Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gen 3:16 "Teshuqa"


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:19 PM

I think I've decided the LXX rendering of teshuqa ("turning) is the best and that "desire" is a slant put on by later translators.


Dawn, I'm going to be blunt. This is a really bad idea. The fact is that every single standard professional Hebrew lexicon renders it 'desire', and for good reason. That's what it means. The LXX is a Greek translation of an unknown Hebrew text. It has its uses, but defining Hebrew words is not one of them. If anything, it's the LXX which frequently puts inaccurate slants on Hebrew words. There's no massive conspiracy between the authors of the standard professional Hebrew lexicons. They're right. That's what the word means.

The reason I’m going with “turning” (or “alliance” is another option) is because it makes more sense in many ways:


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Makes more sense to who? On what grounds?

1) “Desire” is a subjective word with negative connotations...


As when Jesus said 'With desire I have desired to eat this feast with you'?

...it is a fallacious idea to suggest that in marriage (especially marriage between two believers) Scripture is saying that a woman’s desire toward her husband is no stronger than his toward her. Surely it is totally mutual, and generally, equal.


Regardless of what we think marriage ought or ought not to be, in this case we need to sit down and decide what the Scripture is actually saying, and then adjust our thinking accordingly. We can't just say 'Well all the professional lexicons say X, but I don't like that idea so I'll make up my own which suits me'. I don't see anything here which says that a woman's desire towards her husband is no stronger than his toward her. But that aside, a husband or wife's desire for the other will wax and wane at many points throughout their marriage. It is probably rarely directly equivalent.

2) This verse – as a far as I can tell – has for some inexplicable reason - which has only just occurred to me in recent weeks – been used as the basis of marriage (including Christian marriage) for centuries. But why? I do not believe this verse was ever intended by God to be applied to all women for all time: it was specific to Eve in her situation.


Well how many women suffer pain in childbirth? That might provide some background as to whether this is all just talking about Eve.

Note that Eve was actually never expelled from the garden.


No, I didn't note that. Could you give me chapter and verse?

That God would REWARD Adam’s sin (as chief offender) and elevate him with rulership (for men for all time over their wives) is not how I understand God’s character as revealed in the Scriptures and through Jesus Christ..


I don't know anyone who says that Adam was rewarded for his sin by giving him rulership. Where would anyone get that idea?

3) I do not believe Christian marriage should be based on this interpretation that a woman’s desire is to her husband and he shall rule over her. This is not what Scripture teaches about marriage, yet this verse has been perceived to teach that by many.


What people use Scripture to say does not alter what it actually says. Saying 'Well on the basis that it means X, people have done wicked things, so it can't mean X' is invalid. Perhaps it does mean X, and people abused it. That doesn't change the fact that it means X.

4) The history of the word “teshuqa” in translations suggests that the meaning got changed to reflect the preconceived ideas of the male translators...


No. That is simply wrong. That is so far wrong it's maliciously wrong. It's an egalitarian rewriting of history, and knowingly so. It's completely off topic. The meaning of the Hebrew word hasn't been changed. What you're talking about is the way in which the English translation of the Hebrew word has been different over the years. Sure, one lunatic translated it as 'lust'. That's it. So what?

Therefore Pagnino’s word has been retained against the overwhelming authority of the ancient versions...


No it hasn't. No one translates it 'lust'. Pagnino's word has been overwhelmingly rejected.

...or so it seems to me.


No, not so it seems to you. You haven't examined any proximate Hebrew texts. You haven't studied the lexical history of the Hebrew word. Ironically you're doing exactly what Pagnino did, following a made up definition of the word because you prefer it to the real definition.

Bounce ideas around and explore by all means. But please, don't become irrational.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#62 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:24 PM

I think I've decided the LXX rendering of teshuqa ("turning) is the best and that "desire" is a slant put on by later translators.


Dawn, I'm going to be blunt. This is a really bad idea. The fact is that every single standard professional Hebrew lexicon renders it 'desire', and for good reason. That's what it means. The LXX is a Greek translation of an unknown Hebrew text. It has its uses, but defining Hebrew words is not one of them. If anything, it's the LXX which frequently puts inaccurate slants on Hebrew words. There's no massive conspiracy between the authors of the standard professional Hebrew lexicons. They're right. That's what the word means.

The reason I’m going with “turning” (or “alliance” is another option) is because it makes more sense in many ways:


How did you reach the conclusion that 'alliance' is another option? Which Hebrew texts convinced you of this? Anything in the Elephantine Papyri? The Qumran sectarian texts perhaps? :corbather:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#63 Dawn

Dawn

    Chi

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 04:36 PM


The reason I’m going with “turning” (or “alliance” is another option) is because it makes more sense in many ways:


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Makes more sense to who? On what grounds?

Makes more sense as per LXX rendering on the grounds that the Hebrew word aparently (not that I know much about Hebrew which is why I value mark's input) is derived from the very "shuq" which means - in simplest form - "to run". The prefix "te" given the word an abstract sense and I understand that it corresponds to the English "ness" (eg: kindness). The ending "a" given the word a feminine form usual to Hebrew abstract nouns, to in the intensive form of the verb, it would sort of mean "to run repeatedly" or "to run back and forth" which would necessitate frequent turning.

1) “Desire” is a subjective word with negative connotations...


As when Jesus said 'With desire I have desired to eat this feast with you'?

I meant in relation to Eve and her traducers.

Regardless of what we think marriage ought or ought not to be, in this case we need to sit down and decide what the Scripture is actually saying, and then adjust our thinking accordingly. We can't just say 'Well all the professional lexicons say X, but I don't like that idea so I'll make up my own which suits me'.

I'm not making up my own to suit me - "turning" and "alliance" are very possible renderings.


Well how many women suffer pain in childbirth? That might provide some background as to whether this is all just talking about Eve.

Well most do, but a small minority don't don't. My mother claims that she had no pain when she gave birth to her three babies (including one that was stillborn) and that it was a pleasure. But pain in childbirth isn't really to do with teshuqa.

Note that Eve was actually never expelled from the garden.


No, I didn't note that. Could you give me chapter and verse?

There isn't one, just as there isn't one to say that she was - but she obviously followed Adam out.


I don't know anyone who says that Adam was rewarded for his sin by giving him rulership. Where would anyone get that idea?

Well I think it's fair to say that there are some men (not all - I am not tarring all men with the same brush) who have seen this verse as license to lord it over their wives and women in general. But that is a sweeping statement, but in general terms, I believe that there is truth in it. Nevertheless in Christian marraige and relationships, it does not hold.

3) I do not believe Christian marriage should be based on this interpretation that a woman’s desire is to her husband and he shall rule over her. This is not what Scripture teaches about marriage, yet this verse has been perceived to teach that by many.


What people use Scripture to say does not alter what it actually says. Saying 'Well on the basis that it means X, people have done wicked things, so it can't mean X' is invalid. Perhaps it does mean X, and people abused it. That doesn't change the fact that it means X.

I realise that it doesn't change the actuall meaning - sure Eve turned after her husband out of the garden and that he ruled over her. I have no problems with that. But the fact that that literally happneed doesn't mean to say that husband ruling over wives is how it was meant to be for all time for all believers.

also, there is nothing in Scripture to say what Adams spiritual state was at this point - on the other hand Eve clearly believed that God was going to send a Saviour (which thought had been sent when Cain was born).

4) The history of the word “teshuqa” in translations suggests that the meaning got changed to reflect the preconceived ideas of the male translators...


No. That is simply wrong. That is so far wrong it's maliciously wrong. It's an egalitarian rewriting of history, and knowingly so. It's completely off topic. The meaning of the Hebrew word hasn't been changed. What you're talking about is the way in which the English translation of the Hebrew word has been different over the years. Sure, one lunatic translated it as 'lust'. That's it. So what?

It's not off topic - it's related, but I do not have the resources to check when the word changed - I don't have Coverdale, matthews, Craners o Tyndale, Geneva Bible, so ca't verify one way of ther other. Wycliffe translated teshuqa as "power" - so may so what, yes.

...or so it seems to me.


No, not so it seems to you. You haven't examined any proximate Hebrew texts. You haven't studied the lexical history of the Hebrew word. Ironically you're doing exactly what Pagnino did, following a made up definition of the word because you prefer it to the real definition.

No, and even Mark said he isn't sure about it - I have a reasonable doubt in mind that "desire" is a rendering which might have had a better rendering.

But please, don't become irrational.

I'm not being irrational - I have a reasonable doubt in mind about the rendering of the word, and am choosing - by careful thought and limited research I have at my disposal - to reject the traditional rendering in favour of one which the earliest translations support. For all it's faults, when the LXX was written, certainly more was known about Hebrew than at any time since, and it was the Bible of the evagelists and the apostles for the 1st century. Obviously the original Hebrew text is more valuable, but also the LXX can shed light on certain word where maybe the original hebrew has some obscurities.
"....when you Think of Things, you find sometimes that the Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it" (A A Milne)


"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" Philippians 2:3

#64 Dawn

Dawn

    Chi

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 04:42 PM

I think I've decided the LXX rendering of teshuqa ("turning) is the best and that "desire" is a slant put on by later translators.


Dawn, I'm going to be blunt. This is a really bad idea. The fact is that every single standard professional Hebrew lexicon renders it 'desire', and for good reason. That's what it means. The LXX is a Greek translation of an unknown Hebrew text. It has its uses, but defining Hebrew words is not one of them. If anything, it's the LXX which frequently puts inaccurate slants on Hebrew words. There's no massive conspiracy between the authors of the standard professional Hebrew lexicons. They're right. That's what the word means.

The reason I’m going with “turning” (or “alliance” is another option) is because it makes more sense in many ways:


How did you reach the conclusion that 'alliance' is another option? Which Hebrew texts convinced you of this? Anything in the Elephantine Papyri? The Qumran sectarian texts perhaps? :bookK

I think the first rendering as "alliance" for Gen 3:16 was in the Sahidic (300AD) version - not sure - also Aquila's Greek Symmachus - I think it was Origen who compiled a work called the Hexapla in which he gave the variations between the Septuagin and Aquila's renderings and Aquila rendered teshuqa as "alliance" (or "coalition") - but I will try and check that out.
"....when you Think of Things, you find sometimes that the Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it" (A A Milne)


"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" Philippians 2:3

#65 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:20 PM

Makes more sense as per LXX rendering on the grounds that the Hebrew word aparently (not that I know much about Hebrew which is why I value mark's input) is derived from the very "shuq" which means - in simplest form - "to run". The prefix "te" given the word an abstract sense and I understand that it corresponds to the English "ness" (eg: kindness). The ending "a" given the word a feminine form usual to Hebrew abstract nouns, to in the intensive form of the verb, it would sort of mean "to run repeatedly" or "to run back and forth" which would necessitate frequent turning.


Putting together a meaning by using the root words isn't a good idea. It's bad lexical practice. If you value Mark's input on Hebrew, why don't you value the input of professional Hebraists, such as those who have written the standard lexicons? In any case, when I check the lexicons I find that it isn't derived from 'shuq', meaning 'to run', if that's even true, I don't know which word he's referring to ('šôq' means 'leg', 'šûq' means 'street', and 'šûq' means 'be abundant'). The root identified by lexicons is 'šag', which does not mean 'to run'.

I meant in relation to Eve and her traducers.


Her traducers?

I'm not making up my own to suit me - "turning" and "alliance" are very possible renderings.


According to whom?

Well most do, but a small minority don't don't.


A tiny minority, in other words. So the vast majority of women do.

There isn't one, just as there isn't one to say that she was - but she obviously followed Adam out.


Did she really have a choice?

I realise that it doesn't change the actuall meaning - sure Eve turned after her husband out of the garden and that he ruled over her. I have no problems with that. But the fact that that literally happneed doesn't mean to say that husband ruling over wives is how it was meant to be for all time for all believers.


No one here is suggesting that husbands can rule over their wives at all, so how about we leave that behind.

also, there is nothing in Scripture to say what Adams spiritual state was at this point - on the other hand Eve clearly believed that God was going to send a Saviour (which thought had been sent when Cain was born).


We know what Adam and Eve's spiritual state was at this point, they were both disobedient.

It is offtopic. We're supposed to be trying to determine what the Hebrew word means. Changing the topic to how the Hebrew word has been translated, and then saying that this is equivalent to the Hebrew word itself changing meaning, is wrong.

No, and even Mark said he isn't sure about it - I have a reasonable doubt in mind that "desire" is a rendering which might have had a better rendering.


But why? Because you've studied the Hebrew? Because you've checked standard professional Hebrew lexicons? Or because someone told you so? On what basis it reasonable?

I'm not being irrational - I have a reasonable doubt in mind about the rendering of the word, and am choosing - by careful thought and limited research I have at my disposal - to reject the traditional rendering in favour of one which the earliest translations support.


Until you can actually present reasonable grounds for doubt, and for dismissing all of the standard professional lexicons, then it is irrational to do so. Do you really think that the limited research at your disposal is sufficient to overturn the 'traditional' rendering in favour of one which early translators clearly messed up? You don't even know if the translators of the LXX were using the same Hebrew text here as we do.

For all it's faults, when the LXX was written, certainly more was known about Hebrew than at any time since...


No, that's a popular fallacy. We know a lot more about Hebrew than any of the LXX authors. We certainly know Hebrew these days better than they did.

....and it was the Bible of the evagelists and the apostles for the 1st century. Obviously the original Hebrew text is more valuable, but also the LXX can shed light on certain word where maybe the original hebrew has some obscurities.


It can only do that when this can be verified using other sources. In this case the LXX translation is clearly wrong. There are no two ways about this.

תְּשׁוּקָה: II *שׁוק, Bauer-Leander Heb. 496r; MHeb. תְּשׁוּקָה (in meaning the same as in BibHeb.; Dalman Wörterbuch 450); DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 237); SamP. tēšūqāttək, tēšūqāttu, on the gemination and vowel lengthening see LOT 5: p. 63, §1.5.3.1: sf. תְּשׁוּקָתֵכְ/תוֹ: desire, longing Gn 316 47; Song 711, there is no need for the cj. for וְעָלַי rd. וְאֵלַי, as in BHS (→ II עַל 6); on the content see e.g. O. Keel Das Hohelied (Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 18; 1986) 232f. †


2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.

This noun appears only three times in the ot, once in Song 7:10 [H 11]. The woman says of her beloved: “I am my beloved’s and his ‘desire’ is for me.” The two remaining references are Gen 3:16 and 4:7. In the latter passage God is speaking to Cain and says to him that sin is like a crouching beast “hungering, intent upon” Cain. In the former passage God says, “Your ‘desire’ shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is obviously neither an intensification nor a warping of a pre-existing hierarchy between the sexes for no such hierarchy is alluded to.

There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bride-groom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.


9592 תְּשׁוּקָה (tešû∙qā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 8669; TWOT 2352a—LN 25.12-25.32 desire, urges, longing, i.e., a very strong emotion or feeling to have or do something (Ge 3:16; 4:7; SS 7:11[EB 10]+), note: this strong desire may refer to sexual urges or desires, or a desire to dominate, or just be independent of the man, other references may also be possible.


†[תְּשׁוּקָה S8669 TWOT2352a GK9592] n.f. longing;—of woman for man, אֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ Gn 3:16 (J); of man for woman, אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְאֵלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Ct 7:11; of beast to devour, fig. אֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Gn 4:7 (J). (G ἀποστροφή Gn, ἐπιστροφή, Ct whence NesMarg. 6 proposes תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ Gn 3:16, which Ball Hpt reads in all; but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?).


תְּשׁוּקָה f. (from the root שׁוּק No. 2), desire, longing, Gen. 3:16; 4:7; Cant. 7:11.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#66 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:32 PM

I think the first rendering as "alliance" for Gen 3:16 was in the Sahidic (300AD) version - not sure - also Aquila's Greek Symmachus - I think it was Origen who compiled a work called the Hexapla in which he gave the variations between the Septuagin and Aquila's renderings and Aquila rendered teshuqa as "alliance" (or "coalition") - but I will try and check that out.


So why should I pay any attention to a 4th century Sahidic translation of a 2nd century Greek translation of an unknown Hebrew text? The fact is it doesn't matter who translated it as 'alliance', they're wrong. It doesn't even remotely make sense, 'Your alliance shall be toward your husband'? Did you get this from professional Hebrew lexicons, or have you been reading egalitarian propaganda? It sound suspiciously like Katherine Bushnell to me.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#67 Dawn

Dawn

    Chi

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts

Posted 22 May 2009 - 10:09 AM

2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.

Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.


9592 תְּשׁוּקָה (tešû∙qā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 8669; TWOT 2352a—LN 25.12-25.32 desire, urges, longing, i.e., a very strong emotion or feeling to have or do something (Ge 3:16; 4:7; SS 7:11[EB 10]+), note: this strong desire may refer to sexual urges or desires, or a desire to dominate, or just be independent of the man, other references may also be possible.


†[תְּשׁוּקָה S8669 TWOT2352a GK9592] n.f. longing;—of woman for man, אֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ Gn 3:16 (J); of man for woman, אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְאֵלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Ct 7:11; of beast to devour, fig. אֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Gn 4:7 (J). (G ἀποστροφή Gn, ἐπιστροφή, Ct whence NesMarg. 6 proposes תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ Gn 3:16, which Ball Hpt reads in all; but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?).


Christadelphians often query translations and the translators, and will often express a preference for a certain rendering above another. It is not an unusual practice and not irrational.

In Christian marriage I do now firmly believe that "desire and rule" is not what God intended and in Christ it does not apply.

I would have liked to have heard some views of others about that but never mind.

Yes I have read some of Katherine Bushnell's Lessons and am not surprised you discovered this (I also mentioned her on FB anyhow in the hat thread) - and I am not ashamed of reading her stuff, and I shall continue to read her work without feeling guilty about it. I am glad I have found out about her. She has helped me much to uncover deep things which I couldn't express or felt perplexed about and so for that I am very grateful.

A google search of the word "teshuqa" will bring her lesson up at the top of the first page. I admit that she has some severe blind spots and ignores certain Scriptures to favour her own perceptions (but then who doesn't do that from time to time?) - and from the little I've read of her I do not believe she always rightly divides the Word. (She also believes in a supernatural devil and the pre-existence of Christ, but that does not mean that everything she has reserached is wrong). I intend to read more of her stuffs for consideration against the plumbline of the Word of God.

Your accusation that she is an egalitarian *progandandist* is, I feel, out of place, since I believe it is important to hold in tension the fact that she did a lot of Christian work in China and other "heathen lands" (as she called them) where she witnessed appalling degradation and treatment of women by men which rightly grated with her udnerstanding of God a loving Father - so that needs to be born in mind when considering her work: her studies were born out of much pain of what she saw and witnessed concerning the treatment of women, and her right understanding these things should not be so. She was also prominent in exposing the white slave trade. We have to remember the times she was living in.

Having said all that, and disregarding the points I disagree with her about, I do believe she is right on this point, and that the ther endering of the word was the cause of much misunderstanding by men of a certain cast of mind. (Not accusing of anyone of that here - just that it was open to being misappropriated).

Also, there is a sense where married women ARE independent of their husband (just as husbands are from their wives in certain manners) - if only Saphira had not bee blinded by her greed for money, and accepted the Lordship of Christ directly independently from her husband, her ending might not have been so abrupt.

....oh and PS - I don't accept everything I read without checking things out which is why I posted it up on here to see if anyone with knowledge of Hebrew could help.

Edited by Dawn, 22 May 2009 - 10:27 AM.

"....when you Think of Things, you find sometimes that the Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it" (A A Milne)


"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" Philippians 2:3

#68 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 May 2009 - 03:11 PM

Christadelphians often query translations and the translators, and will often express a preference for a certain rendering above another. It is not an unusual practice and not irrational.


It is not irrational unless it is done purely out of personal preference, without regard for any professional scholarship, and without any evidence whatever. When Christadelphians say that 'elohim' means 'mighty ones', they are wrong. It doesn't matter how much they want it to mean this, it doesn't. When Christadelphians say that 'elohim' in Genesis 1 means 'the angels', they are wrong. It doesn't matter how much they want it to mean this, it doesn't. When they ignore all the lexical evidence which proves otherwise, they are simply being irrational.

In Christian marriage I do now firmly believe that "desire and rule" is not what God intended and in Christ it does not apply.


No one has said that this is what God intended for Christian marriage. But to deny that the word here means 'desire' is irrational unless it is based on some pretty formidable lexical scholarship.

I would have liked to have heard some views of others about that but never mind.


I think you will find that they all agree with me, husbands shouldn't rule over their wives, and the curse pronounced on Eve wasn't what God intended her relationship with Adam to be like.

Yes I have read some of Katherine Bushnell's Lessons and am not surprised you discovered this (I also mentioned her on FB anyhow in the hat thread) - and I am not ashamed of reading her stuff, and I shall continue to read her work without feeling guilty about it. I am glad I have found out about her. She has helped me much to uncover deep things which I couldn't express or felt perplexed about and so for that I am very grateful.


I didn't see you mention it on FB. There's no reason whatever why you should feel ashamed or guilt about reading it. What I'm concerned about is that you may think she's helping you uncover deep things when in reality she's just fooling you by convincing you things she has made up are true.

A google search of the word "teshuqa" will bring her lesson up at the top of the first page.


That's hardly surprising. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. It's pseudo-scholarship at best, propaganda at worst.

I admit that she has some severe blind spots and ignores certain Scriptures to favour her own perceptions (but then who doesn't do that from time to time?) - and from the little I've read of her I do not believe she always rightly divides the Word. (She also believes in a supernatural devil and the pre-existence of Christ, but that does not mean that everything she has reserached is wrong). I intend to read more of her stuffs for consideration against the plumbline of the Word of God.


If you're aware of this, then you should not be quick to dismiss all professional scholarship out of preference for what she says.

Your accusation that she is an egalitarian *progandandist* is, I feel, out of place, since I believe it is important to hold in tension the fact that she did a lot of Christian work in China and other "heathen lands" (as she called them) where she witnessed appalling degradation and treatment of women by men which rightly grated with her udnerstanding of God a loving Father - so that needs to be born in mind when considering her work: her studies were born out of much pain of what she saw and witnessed concerning the treatment of women, and her right understanding these things should not be so. She was also prominent in exposing the white slave trade. We have to remember the times she was living in.


It's precisely because I know about her background that I refer to her as a propagandist. She made no secret of the fact that she intended to re-interpret (and even re-write if necessary), the Biblical text in order to render it in a manner which she saw more fitting for the role of women which she thought they should hold. I'm entirely aware of her noble humanitarian work, and the sufferings which left such a deep impression on her. That's how propagandists are made. Her studies were indeed, as you say, 'born out of much pain of what she saw'. Many other people's interpretations of Scripture have been similarly influenced by their experiences. We all know the Christadelphian homosexual advocates have an interpretation of Scripture which is born out of much pain of what they saw. That's precisely why we need to exercise caution when assessing it.

Having said all that, and disregarding the points I disagree with her about, I do believe she is right on this point, and that the ther endering of the word was the cause of much misunderstanding by men of a certain cast of mind. (Not accusing of anyone of that here - just that it was open to being misappropriated).


But why do you think she's right on this point? What evidence is there which overturns the scholarly consensus?

Also, there is a sense where married women ARE independent of their husband (just as husbands are from their wives in certain manners) - if only Saphira had not bee blinded by her greed for money, and accepted the Lordship of Christ directly independently from her husband, her ending might not have been so abrupt.


In other words, married women are responsible for their own actions, and can't foist them off onto their husbands claiming 'He told me to do it', or 'I had to follow his lead'. Paul makes it quite clear that the wife should set an example for the unGodly husband. But to give Saphira her credit, she didn't simply do what she did because she was blindly following her husband, she did what she did out of greed for money, and not because she was being lorded over.

....oh and PS - I don't accept everything I read without checking things out which is why I posted it up on here to see if anyone with knowledge of Hebrew could help.


That's good, and I respect that. What concerns me is when you are provided with reliable information from sources with a knowledge of Hebrew, and you then reject it because you don't like the conclusions.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#69 Dawn

Dawn

    Chi

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts

Posted 22 May 2009 - 04:26 PM

It is not irrational unless it is done purely out of personal preference, without regard for any professional scholarship, and without any evidence whatever.

I do have regard for profession scholarship (and have accepted Mark's & scholar's confirmations on other passages.


No one has said that this is what God intended for Christian marriage.

I didn't say they had. I believe it is an unwritten given though in many cases.

But to deny that the word here means 'desire' is irrational unless it is based on some pretty formidable lexical scholarship.

I do not always trust scholars. Sorry! They are not infallible.

What I'm concerned about is that you may think she's helping you uncover deep things when in reality she's just fooling you by convincing you things she has made up are true.

Some of the things she says are made up I agree - but others are not.


A google search of the word "teshuqa" will bring her lesson up at the top of the first page.


That's hardly surprising. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. It's pseudo-scholarship at best, propaganda at worst.

I'm not convinced it's pseudo-scholarship at the moment, though I know what you mean, as I am uncertain of the leve of knowledge she had of Scripture in the original languages - my understanding is that she was quite proficient. I am not sure what her Doctorate was in - I don't think it was languages, more likely medical I think, but she studied Hebrew and Greek in between and during her busy mission work as I understand it.

As for propaganda - maybe, but I think she probably found she had little choice about her tactics in the more male-dominated societies she encountered, but I don't know enough really to comment either way.

When there is a battle on to try and bring social change, there is little choice to bring influence the other way other than presenting the opposite opinion - that is what propaganda does. (I guess sistersspeak is similar, though I haven't read much there as I found it confusing).

Bushnell was falsely accused of speaking "cruel lies" about white slavery, but later she was proved to be right about it: but how she had to fight that corner was not easy for her - maybe again via propaganda, but she won it -and with it she secured more dignity for the people who were being mistreated.


If you're aware of this, then you should not be quick to dismiss all professional scholarship out of preference for what she says.

No I have haven't dismissed it - I am questioning it.


It's precisely because I know about her background that I refer to her as a propagandist.

Yes caution is needed, but I am well aware of progagandist tactics (being involved with Israel particularly): for example during the last conflict with Gaza I saw the most appalling propaganda from both sides - but what I noticed was that there is nearly always an element of truth in propaganda - it is just having the discernment to know which bits are the truth.


But why do you think she's right on this point? What evidence is there which overturns the scholarly consensus?

I've just remembered a contact I have who is fluent in Biblical Hebrew so I'll see what he says.

In other words, married women are responsible for their own actions, and can't foist them off onto their husbands claiming 'He told me to do it', or 'I had to follow his lead'. Paul makes it quite clear that the wife should set an example for the unGodly husband. But to give Saphira her credit, she didn't simply do what she did because she was blindly following her husband, she did what she did out of greed for money, and not because she was being lorded over.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

What concerns me is when you are provided with reliable information from sources with a knowledge of Hebrew, and you then reject it because you don't like the conclusions.

I haven't rejected it outright - I am questioning it and at present am tending to prefer the alternative rendering: NOT because I don't like the conclusions - if those are the true conclusions, so be it, and that's that, but conclusions are more than words.
"....when you Think of Things, you find sometimes that the Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it" (A A Milne)


"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" Philippians 2:3

#70 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Chi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts

Posted 24 May 2009 - 12:56 PM

Yes I have read some of Katherine Bushnell's Lessons and am not surprised you discovered this (I also mentioned her on FB anyhow in the hat thread) - and I am not ashamed of reading her stuff, and I shall continue to read her work without feeling guilty about it.

She seemed to do many wonderful things Dawn.
"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_a_horse#ixzz1K0LLUt00

#71 Dawn

Dawn

    Chi

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,318 posts

Posted 30 May 2009 - 10:18 PM

Yes I have read some of Katherine Bushnell's Lessons and am not surprised you discovered this (I also mentioned her on FB anyhow in the hat thread) - and I am not ashamed of reading her stuff, and I shall continue to read her work without feeling guilty about it.

She seemed to do many wonderful things Dawn.

...well I don't know much about her - but she was involved in the Social Hygiene movements in the late 19th century and advocated Purity Laws and was an abolitionist - often working under cover to get proof to expose unlawful treatment of young girls and women.

She is not right aobut everything though and is coloured by her own views - yet in other areas she is right about some things. It's trying to sort out which things she's right about, and which things she is wrong about.

As for teshuqa, I guess why her work on it appealed to me is that I think I have always sub-consciously felt that this "desire" (to rule over a husband) is actually A FALSE ACCUSATION. I have no desire to rule over my husband - and in Christ no partner should want to rule over the other. Married couples are both FELLOW-DISCIPLES of the Lord - marriage is a partnership, not a governing body of one partner over another, despite the "headship" argument put forth by certain Early Church Fathers etc.

(...also "he shall rule over thee" - which has been linked to "headship" of husband over wife can also be a false accusation against Christian husbands who have no desire to do that over their wives since Christ treats His Church differently to that, and if husbands are emulatiing Christ and how He treats His Ecclesia then they will not be "ruling over" their wives. So it cuts both ways)

Edited by Dawn, 30 May 2009 - 10:40 PM.

"....when you Think of Things, you find sometimes that the Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it" (A A Milne)


"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" Philippians 2:3




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users