane has mentioned to me several times is this: As a man “thinketh … so is he” (Pro. 23:7). Therefore, to get a change in behavior, one’s mind needs to be changed. That is what my posts are about—giving information that might cause people to consider the possibility that there might be another side to the story and a need for a change in thinking.

Our marriage

Since it has been brought up, what kind of a marriage do Jane and I have? This kind of question reminds me of elder Ray Graver making a very inappropriate comment to Jane about our marriage, at the end of the infamous 1977 kangaroo court handling of her (chronicled in The Thread of Gold): “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.”

To put it succinctly, Jane is my woman of chayil. In fact, it is through her that I was born again. After working through many problems in our marriage and family, mostly caused by me, we now make a great team. When I first read the post insinuating that the order was upside down in our house, I thought of these words: “heirs together of the grace of life.” Well, what’s the whole verse?

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet. 3:7, KJV)

I was reminded of what had stood out to me recently: “heirs together.” The Lord showed me that I had been relegating this phrase to the future because of the word “heirs.” Then, I understood that we have it now! We have the grace of life, Jane and I. So, my brothers, think about the word, “together.” Just dwell on this one verse for awhile. Let the Lord speak to your hearts. I know that I’m vacillating between giving what I thought would be a brief testimony and preaching, but I’m just going with the flow. Besides, in the context of the verse, Jane and I do pray together, and God does answer our prayers.

Back to marriage, I was a strong man, or so I thought, who was used to keeping Jane in her place with cutting words and jokes and brief references to Scripture and other such ways. I thought that I was right. I was oblivious to the fact that my sons were watching and learning poor treatment of my wife and their mother, therefore giving opportunity for the cycle to continue. (I have now repented to Jane and my sons for this.) These things were mostly done without a conscious motive. It was just who I was. Back to the freedom part: I don’t have to do that anymore. I don’t have to try to put her in her place. How could I even know what that is? Am I her God? Am I to be the mediator between God and her? No, that position has been filled by the One Who bought her with His blood. She is a free woman in Christ, and I am a free man in Christ! Isn’t it time that you set women free to be the women that God has called them to be? Do you trust your wife? Do you trust women? Or, do you use your interpretation of the Genesis account to justify your refusal to listen to them seriously?

Should we have gotten married?

Jane and I fellowship all the time. We have a standing date every Saturday morning at a fast-food restaurant, where we talk about the Bible and our experiences and our understandings. The rest of our week, we talk on the fly about what we are reading or realizing about the Christian life—what it is, and what it should or could be.

I am not trying to portray us as a perfect couple or one that should be emulated. I’m just saying that we are getting better and better at this Christian marriage thing. This is no less than a miracle, I think, given the fact that I was a hard man to live with for a Christian wife, and still am, in many ways. I will tell you that over the last period of time, the Lord has been speaking to me a lot about humility.

I can’t recall if this is in any of her books or not; but, when we were going to a Christian counselor for help with one of our sons, and after the results came back from a test we each took, we were told, “If I had talked to you before marriage, I would have counseled you not to have gotten married. The fact that you are still married is a testament to the powerful working of Jesus in your lives.” Jane and I are two very different people; but, we both fear the Lord and are committed to Him: He is the One Who makes our marriage work.

Due to the personal attacks against Jane and me, I thought that it was appropriate for me to present the foregoing; and, with the context in mind, I also thought that it would be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening to some, for me to write the following:

My Woman of Chayil
I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.
I am indebted, of course, to the author of Proverbs 31 (likely to Solomon, the wisest man), for the basic structure of my presentation. Jane, who actually has written poetry, would have done much better if writing about me. By the way, she did the artwork for The Woman of Chayil and A Song of Songs Woman. Not only that, when in church after singing a hymn, people she doesn’t know often turn around and tell her that she has a beautiful voice and should be in the choir.

Appeal to Christian men

Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 09:27 PM   #138
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Thanks John for opening up and sharing. I've prolly been your worst critic.

But actually I think I've stated that I support you and Jane's mission.

As I'm reading Bushnell it's become obvious that she was part of the women's rights movement of the early 20th c., and was pushing for women's rights in society at large.

That movement, that began in the 19th c., took on a life of it's own, and yes society since has come a long way at making women equal.

Except those that are seeking to live by the Bible, they haven't caught up with modernity yet.

And that's where Jane comes in. Her targeted audience are those Christians, the ones seeking to live out the teachings and attitudes toward women, found in translations of the Bible that have come down to us today.

Another important work in this regard, from the 19th c. is "The Women's Bible," by Elizabeth Cady Stanton<-click This was a seminal work for the women's rights movement, but traditionalist objected to it.

So, methinks there needs to be more than just non male biased translators to contend with. There's also tradition, that has come down from the early church fathers, both from the early proto-orthodox and the orthodoxy proper.

I see Bushnell mentions Irenaeus and Tertullian, and quotes their despicable statements about and toward women in her book.

Some time ago, a decade or two ago, when looking into this matter of the church fathers and women, I collected a list of quotes by the church fathers about women. I now present this list of quotes to contend that it's not just biased translations that have to be dealt with, but also tradition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church Fathers
  • Clement of Alexandria (Theologian and Greek Father, C2nd): “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman…the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame”
  • Origen (Theologian and Greek Father, C2nd-3rd) “Men should not sit and listen to a woman… even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”
  • Tertullian (the Father of Latin Christianity, 155-245): ”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”
  • Chrysostom (Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, C4th) “God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”
  • Jerome (Priest, Theologian, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, C4th-5th): “Woman is the root of all evil.”
  • Augustine (Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354-430): “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
    “. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.” On the Trinity Book 12 7.10
  • Martin Luther (German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, C16th) : “The woman certainly differs from the man, for she is weaker in body and intellect. Nevertheless Eve was an excellent creature and equal to Adam in so far as the divine image: that is, righteousness, wisdom and eternal salvation, is concerned. Still, she was only a woman. As the sun is much more glorious than the moon (though also the moon is glorious), so the woman was inferior to the man both in honour and dignity, though she, too, was a very excellent work of God.” From Luther’s Commentary on Genesis.
  • John Calvin (French theologian, pastor and Protestant Reformer, 1509-1564), of the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men: “I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.” From Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.
    On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex. From Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Chapter 11)
  • John Knox (Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, C16th: “[Women are] weake, fraile, impatient, feeble and foolish.”
    He also said women were “unconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment” and “woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.” From his The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 12:56 AM   #139
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
...
So, methinks there needs to be more than just non male biased translators to contend with. ...
So why don't you stop your "contention"? John didn't write this post because he resolved all the issues including that of "Non male biased translators". "Male bias" is your prevailing strawman with which you and your buddies are "contending." You guys are trying to debunk "male bias" rather than reach the truth of the translations. Jane and Bushnell offer this as a cause of mistranslation...but the point is to get the translation right. John had a few transactions with God himself, with God's word, and with his woman of Chayil. He also learned a little humility...

The point has always been the verses themselves...the 8 passages...not "male bias translators". The 8 passages of scripture discussed by Bushnell and Jane have been described by Jane as lemon translations which do not fit within the context of the message of the Bible itself. The result of these wrong teachings is John's testimony.

John has described the results in his own life, and his marriage, of the mistranslation of these verses...how he came to justify mistreating his wife and perpetuate that mistreatment in the lives of his sons...for which he has repented to Jane and his sons.

According to John's last word, humility is a factor in having a change of mind be heart. It would be a real travesty to continue to fight the wrong battle. You may have stated that you "support" John and Jane's "mission" but in fact, your post indicates that you don't even know what their mission is.

Read John's post 3 or 4 more times.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-13-2017 at 01:31 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:12 AM   #140
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
You may have stated that you "support" John and Jane's "mission" but in fact, your post indicates that you don't even know what their mission is.
Maybe your are right. I don't know what their mission is. So what is it?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 11:42 AM   #141
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Maybe your are right. I don't know what their mission is. So what is it?
Try reading John's post again...3-4 more times.
.
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 05:28 PM   #142
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Try reading John's post again...3-4 more times.
.
That's it ??????? John's post praises Jane out the ying-yang. That can't be their mission. Is it? Please don't tell me we're back to post #8.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 06:00 PM   #143
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
That's it ??????? John's post praises Jane out the ying-yang. That can't be their mission. Is it? Please don't tell me we're back to post #8.
How long have you been posting on this topic and you don't know the mission? You figure it out. Read Jane. Read John. Don't expect someone to spoon feed you.

.
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:03 PM   #144
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
How long have you been posting on this topic and you don't know the mission? You figure it out. Read Jane. Read John. Don't expect someone to spoon feed you.

.
I normally don't want to be spoon fed. But you said I don't know Jane and John's mission, and I realized I don't. And I fear I could read Jane and John and still be left guessing.

I can't see spelling it to be hard, for someone that knows their mission. So please, if you know Jane and John's mission, spell it out for this idiot.

Otherwise I might think they want women to be free of kowtowing to anyone, male or female, church or state. I would support that, if that's Jane's mission. I'm not a kowtower either. Jane and I would get along just fine, if she's not bossy ... and can tolerate being disagreed with.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:46 PM   #145
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 05:34 AM   #146
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:
-
rotflmao ....

John won't be first or last man that is so bedazzled by a woman that he thinks she's beyond being just human.

He reminds me of friends of mine, who are so henpecked that when she barks an order he jumps and asks how high on the way up ... and who gives her carte blanche on his bank account.

In fact, Robert Palmer wrote a song about such women :

Quote:
Simply Irresistible, by Robert Palmer.

How can it be permissible
She compromise my principle, yeah yeah
That kind of love is mythical
She's anything but typical

She's a craze you'd endorse, she's a powerful force
You're obliged to conform when there's no other course
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

Her loving is so powerful, huh
It's simply unavoidable
The trend is irreversible
The woman is invincible

She's a natural law, and she leaves me in awe
She deserves the applause, I surrender because
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

Simply irresistible She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go

She's unavoidable, I'm backed against the wall
She gives me feelings like I never felt before
I'm breaking promises, she's breaking every law
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to
go

Her methods are inscrutable
The proof is irrefutable, Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh
She's so completely kissable, huh
Our lives are indivisible

She's a craze you'd endorse, she's a powerful force
You're obliged to conform when there's no other course
She used to look good to me, but now I find her

Simply irresistible
Simply irresistible

She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go
She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went
Simply irresistible She's all mine, there's no other way to go

Simply irresistible
But that doesn't answer my question about what Jane and John's mission is ... unless their mission is to stamp out chayil women like on an assembly line, or to stamp out henpecked men like on an assembly line.

So once again. I've been told I don't know their mission. I agree. So, WHAT IS THEIR MISSION? And don't tell me it's just to praise women.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard

Last edited by awareness; 09-14-2017 at 07:16 AM.
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 05:59 AM   #147
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
For awareness, me and all the other Neanderthal male meatheads out here, the "mission" could probably best be understood by the affects that a real woman of chayil has on a man/men close to her. Here ya go:


-
awareness,

Did you read John's post again, even once? UntoHim gave you an obvious list. Here's another clue, even more obvious:

The last paragraph of John's post is titled "Appeal to Christian men".

Appeal to Christian men
Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

I guess there's really something to this "man needs a helper" business. In Gen. 2:16-18 God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Immediately, God knew man needed help following these simple instructions, so he created woman.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission


Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-14-2017 at 06:36 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 07:42 AM   #148
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Seems obvious that the mission is: "helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other."

Its a good thing that a man who impulsively controlled his wife and kept her in her place with cutting and manipulative words had a change of heart and realized the error of his ways, repented to her and the family, and set things right between them.

I personally have not met many Christian husbands who acted that way in or outside of the Lords Recovery. But for those who are like John once was they would do well to follow his lead even at the risk of being accused of being henpecked. In repentance, over compensation is not a bad thing.

Still, I may applaud a man's repentence but not every detail. I do not agree with the lemon verses teaching Jane promotes. It is a slippery slope as it even led Bushnell to postulate the first man Adam was a Hermaphrodite. (That forum members would neglect due diligence on examining that and let that pass without objection exposes a dangerous folly).

I also understand the natural response of seeking for an explanation of "why?" based on the traumatic events described in her first book. She and her husband John have found an explanation outside of themselves and their own contribution to that part of their history..... the problem were and are some mistranslated "lemon" verses, or culture, male bias in others who mistreated them. Yet, no one can predict the form of a reshapen wounded soul. The two books describe one story, two parts. Going in and coming out

So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject.

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 08:09 AM   #149
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I am sympathetic to the people involved but reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject.

Drake
Me too bro Drake. I think Bushnell and Jane are barking up the wrong tree. But I do support equality for women. And that's pretty much been accomplished, except in some - many here - churches, where women are held in subjection. Incidentally, isn't that where women of Chayil come from?

Or women from China. I married a Chinese girl in the local church. And I've never seen anything like it. She was naturally and willingly submissive, like you wouldn't believe. I didn't need to dominate her, she was always with me on everything without me saying.

And she didn't do it because the Bible told her so, nor because the sisters in the local church told her to be that way. She came by it by being raised in a Chinese home and Chinese culture.

She was raised an atheist, without the Bible, but was still a woman of Chayil.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 08:28 AM   #150
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
awareness,

Did you read John's post again, even once? UntoHim gave you an obvious list. Here's another clue, even more obvious:

The last paragraph of John's post is titled "Appeal to Christian men".

Appeal to Christian men
Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.

I guess there's really something to this "man needs a helper" business. In Gen. 2:16-18 God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Immediately, God knew man needed help following these simple instructions, so he created woman.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission


Nell
Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before. And it's about time Christian men and women come to know, believe, and practice equality of men and women in the body of Christ.

Is there a way to reach churches that teach and practice otherwise here in Kentucky ; a way that doesn't result in a running out on a rail? Sadly, a man will have to do it. Cuz they won't listen to women.

And that's why, those that need it, like Lee's Recovery movement, won't listen to Jane.

What's that about urinating up a rope?
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:31 AM   #151
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before.
No. awareness. That's not it. Jane can't start a spiritual revival. That's not her mission. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. This is what Jane said on the topic:

Quote:
"I believe that when both men and women begin to acknowledge and correct the part they each play in the perpetuation of this great offense, healing will begin. The church and the earth will begin to experience a fresh outpouring of spiritual life. There will be a spiritual revival the likes of which have never been seen. Such a revival is certainly needed in the times in which we live."
When Christian men and women are clean...repentant of offenses to the Body of Christ, there will be a spiritual revival. Jane can only take care of her own spiritual condition. John can only take care of his own spiritual condition. I can only take care of my spiritual condition. God is clean. God is Holy. God is right. He gave his Son that we could be forgiven of our sins. This is the great need of the church today...repentance for our own sins, and sins against each other...Christian men and Christian women in the church.

Quote:
And it's about time Christian men and women come to know, believe, and practice equality of men and women in the body of Christ.
Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

Quote:
Is there a way to reach churches that teach and practice otherwise here in Kentucky ; a way that doesn't result in a running out on a rail? Sadly, a man will have to do it. Cuz they won't listen to women.

And that's why, those that need it, like Lee's Recovery movement, won't listen to Jane.
You can't really control what others teach or practice. That's not why you begin to speak what you have seen and heard. If they tar and feather you, or ride you out of town on a rail, so be it. You first have to be convinced in your own mind what God's word actually teaches. If God tells you to speak, obey Him. Then be willing to pay the price for whatever criticism may come your way...such as that which John and Jane have endured from you and other men on this forum. That's where you start. Again, it's not about social justice for women in the church. It's about the truth of God's Word. Today's "women's movement" is little more than a poor counterfeit of God's heart toward women.

As you have stated...
Quote:
Me too bro Drake. I think Bushnell and Jane are barking up the wrong tree. But I do support equality for women. And that's pretty much been accomplished, except in some - many here - churches, where women are held in subjection.
What tree is that? What tree are Jane and Bushnell "barking up?"

Some progress has been made in the church by genuine believers who practice the truth of God's word toward women. Yet much of today's "women's equality" is secular. Much of what has been "accomplished" today has been done by unbelievers. Of course, not all are unbelievers, but many are. This is the great counterfeit. This is not what Jane and Katharine Bushnell are discussing. Unbelievers have nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

It's not about "unregenerate men and women's word to women". It's about GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN.

Now. Read it again:
This was posted on December 4, 2016: The Message, The Mission


Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-14-2017 at 11:55 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:12 PM   #152
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
When Christian men and women are clean...repentant of offenses to the Body of Christ, there will be a spiritual revival. Jane can only take care of her own spiritual condition. John can only take care of his own spiritual condition. I can only take care of my spiritual condition. God is clean. God is Holy. God is right. He gave his Son that we could be forgiven of our sins. This is the great need of the church today...repentance for our own sins, and sins against each other...Christian men and Christian women in the church.

Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

You can't really control what others teach or practice. You first have to be convinced in your own mind what God's word actually teaches. That's where you start. Again, it's not about social justice for women in the church. It's about the truth of God's Word. Today's "women's movement" is little more than a poor counterfeit of God's heart toward women.

Some progress has been made in the church by genuine believers who practice the truth of God's word toward women. Yet much of whatever secular "women's equality" which may have been "accomplished" today can and has been achieved to a large extent by unbelievers. Of course, not all are unbelievers, but many are. This is the great counterfeit. This is not what Jane and Katharine Bushnell are discussing. Unbelievers have nothing to do with the Body of Christ.

It's not about "unregenerate men and women's word to women". It's about GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN.
Since all Christian men have supposedly been guilty of Satan-induced attitudes towards women in the church, what do you say about all the revivals which have already occurred during the age of grace? In my study of church history, I have never read of a revival prompted by all the men repenting of their attitudes towards women in the church. Then how can you claim there will be a spiritual revival, or there will not be spiritual revival?

The last major revival in the USA occurred during the "Jesus People" movement of the 60's. History tells us that this movement of the Spirit occurred while women were supposedly suffering great "insult" at the hands of male church leaders. There were great revivals in Jerusalem in the book of Acts and they occurred in the context of so-called "male-dominance." Jesus Himself often quoted scripture from the Septuagint. Why did He never tell us about how bad that translation was since it was made by 70 male scholars in Alexandria?

I am concerned that this book offers false promise to the church of God. Where is the scripture that tells men that revival will not occur until repentance of chauvinist attitudes occurs? In II Timothy 3.1-4 Apostle Paul lists the prevalent sins of the church in these last days. Why can't I find one that specifically mentions these pitiful attitudes in the church towards women? I can barely find a verse in the rest of the Bible. If the Bible is silent on this topic, perhaps it is not because of male-bias, but because the Spirit is silent.

This in no way justifies any of the abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or shortage of sacrificial love seen in some Christian husbands. Actually for every story of an abusive husband, I could likewise produce a story of an abusive wife, and that's why scripture speaks to man and woman alike.

Today our country is divided by unending claims of misogyny, racism, xenophobia, etc. I would be seriously concerned about the church of God if Bushnell's writings took hold. Instead of blessing, I would fear more unrest and division, just like I see in the world. Why is it that the more we talk about problems, the more they seem to multiply, and get worse.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 01:39 PM   #153
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
... Then how can you claim there will be a spiritual revival, or there will not be spiritual revival?
...
Ohio,

Sorry..."There will be" was a response to awareness' as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Right on Nell. Thanks much. I think I understand now, what Jane's mission is. It's to start a spiritual revival like never seen before. ...
I countered that Jane couldn't start a "spiritual revival" but under the right conditions, a spiritual revival will happen.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 04:16 PM   #154
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Based on what? Social justice? The women's movement? No. Rather, such beliefs and practices in the Body must be based on God's Word.

What tree is that? What tree are Jane and Bushnell "barking up?"
The translation tree. Cuz if like you say, "based on God's word," then women will never appreciate their function in the body of Christ. The fault does not fall onto the translations. The fault lies with the male authors of the Bible, that put their male biases into their books ... that have been canonized as God's word.

Thanks for your considered response.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 02:57 AM   #155
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
Some may have been bothered about some of what has been written about Jane and me (some of which has been moved by the moderator). We don’t hold anything against anyone; we realize that all have their own difficult experiences in life, especially when it comes to marriage. I still remember being in meetings of the Local Church in which it was boasted that there were no divorces like in poor Christianity. Obviously, that was a long time ago.

About books and a website

In addition to our marriage being maligned, it was insinuated that we were in the publishing business for the money. Without going into detail, I’ll just state that we have not profited a penny off of all our books; we are still in the red. Why is this? It’s because Jane keeps giving books away. (She’s given away more than we’ve sold.)

In other words, our publishing is a ministry to the Lord; we don’t do it for the money. In fact, Jane wanted to give away all of The Thread of Gold books, but was counseled not to do so. She also did not want to market the book, stating that the Lord would do that. In fact, that happened on the old Berean’s forum when someone opened a thread about the book, unbeknownst to us. We were not involved in that forum at the time.

Jane is now trying to get the word out about the woman topic, since it affects so many Christians; her audience includes Local Church Christians but many others, too. She started a blog to this end, and she has informed a bunch of folks that she is blogging. Regardless, neither one of us started this thread on the Local Church Discussions forum, nor did we have anything to do with this happening. If anyone wants to use the thread to advertise Jane’s work, please, just use it to market the message of her books and blog—which is about helping Christian men and women understand how God wants them to view and treat each other, which includes repenting to each other.

Freedom in marriage

I am writing as a married Christian male who has some things to say in particular to the other males here. I will try to be inclusive in what I write, with respect to the diverse audience (not all are married, some are women, some simply want to distort whatever I say), but I might not succeed. In other words, I am going to speak some things from my heart, and I hope readers can receive them in the spirit which I mean them.

Now, as to marriage: What if you, married Christian men, could be really free in your marriages? The following is an abbreviated description of my journey to freedom.

One day, I noticed that Jane was reading a book. I asked her about it, but she was reticent to show it to me. I pressed, and she did. It was God’s Word to Women. She was in the middle of it and said that I could read The Magna Carta of Woman while I waited for her to finish, which was like a condensed version of it. After reading both, I wrote “Woman 101: What Every Christian Man Needs To Know.”

So, what is this freedom of which I speak? It is freedom from the doctrines and attitudes that I picked up while in the Local Church, as well as from our culture before that, as regards women. I used to think and feel that I was at least somewhat responsible for controlling my wife because it was what God expected of me. I believed all that I understood of what I had read in the King James version of the Bible (because that is what the Local Church used at the time), including all I understood that it said about women.

One thing that Jane has mentioned to me several times is this: As a man “thinketh … so is he” (Pro. 23:7). Therefore, to get a change in behavior, one’s mind needs to be changed. That is what my posts are about—giving information that might cause people to consider the possibility that there might be another side to the story and a need for a change in thinking.

Our marriage

Since it has been brought up, what kind of a marriage do Jane and I have? This kind of question reminds me of elder Ray Graver making a very inappropriate comment to Jane about our marriage, at the end of the infamous 1977 kangaroo court handling of her (chronicled in The Thread of Gold): “I always wondered why the Lord put you two together, and now I know.”

To put it succinctly, Jane is my woman of chayil. In fact, it is through her that I was born again. After working through many problems in our marriage and family, mostly caused by me, we now make a great team. When I first read the post insinuating that the order was upside down in our house, I thought of these words: “heirs together of the grace of life.” Well, what’s the whole verse?

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet. 3:7, KJV)

I was reminded of what had stood out to me recently: “heirs together.” The Lord showed me that I had been relegating this phrase to the future because of the word “heirs.” Then, I understood that we have it now! We have the grace of life, Jane and I. So, my brothers, think about the word, “together.” Just dwell on this one verse for awhile. Let the Lord speak to your hearts. I know that I’m vacillating between giving what I thought would be a brief testimony and preaching, but I’m just going with the flow. Besides, in the context of the verse, Jane and I do pray together, and God does answer our prayers.

Back to marriage, I was a strong man, or so I thought, who was used to keeping Jane in her place with cutting words and jokes and brief references to Scripture and other such ways. I thought that I was right. I was oblivious to the fact that my sons were watching and learning poor treatment of my wife and their mother, therefore giving opportunity for the cycle to continue. (I have now repented to Jane and my sons for this.) These things were mostly done without a conscious motive. It was just who I was. Back to the freedom part: I don’t have to do that anymore. I don’t have to try to put her in her place. How could I even know what that is? Am I her God? Am I to be the mediator between God and her? No, that position has been filled by the One Who bought her with His blood. She is a free woman in Christ, and I am a free man in Christ! Isn’t it time that you set women free to be the women that God has called them to be? Do you trust your wife? Do you trust women? Or, do you use your interpretation of the Genesis account to justify your refusal to listen to them seriously?

Should we have gotten married?

Jane and I fellowship all the time. We have a standing date every Saturday morning at a fast-food restaurant, where we talk about the Bible and our experiences and our understandings. The rest of our week, we talk on the fly about what we are reading or realizing about the Christian life—what it is, and what it should or could be.

I am not trying to portray us as a perfect couple or one that should be emulated. I’m just saying that we are getting better and better at this Christian marriage thing. This is no less than a miracle, I think, given the fact that I was a hard man to live with for a Christian wife, and still am, in many ways. I will tell you that over the last period of time, the Lord has been speaking to me a lot about humility.

I can’t recall if this is in any of her books or not; but, when we were going to a Christian counselor for help with one of our sons, and after the results came back from a test we each took, we were told, “If I had talked to you before marriage, I would have counseled you not to have gotten married. The fact that you are still married is a testament to the powerful working of Jesus in your lives.” Jane and I are two very different people; but, we both fear the Lord and are committed to Him: He is the One Who makes our marriage work.

Due to the personal attacks against Jane and me, I thought that it was appropriate for me to present the foregoing; and, with the context in mind, I also thought that it would be appropriate and, hopefully, enlightening to some, for me to write the following:

My Woman of Chayil
I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.
I am indebted, of course, to the author of Proverbs 31 (likely to Solomon, the wisest man), for the basic structure of my presentation. Jane, who actually has written poetry, would have done much better if writing about me. By the way, she did the artwork for The Woman of Chayil and A Song of Songs Woman. Not only that, when in church after singing a hymn, people she doesn’t know often turn around and tell her that she has a beautiful voice and should be in the choir.

Appeal to Christian men

Men, if you are not, wouldn’t you want to be married to a woman of chayil? How might your behavior toward women change if you believed that God wanted all Christian women to be women of chayil? The thing I most remember from Bushnell’s book is the point that the God-given gifts of half the body of Christ have been stifled because of wrong thinking about Christian women. Our Christian sisters have been the objects of our wrong attitudes and behaviors. Please, at least pray about the possibility and give the Lord an opportunity to show you how to value, honor, and learn from these members of the body, a body of which you are a part.
Happy 50th Anniversary, John and Jane!

I'm bringing John's post back to the top of the thread because the comments just haven't done justice to what he wrote.

As a close family friend, I have known John and Jane for about 40 of their 50 year marriage. Knowing them as I do, that John could write such a post after 50 years of marriage is a glory to God! When Drake says about John's post "... at the risk of being accused of being henpecked", this is his backhanded way of accusing John of being "henpecked." This says more about Drake than it does about John.

I can't speak for John, but I have been witness to Jane's many tears over their lives together, which includes their sons. Two things stand out to me now: 1) the times through pain and tears, Jane would say "I love John." 2) One day Jane told me over the phone that, through God's speaking, she had come to the realization that "I can't fix John." This realization obviously came after so many years of trying. She gave him to the Lord to do the job only He could do. She began to cooperate with God and stay out of His way. I don't know how long ago this was, but I'm going to guess that it happened in the neighborhood of 25 years ago.

We have discussed on this forum, to a small extent, what Gen. 2:18 means practically. That is:

Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.”

We could say: 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for John to be alone. I will make Jane for him...she corresponds to him.”

When Jane realized that she couldn't fix John, she was no longer in the "henpeck" business. She became the helper God made her to be...for John. John's post is the testimony of God's ability to work in the lives of a married couple and make them the people He meant them to be...together. Until I read other similar testimonies on this forum, this one will stand at the top of the list.

This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Last edited by Nell; 09-15-2017 at 04:00 AM.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 06:45 AM   #156
UntoHim
Grateful Servant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,170
Default Re: More Information and a Testimonial

Quote:
Originally Posted by John View Post
Jane’s book culminates with the need for repentance by both males and females in order to remove a huge, longstanding relationship wound in the body of Christ (which has offended the Spirit). She points out that, historically, it is repentance that paves the way for blessing and for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit on the earth. This, I would say, is the main point of Jane’s book.
Ta-dah! See fellows, it wasn't really that hard after all, now was it? Yes repentance does pave the way for blessing and a fresh outpouring of the Spirit. The Bible tells us this. History shows us this. The Bible and history also tell us that there is a limit to God's grace, mercy and patience. "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh" (Gen 6:3) If you don't want to take Jane or John's admonitions (no penalty for that I guess) I would beg you not to ignore God's admonitions. I don't think Bushnell, Jane or anyone else that I'm aware of has ever said "repentance" is a lemon translation.

...just some food (hopefully grapes) for thought.
-
__________________
Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)
UntoHim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 07:03 AM   #157
Drake
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 663
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Happy 50th Anniversary, John and Jane!
When Drake says about John's post "... at the risk of being accused of being henpecked", this is his backhanded way of accusing John of being "henpecked." This says more about Drake than it does about John.....
This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.
Nell
Nell

To the first point....Er.. if you read all the responses 3 or 4 more times you would see just how supportive I was being of John.

Yet... "woefully shortsighted" in calling out the dangerous path Jane has taken in changing selected "lemon" Bible verses to fit her new world view? "Woefully shortsighted" in calling out the slippery slope Jane is now on where one aberration leads to another? Just how far does she follow Bushnell doctrine? Down the hermaphrodite path? Surely she read that part... and she is still all in or does she also draw a line? If so, where?

John's devotion is understandable. So is yours. However, the most beneficial comments are not those of a devoted husband or friend but rather the voice of the contrarian. Reading John's defense of his wife another 3 or 4 times won't do anything to help Jane and the dangerous path she is on. What you consider comments attacking Jane are really cries of support akin to "hey kid, stop playing hopscotch in the middle of the intersection at Beach and Garden Grove!".

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 07:56 AM   #158
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 7,824
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
This statement by Drake: "So though, I am sympathetic to the people involved yet I reject the dangerous path of Jane's teaching on this subject" is woefully shortsighted. I would say that Drake would do well to take the path John is on...unless of course, he's already on this path.
While I love to give God all the glory for every blessed marriage, I'm still not seeing the connection between John and Jane's wonderful marriage and male gender bias in Bible translations, which is basically the subject of this thread.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!
.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
.
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 10:34 AM   #159
Nell
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 661
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
While I love to give God all the glory for every blessed marriage, I'm still not seeing the connection between John and Jane's wonderful marriage and male gender bias in Bible translations, which is basically the subject of this thread.
That's because there is no connection.

This thread, titled "New Jane Anderson Website," in places, morphed into the usual prevailing strawman---male gender bias. It's not even about Jane's actual website. Male gender bias was only one point Jane wrote about. Yet this often became the subject of this thread.

IMHO, there either was male gender bias by the translators, or there wasn't. But that's hardly the most important issue. The issue is, are the lemon passages translated correctly or not?

John's testimony and Jane's message (link below) should be the subject, including Jane's new website.

This was posted on December 4, 2016: Jane's Message

Drake has sounded an alarm. Thanks Drake. We will take your concerns under advisement and trust God for His enlightenment.

Nell
__________________
Due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.
Nell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 03:55 PM   #160
awareness
Moderator of Alternative Views
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,892
Default Re: New Jane Anderson Website

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
The issue is, are the lemon passages translated correctly or not?
I have a cousin here that I've been very close to since we were youngins'. When I was in the local church I turned him onto Watchman Nee.

That aside, he's been a staunch conservative Southern Baptist most all his life. Eventually 10 yrs or so ago he took classes in Koine Greek so he could read the N.T. in the original Greek. Before learning Greek he was a KJV inerrantist.

I had lunch with him yesterday and talked to him about translations. He said that none of the translations are inerrant, that something is always lost when the Greek is translated. Moreover, he discovered something in his Greek classes. Before the classes he was a Received Text only (KJV manuscripts). But in the Greek classes he discovered that there were many Greek manuscripts, and they don't agree with each other. As a result he's no longer an inerrantist.

So sister Nell, the answer to, is the translations correct, is, none of the translations are correct. And even more, it's likely none of the manuscripts are correct. We don't know, and prolly never will, unless we discover the autograph originals, that's not probable in the least.
__________________
There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other. But not enough for people to love each other. There's a serpent in every paradise. "If Christianity is going to survive in the 21st century . . . it must learn to laugh at itself." -Rene Girard
awareness is offline   Reply With Quote