REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE

Posted By: APL

REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/08/15 04:30 PM

REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE

A multitude of Bible translations exists, each with their own interpretation of what the biblical authors “felt” or “thought” was most important. Therefore,we must be diligent, so that when we discover a bias that has changed the meaning from the Greek word so that it implicates something other than the intent of the original author, we then perk up our ears to discover the truth.

The basic Greek word for “humanity” is “anthropos.” This is a gender-inclusive word. In many translations, “anthropos” (singular) and “anthropoi” (plural) are translated as “man/men.”

Unfortunately, these renderings often contribute to misunderstandings.

Partial Sentence of Paul’s Correspondence Labeled as Ephesians 4:8

“Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, And he gave gifts to men.” (NASB version)

The Word:
The Greek word here is “anthropois,” the plural form of “anthropos.” It is not a gender-specific word.

Reality:
“Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, And he gave gifts to people.”

The above may not seem important, but let’s remember that in his letter to Ephesus, Paul writes about important gifts of function in the body of Christ–”apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.” (Ephesians 4:11) Are only males included in these functions? Phoebe was a deacon in the ekklesia in Cenchrae; Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:1, 7); Philip had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9).

A Sentence of Paul’s Correspondence Labeled as 2 Timothy 2:2

“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (NASB)

The Word:
The Greek word here is “anthropois” (plural), and it is an inclusive word which embraces men and women.

Reality:
“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful people who will be able to teach others also.”

Upon the Ground of Men?

Biased and wrongly translated non-gender words often become the norm, because those mistranslations are read over and over again. And usually no thought is given to the divisive implications for the body of Christ.

Now, if you are thinking that it doesn’t matter, because women consider themselves to be included in “man” or “men,” I think the reality of our lives shows just the opposite. I ask you the following questions: Do you, brother, open a door labeled “women”? Do you, sister, generally shop for all your clothing needs in a store area labeled “men”? If you do, then never mind about this Greek word that is inclusive to both genders. However, if you do not, then imagine what else hides in the recesses of our perceived reality when we are exposed to biased translations.

The Walls of the World

There is a great barrier created when we use inaccurate, gender biased words. This gender divide has become a hidden thought that plays out in the reality of our everyday lives together.

We have become so accustomed to this bias of gender distinction that we no longer see the wall dividing us. Thus, we cannot see that the wall is built from the perspective of the unbelieving world. This bias has no ground in Christ. He broke all the barriers. All the walls came tumbling down. In Christ, there is no divide, no walls, no hills, no valleys, only level ground. All other ground is faulty and will be shaken until it is level or no longer exists.

The One New Human

Ephesians 2:14-16 reads, “For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the dividing wall of the barrier…so that in himself he might create the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” (NASB)

The word translated here as “man” is the Greek word “anthropon.” Yet again, not a gendered word. This Greek word is more accurately translated as “human” or “person.”

Reality:
“so that in himself he might create the two into one new human.”

When the above Greek word is translated without bias, far more meaning is given to Paul’s words in his writing to the saints in Galatia –”There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 3:28, NIV).

Our Unshakeable Ground

If there is any hope for the church, it must begin with everyday life, so that when we come together as one, we will know that we are all priests in equal standing upon the one unshakeable ground of Jesus.

“It’s a Man’s World”

We also need to understand that there are women all over the world who deeply resent men, because of how men have sinned against them. In many parts of the world, women live in the cruel bondage of men. Thus, when they come to the Bible and see gender biased verses, they figure the Scriptures are not for them. You can suggest that when women see the word “men” in Scripture, they see themselves included in it. But the truth is, to use the word “men” in the Bible today is unnecessary and extremely misleading. The inspired reality of the translated Greek words would be best served with designations like “people,” “humans,” “men and women,” “persons,” “folks,” and “brothers and sisters.”

The image of God is both male and female (Genesis 5:2). In order for Christ to be expressed in his fullness, the manifestation of the Spirit in each part of the “new humanity” must be living and active. As God’s people, may we be aware of any divisive bias that has influenced our thinking, so that together, we may have the mind of Christ, and be found standing upon the one unshakeable ground.

By Jon Zens-- an American author, speaker, scholar and theologian on Christian topics. Jon and his wife, Dotty also have a ministry that aids women who have been taken into the sex slave industry.

And by Kat Huff--who has been writing prose, poetry and articles for years. Kat also blogs at Harvest of Pearls at kathuff.com. She is part of the Searching Together editing team, and lives in Nashville, Tennessee.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/08/15 07:10 PM

Good point. The Bible translation should reflect the gender intended in the original. I usually don't like the use of he/she or him/her. I prefer the word people.
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/18/15 02:30 AM

It is intereting how Paul sends his greeting to the "Brethren" when we know he is writing to a church where there is a number of women. That helps us to understand his vernacular.
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/18/15 02:36 AM

It is clear that this is how James White understood the Scriptures.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/25/15 08:06 AM

Both of the two versions cited in the OP as being "better" translations with respect to gender are major flops theologically. Here's a prime example.

King James Version (KJV)NASBNIV
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16, KJV)Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. (James 5:16, NASB)Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:16, NIV)
All three of the above use the word "man" in their translations (so much for being gender neutral). But only one of the above would pass Mrs. White's approval: the KJV. Consider her comments about this verse (below).
Says the apostle: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." This scripture has been interpreted to sustain the practice of going to the priest for absolution; but it has no such application. Confess your sins to God, who only can forgive them, and your faults to one another. If you have given offense to your friend or neighbor you are to acknowledge your wrong, and it is his duty freely to forgive you. Then you are to seek the forgiveness of God because the brother whom you wounded is the property of God, and in injuring him you sinned against his Creator and Redeemer. The case is not brought before the priest at all, but before the only true mediator, our great High Priest, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," and who is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" and is able to cleanse from every stain of iniquity. {5T 639.1}
Obviously, we are not to confess our sins to each other (at least not the private ones that no one need know about), but our faults which we have committed against others personally only. Only the KJV maintains this clarity in support of the true doctrine as Mrs. White teaches it. The Revised Version (RV) came out before Mrs. White wrote and published her statement above. It also follows the same theological errors as other modern versions. Obviously, Mrs. White chose not to use it, preferring, instead, the King James Version, her usual preference.RSV
Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. (James 5:16, RSV)


The gender benders err theologically while throwing out their red herrings as fodder for criticism by the unsuspecting adherents to culture over a plain "thus saith the LORD."


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/25/15 04:59 PM

The KJV translates the same Greek word in James 5:16 as sins in other places.

green:"All three of the above use the word 'man' in their translations (so much for being gender neutral)." - Ah - man = male and female, according to the KJV.

And as for using EGW as an authority, do you still believe she is wrong in other places?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/25/15 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
And as for using EGW as an authority, do you still believe she is wrong in other places?


You like to make false accusations. Why? Do you think God is not recording all that you do, and that you will not have to face your words later? Is this because you don't think God will ever punish anyone? Might this be related to the modern Bible translations you have adopted?

I don't think most people realize the influence a few mistranslated words of scripture can have.

Originally Posted By: APL
The KJV translates the same Greek word in James 5:16 as sins in other places.

Perhaps faults and sins are synonyms, and run quite parallel at times. But looking at where the KJV did NOT translate the Greek word as "sins" is revealing. Compare the following:

King James Version (KJV)NASBNIV
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: (Matthew 6:14, KJV)"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14, NASB)For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14, NIV)
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:15, KJV)"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. (Matthew 6:15, NASB)But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (Matthew 6:15, NIV)
Not once did the KJV translate that Greek word as "sins" when speaking of human beings forgiving such. But the modern translations present a different picture, because they are the Catholic-influenced versions, and Catholic priests claim to forgive sins.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/25/15 06:30 PM

So - it is a matter of translation. Some versions chose a different word. Condemn the whole version. Why did EGW choose marginal readings? Why did EGW drop words when quoting? Why did she use other versions? Is that a sin? Nope.

Oh - for an accusation to be false, it must be false.
Posted By: dedication

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 09:03 AM

The topic concerns the use of gender in scripture, it is not another thread on what people think of various Bible versions.

The "male centered" translations can be discouraging to read at times unless a woman knows the word "men" also means "women". Men may not always realize this problem because, after all they are men, so the Bible speaks to them. But I know in my own private devotional reading of scripture I do read "men and women" or "man and woman" in verses that talk only about men. It's something we MUST do, and believe that scripture means women as well as men, or the Bible doesn't speak to us.

Quote:
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper


Is that text speaking only to men? The English language seems to imply it.
Yet I have always added women to the meaning -- blessed is the man and/or woman who ....who delights in the law of the Lord....and she shall be like a tree planted by the rivers.....

Quote:
Psalm 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile.

Is this speaking only to men?

I have always read it -- blessed is the man or woman unto whom the LORD does not imput iniquity and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Quote:
Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.


Just men? No
Blessed is the woman that trusts in Him --

Quote:
Psalm 37:16 A little that a righteous man hath [is] better than the riches of many wicked.
37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.


Every woman needs to see that these texts apply equally to her!!!
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 09:20 AM

A factory sign in our elevator states there is room only for 11 "men". Does that exclude women and children?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 06:56 PM

Every woman needs a head. According to the following sermon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZx0RJOf148

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Every woman needs a head.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


In case you didn't know, all women are born with a head.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 10:30 PM

So Green - who was Ellen White head man when James died? Surely you can tell us, no?
Posted By: dedication

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/26/15 11:34 PM

John MacArthur is the senior pastor of Grace Community Church.
The Grace Community Church practices an Evangelical Protestant theology and is generally considered to be Calvinist although officially, it is classified as non-denominational.

According to one study: The version of headship theology presented at the General Conference’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee meetings was developed in the 1980s by several Evangelical Calvinist writers, especially Wayne Grudim, James B. Hurley and John Piper.

The whole thing is a demeaning of women as second class Christians. Though they will say it isn't, their next words always betray the reality of what they are doing.

The "head" that women need is "Christ" Who is head of the church.
If married there is a relationship to be nurtured which requires a certain amount of submission and respect for her partner.

But if single --

1 Cor. 7:34
The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 01:03 AM

Calvinism - well what do you know! Chudleigh is still right.

https://session.adventistfaith.org/assets/468670
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 04:46 AM

And so, with disdain, many dismiss the Bible texts, preferring rather to call their plain teachings by some heretical name.

Did you listen to the sermon?

FACT: God sees a man and woman (husband/wife) and calls them "man." As the husband is head of the wife, he is made the responsible party for the actions of either. This is why through one man, Adam, sin entered the world. Eve certainly did her part in transgressing first, but Adam was counted as the one responsible. Throughout the Bible, men are addressed predominately, and not women, because men are the heads. The fact that the Bible speaks more of men, and less of women, has to do directly with the Biblical headship model, and has little or nothing to do with translation.

It is only in the past century that women have claimed to take offense by the use of male pronouns to refer to people in general. This use goes back for thousands of years. In Spanish, it is still current. But the English-speaking Western culture now demands "equality" (it already existed) and think to obtain it by new grammar. Having moved in this manner with the language, the Bible suddenly is made to appear sexist and "discriminatory," which it never was before. The entire transition with the language is a brilliant maneuver on the part of the devil to sneak in other errors and rebellions into our modern culture, and to cause people to despise the Word of God.

Dedication, I'm especially concerned at how you have taken up with the negativity of many on this issue. You have always struck me as one who studied things carefully--until you came down in favor of women's ordination. Then suddenly, on this issue at least, your views were colored differently. May God bless your vision before you are taken too far out of the path.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 06:43 AM

What is the plain teaching of the Bible?

Exodus 19:4-6 You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

But what did the people say? Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD has spoken we will do.

The Old Covenant was based on the promises of the people, who where afraid of God. What did the people do shortly after this?

Exodus 32:3-7 And all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a engraving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. 7 And the LORD said to Moses, Go, get you down; for your people, which you brought out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

The people had an orgy before the calf. Before the golden calf, all the people were to be God's representatives. After the golden calf, everything change. God separated the women and men in service. What this His first choice? NO. God condescended to their needs. The male priesthood was not the original plan. And look at the males God "ORDAINED", they were killers, who slew their fellow Israelites.

Exodus 32:27-30 Moses said to them, “This is what the LORD, Israel’s God, says: Each of you, strap on your sword! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other. Each of you, kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor!” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded. About three thousand people were killed that day. 29 Moses said, “Today you’ve been ordained to the LORD, each one of you at the cost of a son or a brother. Today you’ve gained a special blessing for yourselves.” 30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You’ve committed a terrible sin. So now I will go up to the LORD. Maybe I can arrange reconciliation on account of your sin.”

Arrange reconcilliation? Was God angry and needed to be appeased? NO. But the all of Israel thought so.

Exodus 32:34-35 Therefore now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you: behold, my Angel shall go before you: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin on them. 35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Visit - does this mean God punished the people for the golden calf? No! This was a natural consequence of their sin. See how the term "visit" is used in the 10 Commandments. God does not punish the children for the parent's sin, punishing the children for the parents sin is forbidden in Deuteronomy and in Ezekiel. But the child do suffer as a natural consequence of the parents and grandparents sin.

Everything changed after the golden calf experience. God never commanded the people to bring all the sacrifices! The people coming out of the ancient near Eastern religions practiced all these things and offered sacrifice to appease God, for that what they thought they needed to do. Read Leviticus 1, did God command all the sacrifices? No. But IF the people brought sacrifices, then God told them how to do it. God's first choice? NO! As Jeremish 7 tells us, the people when backwards, not forwards. Ony God shines in this in that He continued to try to work with Israel.

The testimony of scripture is clear. God wants all to be ministers for Him. The rebellion is in those that want to stop God from bringing in His ideal will.

Come out of Babylon!
Posted By: dedication

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 07:49 AM

According to the OP -- The topic of this thread, was not another "does God punish" thread.

That totally derailed too many topics already.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
According to the OP -- The topic of this thread, was not another "does God punish" thread.

That totally derailed too many topics already.
Who are you talking to? And who started this thread? And why is there so much male centered talk in the Bible? Do you disagree with what I said dedication, if indeed you are talking to me.

Did you listen to Green's video he posted? Right at the start, the speaker misinterprets the Bible and the cause of the curse in Genesis 3. Did you catch that? Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Posted By: dedication

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 08:21 AM

Personally, I don't care if the GC votes "yes" or "no" on the ordination issue. The thing I worry about is the ideas and philosophies that are being pushed into the church under the guise of opposing ordination of women.

Most of the arguments have nothing to do with the actual subject of ordination, but make women feel like they are second class Christians, even if they are only members of the congregation.



THE QUESTION--

Does scripture speak mainly with a few exceptions to men and not to women?
Or does it speak to men and women alike?

If, when the Bible in the many, many instances when it uses the male gender only, means it is speaking to men directly and not to women because women are not responsible -- then why should I even study the scriptures -- if God is not speaking to me -- a woman?

Now, it's true most have understood that the term "men" or "man" means "human" and is not limited to one gender.
However, the debates that supposedly oppose "women ordination" have thrown a serious dagger into that understanding.

The argument -- " Throughout the Bible, men are addressed predominately, and not women, because men are the heads" carries the implication, that God is NOT speaking directly to women, but actually to men.

Many of those arguments, if taken to their natural conclusion are not about ordination at all, they are about SUBJECTION and CONTROL.


Whatever the "head" believes -- his wife is supposed to believe?
Whatever the ordained "head" of the church teaches is the authority?
Whatever the ordained "head" says -- is to be regarded as the authority (in the place of Christ) voice.
Is that really God's will?

Quote:
Many husbands stop at the words, "Wives, submit yourselves," but we will read the conclusion of the same injunction, which is. "As it is fit in the Lord."
God requires that the wife shall keep the fear and glory of God ever before her. Entire submission is to be made only to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has purchased her as His own child by the infinite price of His life. {AH 115.3}


As far as I understand scripture we are responsible for what we believe and we are NOT to submit to things that are not "fit in the Lord".

Most of the precious promises are male gender in their presentation. Are they not addressed equally directly to women? So what is wrong with having a "woman's Bible" that directs the promises directly to her heart?
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 03:03 PM

This link

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Gallerie...rRXwG7S6fMj0.99

indicates that King James, who was fluent in Greek and Latin himself, had this new translation made primarily to glorify himself as the new king of Great Britain.

In spite of that God has throughout the history of mankind made use of the limited products feeble humans have produced - to give us a glimpse of His glory. And the KJV has made a tremendous impact on the proclamation of the Gospel, even though the purpose of King James was to unite the whole Christian world under his own headship.

None of the new translations are fully perfect yet, but through some of them we discover a greater God than ever before. May He give us humilty to search and understand, like the Bereans of old.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 06:23 PM

"And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Whose words were those, APL? Did God make a false prediction?

I believe God may well have fulfilled those words in the nation of Israel. They were a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Consider, for example, how they crossed the Jordan, how they conquered Jericho, and then possessed all of Canaan--the priests led the way, and the surrounding nations feared Israel, not for their weaponry, but for their God. If you say that they were not the fulfillment of this prophecy, then there is a secondary fulfillment which is yet future.

However, if you try to say that ancient Israel did NOT fulfill this prophecy, but that it was fulfilled in the "new dispensation," then I might ask why you do not believe in the church today having a priesthood. Jesus is not "priests" nor does He make us a "kingdom of priests." So while He is now our High Priest, this prophecy could not be rightly fulfilled in our time in the sense of the nation being a "kingdom of priests." There is nothing in scripture that ever once proclaims that every single person should be a priest. (I understand that you interpret differently, but to speak of a "kingdom of priests" or even to speak of "kings and priests" does not mean the fulfillment is happening now. It could either have been in the past, or it could still be future.)

Mrs. White appears to put the "kings and priests" of Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 into the future.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and yet He pleased not Himself. He took upon Himself human nature for no other purpose than to place man on vantage ground before the world and the whole heavenly universe. He carries sanctified humanity to heaven, there always to retain humanity as it would have been if man had never violated God's law. The overcomers, who upon the earth were partakers of the divine nature, He makes kings and priests unto God.--Manuscript 156, Oct. 26, 1903, "Christ, Our Divine-Human Example." {UL 313.6}


In the above passage, notice that use of past tense for those who have overcome sin upon earth (they are no longer upon earth) at the time the present tense is used for God making them "kings and priests."

Nor is that the only such statement. Look at the following:

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
The worker for God is not left without a pattern. He is given an example which, if followed, will make him a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. He is bidden to glorify God by carrying out unselfish aims and purposes. The Lord understands man's nature, and He holds up before him the laws of the kingdom of heaven, which he is to honor and obey. He places the Bible in his hands, as the guidebook that will show him what is truth, and what he must do in order to inherit eternal life. This book draws the attention from temporal interests to spiritual realities. It tells man, fallen and sinful though he is, that he can become a prince and a king in the heavenly courts, an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ. {TDG 30.2}


Again, the becoming a prince and a king in the heavenly courts is yet future.

You will not find anywhere in either the Bible or Mrs. White which clearly says everyone should be a king and a priest in the here and now. As Mrs. White instructs, I must ask for a plain "thus saith the LORD." Not finding one, I must continue with what is and has been plain in what has been revealed thus far.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 07:59 PM

The declaration of Exodus 19:6 was a statement, you will be to me... That was then and now. The people said, "all that the LORD says, we will do." They promised to use their own righteousness to do what God commanded. Did they succeed? Nope. The Old Covenant was based on the promises of the people. Jeremiah tells us that from there they went backwards, not forwards.

But the declaration of God is still true. And it also true that only those that are Christ's will be in that group.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 10:18 PM

AMEN Dedication AMEN...
You ask:
Whatever the "head" believes -- his wife is supposed to believe?
Whatever the ordained "head" of the church teaches is the authority?
Whatever the ordained "head" says -- is to be regarded as the authority (in the place of Christ) voice.
Is that really God's will?

NO, NO, NO, NO.

The argument has been made that it was an all-male priesthood, but then ignore WHY there was an all-male priesthood. What this really God's will? NO!

Adventist do not believe in verbal inspiration, the Bible is not God's mode of thought or expression. God as an author is not on trial in the Bible. The words of the Bible are the words of men.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
AMEN Dedication AMEN...
You ask:
Whatever the "head" believes -- his wife is supposed to believe?
Whatever the ordained "head" of the church teaches is the authority?
Whatever the ordained "head" says -- is to be regarded as the authority (in the place of Christ) voice.
Is that really God's will?

NO, NO, NO, NO.

The argument has been made that it was an all-male priesthood, but then ignore WHY there was an all-male priesthood. What this really God's will? NO!

Adventist do not believe in verbal inspiration, the Bible is not God's mode of thought or expression. God as an author is not on trial in the Bible. The words of the Bible are the words of men.


The words in the Bible may be the words of men, APL, but that cannot be taken to mean that there was no all-male priesthood in the Old Testament, nor that God did not command such. It cannot be taken to mean that circumcision was for women too, and not just men. And why just the men? If women truly want equality, do they want circumcision too?

In fact, the circumcision rite is further evidence of God's ordained headship order. Only the males (heads) were circumcised, and it counted for everyone. If the males were not circumcised, even the females among them were likewise counted as uncircumcised. Consider the Gentiles. We do not think of these "uncircumcised" as being only their menfolk. No, no. The women were also "uncircumcised."

Consider:

Originally Posted By: The Bible
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)


That text specifies in no uncertain terms (no vague usage of "man' for example) that it was the males who were to be circumcised on behalf of the entire group.

Consider also:

Originally Posted By: The Bible
Then his father and his mother said unto him, [Is there] never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well. (Judges 14:3)


Samson is taking a wife from an uncircumcised group of people. But if women were never circumcised, and they were not subject to male headship, there should have been no issue with marrying any woman, especially any virgin woman. The fact that circumcision (or lack thereof) on the part of the menfolk counted against the status of a woman speaks volumes.

Originally Posted By: The Bible
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all [them which are] circumcised with the uncircumcised; (Jeremiah 9:25)


If the circumcised were to include only men, I guess the women get off scott free and escape God's punishment. While I am sure some would like to think that such would be the case, they will be disappointed.

Just as the term "circumcised," being true for a portion of the people, applied to the entire nation, so also might similar terms apply to the people as a whole.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/27/15 11:56 PM

The circumcision of the heart only apply to the male? Nope.

You still ignore the reason WHY the male priesthood.

The difference between the ceremonial system, which included the male priesthood, and the moral law is broad and clear. The 10C do not place men over women but indeed puts them on equal ground. We need to move away from the types and shadows to the truth as revealed in Christ.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/28/15 12:21 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
The 10C do not place men over women but indeed puts them on equal ground.


Perhaps men and women are equal, but they are not the same, nor are they uniformly addressed in the Ten Commandments. There is no command, for example, for a woman not to covet her neighbor's husband. At this point, many would say we are nit-picking. Perhaps so, but considering that these are the "Big Ten," it seems the wording would be important to God. On this one, it IS God's own words on trial. He wrote these commands with His own finger.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Johann

Re: REFLECTIONS ON MALE-CENTERED TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE - 05/28/15 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
At this point, many would say we are nit-picking. Perhaps so, but considering that these are the "Big Ten," it seems the wording would be important to God. On this one, it IS God's own words on trial. He wrote these commands with His own finger.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


Had Moses forgotten this by the time he wrote Deut. 5? Another cause for nit-picking?
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church