tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post7629718433757785742..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Girly BloggerWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-57881047518232063842007-07-01T06:47:00.000-07:002007-07-01T06:47:00.000-07:00(sorry, posted comment under wrong post)(sorry, posted comment under wrong post)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-63395929939066070262007-07-01T06:34:00.000-07:002007-07-01T06:34:00.000-07:00I was wondering when you'd get to the point... :-)...I was wondering when you'd get to the point... :-)<BR/><BR/>But it's ironic, isn't it? Many men seek out women <B>lacking</B> cha-yil, but after they marry such women, they despise them for that very lack! In fact, they think <I>all</I> women lack cha-yil, which justifies in their minds the subjugation of women across the board. <BR/><BR/>And even more ironically, any woman who does exhibit cha-yil is <I>rebuked</I> for being "manly" or "opinionated"-- as if only men can have opinions or noble character. Yet, as you pointed out, these very qualities are what God values in a woman-- or a man.<BR/><BR/>It should go without saying that sexual purity was never supposed to be only applied to women, while excellence of character was never supposed to be only applied to men. Yet this is sad reality and it is perpetuated in the churches, of all places. Women who exhibit cha-yil are called "feminists" (!) and "rebellious" and sometimes even "Jezebel".<BR/><BR/>One nice thing about the anonymity of the internet is that women can now be heard in Christian theological discussions. There have been many times when, after a long debate, my opponent would express great shock and horror at learning he had been debating a woman all that time. Which, of course, only proves that there is no exclusively "male" or "female" way of thinking. <BR/><BR/>That being proven, there is no excuse for anyone thinking God made woman as an inferior sub-species or perpetual child. In spite of objections of such men that they don't think this at all, I can find no difference between how they treat women who are simply following "roles" than women who are intrinsically inferior. There isn't any discernible difference between the two.<BR/><BR/>And how can anyone defend the notion that even if women indeed can have cha-yil, that they must suppress it by acting the part of a weak and fearful child? In other words, the qualities held by such men as being "virtuous" are the opposite of the Bible's teaching about cha-yil.<BR/><BR/>And now maybe <I>I'll</I> get to the point...<BR/><BR/>This word cha-yil, like "baptize" and who knows how many others, shatters our trust in the motives of the translators. Unlike views on the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth and resurrection, there are no denominational checks and balances to keep bias against women out of Bible translation. It has been the universal sin of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Bushnell was right; it may be that only by women doing the research will the complete and untainted Word of God be brought to light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com