Originally posted by PsychoPawn (You seem very selective too. What about feminist scholars who want to correct chauvanistic readings?)
I have said before that I don't care if people make up their own bible and that other groups are retranslating to their own political bias then the same questions apply.
Only an idiot would think that just because I posted a thread on one m ...[text shortened]... revious post you seem to think that people are denying it.[/i]
Some people are denying it.
I have said before that I don't care if people make up their own bible and that other groups are retranslating to their own political bias then the same questions apply.
That was not the point I was making. Try for some empathy. Imagine you are a woman and a Christian with an obvious chauvanistic agenda says 'St. Paul commands women to be silent in church. Therefore women should not participate in politics.' The reasoning of this person is obviously specious and this woman would be quite entitled to question his reasoning without having to correct other mistakes he happens to make. Likewise, a fundamentalist Christian might say 'the plundering and looting of Jesus' clothes is a clear fulfilment of Psalms 22:18.' To this, a Jew would rightly answer that Psalm 22 is not a prophesy and has absolutely no Messianic meaning.
The point is that a person can challenge some translations without having to correct every inaccuracy. Just because a woman questions the anti-feminist readings of Scripture does not mean she must become a scripture scholar and solve the synoptic problem.
Originally posted by Conrau K [b]I have said before that I don't care if people make up their own bible and that other groups are retranslating to their own political bias then the same questions apply.
That was not the point I was making. Try for some empathy. Imagine you are a woman and a Christian with an obvious chauvanistic agenda says 'St. Paul commands women to be silent i ...[text shortened]... cripture does not mean she must become a scripture scholar and solve the synoptic problem.[/b]
Imagine you are a woman and a Christian with an obvious chauvanistic agenda says 'St. Paul commands women to be silent in church. Therefore women should not participate in politics.' The reasoning of this person is obviously specious and this woman would be quite entitled to question his reasoning without having to correct other mistakes he happens to make.
I imagine a woman should reject these chauvinistic and misogynistic fairy tales and leave the church.
I never suggested women wouldn't be entitled to question their reasoning and no, she wouldn't be required to correct anything she doesn't want to correct.
The point is that a person can challenge some translations without having to correct every inaccuracy.
BINGO! This is something that I have not contradicted, in fact I agree with it wholeheartedly. I didn't argue against this at all.