Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Clear Statement of Equality Made to Say Opposite by Misogyny in Bible Translation

Below, we see a clear statement of equality manipulated by misogyny in Bible translation and gender-biased-English-translation-theology, to say just the opposite:   

    1 Corinthian 11:3 But I wish you to know that of every person the head the Christ is and the head of woman is the man and the head of Christ is God[1] 4: Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head 5: But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head for that is even all one as if she were shaven 6: For if the woman be not covered let her also be shorn but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved let her be covered[2] 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of man[3] 8: For man is not from woman but woman from the man 9: Neither was the man created on account of the woman but the woman on account of the man[4] 10: For this cause ought women to possess G2192 translated as possessed in Acts 8:7 liberty G1849 translated as liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:9  over their [own] persons on account of the angels[5] 11: Further neither is man apart from woman neither woman apart from man in the Lord 12: For as the woman out of the man so also the man because of the woman and all things from Ton Theon (The God)[6] 13: Judge for yourselves It is [autos esti] fitting that a woman pray to God unveiled 14: Nor does nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him[7] 15: and if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her For hair is given her anti-peribolaion  [instead[8] of a veil[9]] 16: and if any seem to be contentious we have no such custom [of veiling] neither the churches of God



[1] Verses 11-12, are the interpreters of 1 Corinthians 3:11. They confirm that the chronological interpretation of verse three is the correct one (as opposed to the hierarchal interpretation). Despite the clear explanation in verses 11 & 12, verse three remains a hotbed of controversy, largely because it is considered an ironclad, bedrock, verse subjecting women to men within the complementarian/male-headship movement. 1 Corinthians 1:11-12, however, refutes traditional-role-religionist and complementarian male headship interpretations, clearly defining the verse as being prepositional (chronological), rather than hierarchal. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a divine flow-chart, showing source and chronological order of creation and appearance. It reveals the prepositional (chronological flow of the) relationship between:
·         1.) The Godhead and every person (Elohiym—the Godhead—created the heavens and the earth. He is creator/head/source of all people not just males). In scripture usage, the Greek word, aner, cannot claim male exclusivity. In numerous instances, it is used of crowds/groups composed of both women and men. There is no hermeneutical reason it cannot be translated generically, as “people” or “person,” when context calls for it.
·         2.) The direct creation, by God, of the first man, who then became the head of …
·         3.)the first woman [only], as he was the source from which God made her. The first woman was just as much a direct creation of God as the man. The man himself had nothing to do with the creation of woman. He was the source only in the fact that God took one of his sides and used it to fashion the woman. The fact that God fashioned the woman from an entire side of the man, in no way diminished either him or her. He did not then become only half a person, nor was she created a sub-[hu]man—doomed to subjugation to males for all eternity. Nor can it be found in scripture where the first man was designated as superior over the first woman based on chronology (or where all men are given command over all women based on order of appearance. The first man and the first woman were both direct creations of God (God was the ultimate source of existence and life for both of them). And both were commanded to dominate the earth equally. Even role-religionists admit that no hint of hierarchy exists in the creation account of Genesis chapter one. Neither does it exist in the Hebrew language Genesis chapter two was translated from—except through gender biased translator supplements.
·         4.) Messiah (who was later born of a woman)
·         5.) The Godhead, from which came Messiah. To interpret this verse any other way, is to reduce God—as Messiah is God. Jesus claimed Jehovahistic identity.  On one occasion, the Jews sought to stone him when he said he was the great, I AM.
The chronological flow of 1 Corinthians 11:3, is in absolute agreement with the entire volume of scripture concerning the creation, making, and appearance of the first man, the first woman, and the birth of Messiah. The verse begins with the Godhead (for all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ) and ends with the Godhead. It was Elohiym (the Godhead) who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. And Jesus made the exclusive claim to be Elohiym (YHWH) when he said, “If you do believe that I AM (EGO EMI), you will die in your sins.” The apostle wrote that the entirety of the Godhead resides in Jesus in physical form. Jesus the Christ does not need a God. Jesus is God.
[2] If we were to take this verse out of its ancient context, and apply it to modern-day Christianity, then Christian women would be required to wear veils [hijabs] and burqa’s. No scholar suggests this should be the case. Paul was obviously responding to letters he received that included questions about these things.
[3] Is Paul saying that men are made more in the image of God than are women? Of course not! There is no scriptural basis for such an idea. Nevertheless, many buy in to this theory. Nor are women made differently in the image of God than are men. There is only one Image of God. And God’s entire human creation is made in that same image. The interpretation applied to this verse by role-religionists, is at odds with the clear statement in Genesis chapter one, that God created audawm—not just the man (iysh)—in his image. Audawm is the phonetic pronunciation of the Hebrew word 'âdâm—the name Elohiym bestowed on both his male and female creations Genesis 5:2. 1 Corinthians 11:7, according to context, cannot be about the superiority of males over females concerning the Image of God, but rather a continuation of his discourse about the source and chronology of humans.
[4] Again, referencing chronology.
[5] Within many congregations, the myth persists that women should be veiled to hide their beauty from fallen angels. This harks back to Genesis chapter six where the sons of God (fallen angels) were attracted to the daughters of men and took them for wives, producing a genetically mutated race of Nephilim (half human and half angel).  The interpretation holds no water for a couple of reasons: 1.) If that were the case, women would have to be completely veiled 100% of the time—not just in public or in church—as the walls of a private home would pose no obstacle to an angel who wanted to look upon an unveiled woman 2.) Neither veiling nor human males could hide or protect women from spirit beings as mighty as angels. So, the phrase, “because of the angels,” must refer to something else.
[6] Verses 11-12 confirm the chronological, as opposed to hierarchal, nature of verse three. It is also a clear biblical statement of essential and functional equality of women and men.
[7]Verse 14 purports to be a question asking, "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame?" Now every candid person must answer this question with a "No." It is not nature, but the barber who keeps man’s hair short. In China, millions of men wear long hair, and nature has never taught them that it is a shame. Furthermore, the last time the Corinthians saw the apostle Paul before he wrote this Epistle, he himself had long hair (Acts 18:18); and to the Jew, accustomed to religious vows (Numbers 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more of a "glory" than a "shame." Additionally to this, the native Corinthian's would have thought this a strange question to submit to them, for they would boast that they were descendants of the “long-haired Achaeans," celebrated as such on almost every page of that most famous and most ancient Greek poem, Homer's Iliad. Therefore we do not believe that St Paul asked a question, here. His simple statement of fact, "Nor doth nature teach you," has been changed into a question by the uninspired men who put in the punctuation marks centuries later than St. Paul wrote these words. As a question, this is a Tremendous Misfit. It contradicts a fact of nature; it makes St. Paul inconsistent in his practice with his teaching; it is an entirely unsuitable question to submit to Achaeans. –God’s Word to Women, 1908, Katherine Bushnell

[8] G473 anti can mean: in support of or opposed to; opposite to or instead of…We see that applied to the commonly held definition of anti-Christ (opposed to or instead of Christ).
[9] G4018 paribolaion can even refer to a full-body covering such as a burqa, which would not have been uncommon among even the Jews in Paul’s day.



This is an excerpt from the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary HHBC
Did you find this article helpful? Link to this post or share with your connections on social media
Questions and comments are welcome

For a more complete study on this subject, read, "A Study of Male Headship": https://www.amazon.com/Study-Male-Headship-Corinthians-Ministry/dp/1505921465




No comments:

Post a Comment