Monthly Archives: April 2013

Sex Bias in the New Testament

genderbiasAs I move along through the King James Bible and reveal the changes in translation that have affected women throughout history, it is important for readers to understand that what they have been taught about the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture is a lie.  One of the biggest lies propagated in translation of scripture, is the position of women in places of leadership and authority.  If you have not understood this fact by the many revelations of these changes (on my blog) and how they have affected women, then you choose on purpose to be blind and follow this lie.  This is not to say that the Bible does not contain truth. It does. It contains a whole lot of truth —  MIXED with men’s opinions, preconceptions and lies regarding women.  What I am trying to point out is that because of man-made changes (sex bias) in the texts, women have been abused throughout history and relegated to subservience and abuses that God never intended. They have been stripped of equality, honor, dignity, mercy and compassion from men and religion!  These deliberate changes in translation need to be corrected.

Scholarship in Hebrew and Greek is the best its ever been in history as we have access to the most manuscripts we’ve every had in history for comparative analysis in order to find many of these ‘changes.’ All this said, let’s look at an instance from the New Testament of man’s opinion due to sex bias being inserted. There are more changes like this with more impactful results against women, but I will cover just one at this time to keep this article brief. Later, I will uncover more, each one, briefly for ease and quickness of reading.

Sophronan adjective which occurs four times, and is translated “sober” twice, “temperate” once.  In the fourth place it refers to women only, and is rendered “discreet” (Titus 2:5).

What we will find regarding the fourth rendering is that it is given to women purposely because it refers to women. So let’s start with a commentary from Dean Alford on this word and look at one of his notes on it.  Having first established the sense of the word as “self-restraint,” in its noun form, he says, concerning the rendering “discreet,”:

“This term certainly applies better to women than ‘self-restraint:’ there is in this latter [in “self-restraint”] in their case, an implication of effort, which destroys the spontaneity, and brushes off, so to speak, the bloom of this best of female graces.” — Bushnell, 1923

We thank Dean Alford for thinking that women can practice self-restraint without effort, but when we are reading our Bibles we prefer to know PRECISELY what the Holy Ghost addresses to us, instead of finding between its pages the OPINION of even the most excellent UNINSPIRED man (Bushnell).

The Greek noun sophrosune is built upon the adjective sophron,–as we add “ness” to “good” to transform it into “goodness.” A book of the Apocrypha, 4 Maccabees (1:31), defines the word correctly, where it says it means “the mastery of the lusts.” In the one instance in which the word is used of women it is rendered “sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:15), which is not bad. But I hunt up the word in my Green’s small lexicon to the N.T., and read there that the FEMALE meaning of the word is “modesty,” which precisely accords with what we are pointing out,--that these men seem to imagine that the same word has two meanings according to whether it refers to men or to women,–in the Bible, at least (Bushnell).

Please notice that in every article that I have written regarding sex bias on this blog, that men have continually pointed THEIR translation of certain Hebrew and Greek words to “modesty” or “submission” for women. Why does one think that this is so? Well, let me be very clear on the answer:  It gives MEN power and control over women. It gives them the “authority” to tell women what to wear and how to act.  This is why the world is ran by men and women are treated un-equalIy in every aspect of society– the result of religious influence on society.   I would also like to ask this question: “Why do all the “King James Only” Pastors and Christians the world over, tout THIS translation as the TRUE and INNERANT Word of God?  WHY would they choose a translation such as this one to base their very foundations on? Answer: Because it is the translation that wrote women out of authority and equality and put them into servitude to men. The end result of this translation is that it allows men to control, dominate and abuse women however they see fit and they teach that this is GOD’s VERY WORDS. Really?

More Instances of Sex Bias in Translation

Sex of accused witches2The purpose of pointing out translational sex bias is to show how men have written women out of places of authority and honor in scripture.  Through translation, men have relegated women to subservient positions, and inequality, instead of the positions that God gave them.  In abusive religions, it is always the intent of the men to keep women under their control for sexual advantage and power.  This is why it is very important that these errors be pointed out. These are not new to scholars.  These errors in translation are well-known to many scholars, and have been, for centuries. The problem lies with “theologians” that desire to continue to propagate a very “deceptive lie” to maintain power, advantage, control and sexual dominance. All these changes in translation do is bring upon women everywhere sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, and death. The Inquisition is a testament to the corruptions and how they affected women when the King James Translation, fraught with sexual bias, errors  and corruption, was published and used as a weapon to subjugate, control and demean women; while the Church of Rome placed on them the “label” of “witch” and associated them with “Satan” and anything “bad” that happens. None of this is in scripture, but man’s own sex bias has caused this abuse. Anywhere women have been given authority and honor and autonomy in scripture, men have seen fit to change the manuscripts to give themselves the power, control and dominance.

The following is an excerpt from Katherine Bushnell, a Hebrew and Greek Scholar. This comes from her lesson 79 teaching:

  1. Isaiah 2:9 reads, “The mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself’.
  2. Isaiah 5:15, “The mean man shall be brought down, the mighty man shall be humbled.”
  3. Isaiah 31:8, “Not of a mighty man, . . not of a mean man.”

“Perhaps it will surprise the reader to be told that within these three short passages adjectives to the number of six have been added to the translation that do not exist in the original text, and no one but a Hebrew scholar can discover this for himself or herself.

We have been taught to believe that wherever words of importance are inserted into the English translation that do not exist in the original text, in order to convey the correct meaning to the English reader, those words are printed in italics, that all may understand that they are not in the original, and thus judge for themselves, by the help of the Spirit, as to their appropriateness. Thus, in verse 7 of this second chapter of Isaiah we read: “Neither is there any end of their chariots,” and we know that the three words in italics, — “is there any,” — do not belong to the original.

Not so, in these three passages. No word in them is printed in italics, and yet, the adjectives “mean,” “great,” and “mighty” have been added in every instance. . .

4.  Again, Psalm 49:2 reads, “Both low and high.”

5.  Psalm 62:9 reads, “Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie.”

Within these two short passages eight words are added to the text, and two words are left out, yet only a Hebrew scholar can discover it without aid, because the added words are not italicized as they should be, neither is there any indication of omitted words.

What does all this mean? . . . In most languages there are at least two words for “man,” one indicating the adult male, and the other meaning “mankind.” In Hebrew, as we have already explained, the adult male is indicated by the word ish; on the other hand, “mankind” is meant where adham (Adam) is used, when not of the person who first bore the name.

These passages should have been translated respectively something like this:

  1. “Man boweth down (or mankind boweth down), and the men humble themselves.”
  2. “Man shall be brought down, and the men shall be humbled.”
  3. “Not of the men . . . not of mankind.”
  4. “Both mankind and the men.”
  5. “Surely humanity (or mankind) is vanity, and the men are a lie.”

The best we can do, it is a little difficult to express the thing smoothly in English, because it lacks words which can always be used elegantly to distinguish between the adult male and mankind generally. The word we translate “the men” to conform to English usage, ish, is in the singular number. But a marginal note could have made this clear, without a dishonest translation of the text. And who but a set of pedants, inflated with intellectual pride, would have agreed that men were “great” when their mothers and wives did not appear in the same category, and “mighty,” “of high degree,” and “high;” but if the female sex and children get mixed with them, they must then be described as “mean,” and “low,” and “of low degree?”  These are not instances of faulty translations, but of unwarranted corruption of the meaning of the original text. The Hebrew has words for “high” and “low;” “mighty” and “mean,” If those were the ideas to be expressed; while ish is such a common word to be given these exalted meanings, that it is often rendered “each,” “everyone,” “whoso,” and “whosoever,”–referring to both sexes, sometimes to inanimate things, but mainly to the male.”

For further reading on corruptions made in translation, and more of Bushnell’s research, see the following Religion’s Cell articles on this blog:

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 1

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 2

The Conclusion of the Matter!

Offenders in the Church: Who they are and how do they operate?

The following video is a ‘must see’ for all pastors, church leaders and congregants of all denominations. You can visit GRACE on Facebook or visit their website.

What is GRACE?

GRACE is a non-profit organization made up of highly trained and experienced multi-disciplinary professionals who seek to educate and empower the Christian community to identify, confront and respond to the sin of child abuse.

[vimeo w=500&h=281]

Offenders in the Church: Who are they and how do they operate? from GRACE on Vimeo.


The Prevalence of Child Abuse in the United States

  • Child sexual abuse is 75x more common than pediatric cancer.
  • One child molester per square mile in the United States– Dept. of Justice
  • 38% of all girls and between 9%-16% of boys will be sexually abused by their 18th birthday. (With 75 million children in the United states, this translates to almost 15 million children who will be sexually victimized over the next 18 years!!)
  • 40% of children between 10-17 have been sexually solicited online.

The Prevalence of Child Abuse inside the American Church

  • Child abuse allegations against American churches average 70 per week. (Christian Ministry Resources. ** This number could be much higher due to under-reporting.)
  • 1% of surveyed churches reported abuse allegations annually!
  • Volunteers are more likely than paid staff to be abusers.

– 42% were volunteers
– 25% were paid staff
– 25% were other children

The ability of the Christian community to prevent child abuse has been hindered by inadequate information and training. The Church must learn to:

– Prevent Abuse
– Recognize Abuse
– Report Abuse
– Respond to Abuse

Those who harm children are often attracted to the Church environment.

“I considered church people easy to fool. . . they have a trust that comes from being Christians. They tend to be better folks all around and seem to want to believe in the good that exists in people. I think they want to believe in people. And because of that, you can easily convince, with or without convincing words.”

— Imprisoned Predator

Prevention Begins with Education on Child Sexual Abuse: General Observations

  • Abuse is seldom isolated. The average child molester victimizes between 50 and 150 children before being caught.

“I created my first victim when I was 13, a female victim. Sally was 6 and I was 13, I created my first male victim when I was 15, and I have been victimizing male children virtually nonstop until my incarceration.

Question:  How old are you now?
Answer: I am 33 now, and I have been incarcerated for three years.
Question:  How many total victims did you have?
Answer:  I have eleven male rape victims, one female rape victim, and I have approximately 1250 male molestation victims, and I say approximately because I really don’t know.

— Predator”

The “Double Life”

“I lived a double life . . . I would do kind and generous things for people. I would give families money that did not have any money and that was not from the church treasury. It was from my own bank accounts. I would support them in all the ways I could. Talk to them and encourage them. I would go to nursing homes and talk and pray with the elderly. I would do community service projects including picking up garbage and mowing lawns for elderly and handicapped people. . . go grocery shopping for them.”

— Imprisoned pedophile of admittedly over 95 victims and the youngest deacon in his church.

“I want to describe a child molester I know very well. This man was raised by devout Christian parents and as a child he rarely missed church. Even after he became an adult, he was faithful as a church member. he was a straight A student in high school and college. he as been married and has a child of his own. He coached little league baseball and was a choir director at his church. He never used illegal drugs and never had a drink of alcohol. He was considered the clean cut, all American boy. Everyone seemed to like him and he often volunteered in numerous civic community functions. He had a well-paying career and was considered “well to do” in society. But from the age of 13 years old, this boy sexually molested little boys. He never victimized a stranger. . . all of his victims were “friends”. . . I know this child molester very well because he is me!”

— Convicted child molester

Do we know any persons like these??? The fact is that a child abuser cannot be detected by his/her looks, his/her lifestyle, or his/her status in the community or church.


Impact of Likeability

  • Victims Protect Them (the abuser)
  • Parents Refuse to Believe (the Victim)
  • Authorities Discount (the victim’s story)
  • Communities Support Them (the abuser)
  • Juries Acquit Them (the abuser)

“Niceness is a decision. . . not a character trait” — DeBecker, 1997

Predators often prey on trusting and vulnerable young people.

Question: At church, you did not molest all the children. . . how would you choose?

Answer: First of all, you start the grooming process from day one. . . the children you are interested in. . . You find a child you might be attracted to. . . for me, it might be nobody fat.  It had to be a you know, nice-looking child. You maybe look at a kid that doesn’t have a father image at home. You know, you start deducting. . . this kid may not have a father, or a father that cares about him. . . say you have a group of 25 kids, you might find 9 that are appealing. . . then you start looking at their family backgrounds. . . then you find out which ones are most accessible. Then eventually, you get it down to the one you think is the easiest target, and that’s the one you choose to abuse.

– Imprisoned Pedophile

Predators will prey on children who few people will believe if they were to disclose the abuse.

“Persons who may be compulsive pedophiles, for instance, may obey the law in other ways, may be responsible in their work, may have concern for other persons.” – Berlin, quoted in Knopp, 1984, p.9

We must be vigilant in protecting ALL the children in our churches.

Child molesters are very professional at what they do, and they do a good job at it.

— Convicted child molester

Child Sexual Abuse within the Church – The 5 Exploitations

Exploitation of “Religious Cover”

  • “Religious Cover” is the outward demonstration of religious practices or doctrine that covers over more sinister intentions and behaviors.
  • Used to gain access and trust of children and their families (eg. youth workers, pastors, teachers, and coaches.)
  • Hard core offenders maintaining significant involvement with religious institutions “had more sexual offense convictions, more victims, and younger victims.” Eshurys & Smallbone, Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders (2006)

Exploitation of FAITH ISSUES

Issues of faith are often distorted & manipulated to coerce victims in submitting to abuse and to be quiet about it:

  • Defining “sin” to justify (Ex. This is the expression of God ordained love.)
  • Defining “sin” to silence. (Ex. You should be ashamed of your sin.)
  • Distancing from God. (Ex. Because of your sin, God doesn’t care about you, but I do.)

Can you think of others?

The victim’s own analysis of religious doctrine may result in confusion and silence.

Seven year old: “Am I still a virgin in God’s eyes?” “God is going to punish me for this secret sin.”

Exploitation of Power:

  • Submission to authority. From the earliest age, children are taught to “respect and obey their elders.”
  • Authoritarian Leadership – Faith leaders often distort their role & authority by claiming to speak for God.

– no accountability
– Unresponsive to concerns raised regarding abuse.
– Adults are valued more than children.
– Victims are seen as “sinful” and trouble-makers and are often ostracized.

These environments are ripe for abuse.

Exploitation of NEEDS:

Churches are always in need.

  • How many churches can you think of that are not in need of volunteers to help out with our children and young people? i.e. . . Nursery, youth group.
  • Child molesters will always use this need to their advantage in gaining access to our children.
  • Example: Predator moves into an area of need (choir director).

Church pews are filled with people in need.

Needy children and/or adults are magnets for those who sexually victimize children.

Exploitation of TRUST:

Christians usually foster a very trusting environment.

  • “Church Family”
  • Mission Field where the children referred to every adult as “Uncle” or “Aunt.”
  • Dropping off child in the nursery.
  • Can you think of other examples??

Children are taught to trust God. Clergy and adults should be “trusted” since they are “God’s representatives on earth.”

Eddie [pastor] always said that God had chosen me for something special. I guess I really wanted to believe that. Doesn’t every kid want to think they’re special? Besides, who was I to question a man of God? It wasn’t my place. My role was to be submissive.

– C. Brown (sexually molested by her pastor)

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 3 – The Conclusion of the Matter!

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 3

gender bias(See: Part 1 and Part 2 here.)

Understanding the “subtil” changes in translation regarding women, is of the utmost importance for women everywhere. In order to truly understand the scriptures and God’s will for women, we MUST endeavor to learn the TRUTH. If we do not, we will forever be ‘second-class’ citizens of the world. This was never God’s plan for us. This is why I have been covering this topic on sex bias and how it influenced the translators. This is why I spend all my time revealing the corruptions in translation of scripture on this blog through the words of known historians and scholars.  The countless articles I have written here, expose the LIES in translation that have affected every aspect of life for women across the globe.  Scholars the world over have known, for centuries, the changes in translation affecting women. But “religious” MEN have made sure to keep the many scholars and their findings, silenced.  Women and men everywhere need to open their eyes to the fact that women of the world, as a result of mistranslation, have been relegated to a state of servitude that has brought about the abuse of women worldwide throughout history. This said, let’s look at some more mistranslations that have been used as weapons against women everywhere.

Words in the Hebrew language are more difficult to set forth, to those that do not understand the language, because of the great variety of uses to which a word can be put. The same form may do duty as a noun, verb, and adjective, an adverb and even a preposition. For instance, the Hebrew word cha-yil, which occurs 242 times in the Old Testament, is translated:

  • “army” and “war” 58 times;
  • “host” and “forces” 43 times;
  • “might” or “power” 16 times;
  • “goods,” “riches,” “substance” and “wealth” in all, 31 times;
  • “band of soldiers,” “band of men,” “company” and “train” once each;
  • “activity” once;
  • “valour” 28 times;
  • “strength” 11 times.

The above are all noun forms. However, the word is often translated as an adjective or adverb too. It is translated:

  • “valiant” and “valiantly” 35 times;
  • “strong” 6 times;
  • “able” 4 times;’
  • “worthily” once and “worthy” once.

These are the complete lists of the various renderings of this word except for four instances in which the word is used in describing a woman. Please review the lists above and get the usage of the word clearly in your mind before proceeding further.

Now, let’s look at the last four of the remaining instances of this word as relating to women:

Ruth, the Moabitess, was a woman of courage and decision of character. In her loyalty to her dead husband’s mother, she refused to turn back and re-marry in her own land, but forsook her country and kindred to accompany her mother-in-law to a (to her) foreign land, and undertook there, to keep them both from starvation by the labor of her hands. Boaz, who afterwards married her, said to her: “All the city of my people doth know that thou art a woman of cha-yil,” (Ruth 3:11). Now considering the girl’s courage and devotion, how should this word have been translated? You have a list of meanings before you, and are quite competent to form an opinion. How would “thou art an able woman” or “thou art a woman of courage” do? The Septuagint Greek says, “Thou art a woman of power” (dunamis).

But it almost looks as though our English translators took no care, as to the precise language here. The circumstances, when Boaz spoke the words, were peculiar, but not improper in Israel; but man was praising a woman, and “of course” here is a reference to her reputation for chastity, and so it is translated, “thou art a virtuous woman.” But glance over the various meanings given to this word elsewhere. Not once has it reference to any other moral characteristic than that of strength or force. What courage this foreign girl had shown in supporting her mother-in-law!

Now for the next mistranslation of this word, because it relates to woman. The last chapter of Proverbs describes an ideal woman for a wife. The description is a mother’s to her son. It is quite different from the average man’s ideal of woman at her best. But the Bible describes her, in the language of Lemuel’s mother, as a woman whose “price is far above rubies.” Her are some of her striking characteristics:

  • “She is like the merchants’ ships, she bringeth her food from afar.”
  • “She considereth a field and buyeth it.”
  • “She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.”
  • “Strength and honour are her clothing.”

Surely this must be a “strong-minded” woman who is praised here!

Three times over, the “strength” of this woman of Proverbs is referred to. Each line of the description speaks of efficiency. She is praised in turn for the general goodness and trustworthiness, energy, efficiency, enterprise, far-sightedness, early-rising, business capacity, gardening, muscular strength, weaving, benevolence, fore-thought, embroidery work, elegant clothes for herself, tailoring for her husband, honor, wisdom, kindness, piety. But, as it happens, no definite reference is made to her purity, or to her faithfulness to her husband in the marriage relation.

Now what one word would best sum up such a character? The precise original expression is the same as in the verse we have quoted from Ruth,– “A woman of cha-yil.” We must suppose that the translators hastily concluded that they knew, without looking closely at the original, what sort of woman a mother ought to recommend to her son for a wife, and so they translated: “Who can find a virtuous woman?” That represents the undoubted sentiments of the translators; but it does not represent the teaching of the original text. “Virtue” is of priceless value to woman, to be sure; but her duty to her husband is not her ONLY duty; all her life cannot be summed up in that ONE moral quality.

“But,” someone will reply, “virtue is often used in the sense of a summing up of all moral characteristics.” That may be; but it would not be so understood by the common folk, in this connection, and the Bible is supposed to be translated for them. The vast majority, reading this verse, would suppose the word “virtue” to refer to the woman’s chastity. The Septuagint translates here (“Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in Askelon,” lest the study of the sacred tongues be prohibited to woman!), “A masculine woman. . . more valuable is she than very costly stones.”

And finally, the description of this ideal woman is summed up in the 29th verse, in the words: “Many daughters have done cha-yil, but thou excellest them all.” “Worthily,” “valiantly,” are the only translations that we have in any other part of the Bible for this word, when used as an adverb. But after the same careless manner, the word is here translated “virtuously.” We suppose there was an instinctive distaste for showing that the Bible praised, in the inspired words of a woman writer, a “strong” woman, for doing “valiantly.”

Now for the fourth instance of the mistranslation of this word: Proverbs 12:4 reads, in the original, “A woman of cha-yil is a crown to her husband,” and there is no doubt that she is here again praised for her strength of character. But the English reads, “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband.” Doubtless such a woman is a crown to her husband, but women prefer to know what the Bible says, rather than to be merely reminded of a favorite axiom among men. Here again, the Septuagint translates, “masculine.”

“But,” and objector will say ” ‘virtuous’ comes from the Latin word vir, which means ‘man,’ and why is it not the proper word to use here,–in the sense of ‘manly,’ strong?'” Because “virtue,” while it has this literal sense, is not used to describe “manliness” in English, but “morality” in general, among men: and when used of a woman, it is understood to refer to morality of one sort, more particularly, which happens not to be referred to in these extended descriptions in the quotations from Proverbs. If the translator had thought that this word “virtue,” or the word “virtuously” were likely to be understood in their literal sense by women,–“manly” and “manfully,” who can believe that he would ever have employed those words here?

Virtue is a quality of great importance to women, and had they been more clearly taught from pulpit, and by a more careful translation of such passages as we have been considering the obligation laid upon them in the Bible, to be strong, in body, mind and spirit; if these theologians themselves had learned this from the Bible, women would have been far better equipped to guard their virtue,–since the ruin of girls is usually due to weak character and general unfitness to cope with the world. To sum up: This Hebrew word, cha-yil, used over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible, signifies “force,” “strength,” “ability.” But in every instance where it relates to women, AND NOWHERE ELSE, it is translated “virtue,”–i.e., chastity.

— Katherine Bushnell, 1923

I sincerely hope that these lessons on sex bias open the eyes of those women and men that have been taught from the pulpits of America and abroad, to the FACT that MEN have changed scripture to write women out of autonomy, equality, honor, strength and dignity. These minor changes may not seem huge until one realizes the POSITION these changes relegate woman to in society and religion. It takes away their independence and freedom to be business minded, independent, and strong.  These changes have taken place not just in the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well, and I will continue to expose them.  In every society that is male-dominated, the changes made, relegate women to “servitude” to men.  This is not biblical. This is not ethical. This is not morally right. Women have been done the greatest injustices and no one seems to care enough to fix all the mistranslations regarding women. There are more mistranslations, but I think that one can get the picture here regarding the “subtil” work of men, in translation of scripture, to keep women in subjection to them.

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 2

gender bias

Scriptural changes that instigate abuse, inequality and, keep Women out of Government

In part one of Sex Bias Influences Translators, I gave everyone two examples in scripture of how men changed the meaning of scripture based on mens “preconceptions” and “self interests.” I showed how the story of the exposure of Sarah, at Abraham’s request, in Abimelech’s harem was turned around to show Sarah being “reproved” when in fact, she was not; thus leading men to believe, based on the way men worded the changes, that men had the permission to humiliate and abuse their wives. The second example was Leviticus 19:20. The change that was made here by men, gave them the power to abuse their female slave without recourse; and, took away the human rights, honor and dignity of the slave in the process. Both of these changes were done to give men power and control over women; something God did not authorize.

Now, I would like to cover “the wisdom of women.” In scripture, Cha-kam, “wise”, occurs about 130 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is invariably translated “wise” except in the following places: in 2 Sam 13:3 “subtil;” and in 10 instances “cunning,” when used of skilful workmen, 1 Chron. 22:15; 2 Chron. 2:7 (twice); 13 and 14 (twice); Isaiah 3:3; 40:20; Jer. 10:9. But in Jer. 9:17, we read in our English, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that they may come; and send for cunning women that they may come, and let them make haste, and take up a wailing for us,” etc. The reference is to the low moral tone prevailing at Jerusalem, which threatened the overthrow of the city. Now here, surely, there is no reference to skilful workmanship on the part of women, and moreover the A.V. leaves out the rather important article “the”.  Here “the wise women” are called upon by Jehovah to show their interest and concern in matters of State,–the moral corruptness of the city; and “the wise women” are further instructed to teach their daughters to be concerned about such matters,–verse 20. Huldah (2Kgs. 22:14), admittedly the wisest prophet of the times, may have been still living at this very time (Bushnell, 1923).

Another case of prejudice in translation is Isaiah 3:12. The word translated “children” in this verse is a plural masculine participle of the verb “to glean,” “abuse,” “practice.” It is translated “glean” in Lev. 19:10, Deut. 24:21, Judg. 20:45, and Jer. 6:9. The word has no translation such as “children” anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word altogether is used for “children,” and “child,” in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with “women.” As to the word translated “women:” Two words, without the rabbinical vowel “points,” are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-shim. The first word means “exactors;” the one with the vowel mark under the first letter means “women.” The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the words mean one or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than to pass under women rulers, and then translated the other word “children” to match it. Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them. (Bushnell, 1923)

There seems little in the context to support the translation “children” and “women.” But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the “gleaners” (that is tax-gatherers) and “extortioners,” they are threatened in the following language: “The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of His people, and the princes (“rulers,” masculine, not feminine gender), thereof for ye have eaten up the vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R.V.) my people, and grind the faces of the poor?” Because of this context, we believe that OPTION took the wrong turn when it decided to translate this verse as it stands in our English version; and that this translation would have had a strong showing up of its sophistries, had educated women been on the last Revision Committee (Bushnell, 1923).

These instances are trivial, when taken one by one. However, there are many straws floating in one direction that prove that the current runs strongly against women in every area of translation that involves women in passages of scripture. These passages have been translated in such a way that men believe that it is a “shame” for women to rule in government! It is sex bias, plain and simple, and was done to keep women on an unequal level to men for their own self-interests.

I will stop here for brevity, once again, and pick back up with this topic in my next article. Before we can proceed to exhibit other places in the Old Testament in which an unusual meaning has been placed on a word (that would not have been put upon the same word had it not specially related to women), we must cover some Hebrew language understanding and then delve into some more sex bias in translation.

Sex Bias Influences Translators – Part 1

equalitySex Bias Influences Translators AND has Led to Inequality for Women

For the past year and a half, I have been giving historical, biblical and scholarly input regarding errors in translation of scripture. I have been exposing lies of the “religious system” being taught as truth. This was the main reason I wrote my book, Religion’s Cell: Doctrines of the Church that Lead to Bondage and Abuse.  I wanted to expose these huge lies that have caused women so much harm.  These many “lies” have been the weapons used to subjugate and degrade women the world over.  The many articles that I have written, quoting experts in Hebrew and Greek, are fraught with a “theme.”  This theme is that men have written women out of places of honor, dignity, respect and equality in the original texts of scripture. As a result, women have been, and still are, the most abused race of people in human history. At the hands of men, who have interwoven these biases against women into civil laws in some countries, women are sexually exploited, sexually mutilated, abused, burned, psychologically abused, beaten and degraded just because they are women. It is time for these injustices to end and women to be given their equality and honor and dignity back.

Throughout history, men have leaned toward the strong side of preconception or self-interest in interpreting scripture.  Should anyone be surprised at this?  As a result of this, women have always borne the brunt of the abuses that stem from these “preconceptions” and “self-interests.”  Male Theology has been the “foundation” for many of the world’s governments.  Unfortunately, this theology is fraught with opinion and preconceptions and interpretations done by MEN and MEN ALONE. No class or sex should have an exclusive right to set forth the meaning of the original text of scripture.

“It is notorious that the Samaritan Hebrew text, even has been manipulated to a considerable extent to suit Samaritan prejudices, so that the manuscript must be corrected by comparison with others before it can be trusted on points that involve Samaritan interests. The Alexandrian, or Septuagint version, shows traces of an attempt to meet the prejudices of Egyptians (Bushnell, 1923).” Is it any wonder that all versions throughout history, made by men, should reveal the fact that, on the women question, they all travel more or less in a circle, in accordance with sex bias, hindering the freedom and progress of women around the world? Most “religious” men, through “self-interest” believe that women serve God best as their own undeveloped subordinate, heaping upon them undeserved and criminal treatments.

By way of example, let me bring to light two cases of sex bias.  In Genesis, chapter 20, we read the story of the exposure of Sarah, at Abraham’s request, in Abimelech’s harem(?). When the king discovers that Sarah was a married woman (through the reproof of God), he sends for Abraham, reproves him, and then pays a thousand pieces of silver to him for the injury done to her good name. The version King James 1611 (A.V.), and the version of 1884, construe the language spoken by the King on this occasion quite differently!

  • A.V. — “He is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee,”
  • R.V. — “It is to thee for a covering of the eyes, to all that are with thee,”
  • A.V. — “and with all other: thus she was reproved,”
  • R.V. — “and in respect of all thou art righted,”

Abimelech did this so that all would understand that the wrong was his, not Sarah’s; and she would be righted before all and ashamed before none, and would not need to cover her eyes (face) for shame. So the R.V. indicates; but the A.V. makes the blame fall upon Sarah, who is “reproved.” Abraham, was no “covering to her eyes,”– he was the primal cause of her shame and humiliation!

Another passage is Leviticus 19:20. This passage is about wrong relations with a female slave who is “not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her.” The A.V. states: “She shall be scourged. . . and he shall bring his offering.” The R.V. says: “They shall be punished . . . and he shall bring,”— etc. But the literal sense is, “There shall be inquisition . . . and he shall bring.” That is, there shall be rigid inquiry made, and when it is ascertained that she is not in a state of freedom at all, then only he shall bring the offering.

“Luther once said: “No gown worse becomes a woman than to be wise.” Luther only held the prevailing views of his day regarding women. Such men could not perceive when Scripture expressed a different thought on the subject. Prov. 14:1 says, in Hebrew, “The wisdom of woman buildeth her house,” but not being able to appreciate the advantages of female education, men rendered it: “Every wise woman buildeth her house,” that is, the woman who devotes herself to housewifely duties is pronounced “wise.” But this is not the thought; rather, wisdom itself, in woman, will build her own (not her husband’s) house,–elevate her to a place of honour. Every time there has been an opportunity for the use of OPTION in translation, use has been made of that option, by this or that man of learning, to build up one sex and to depreciate the other, and so the result, through the ages, has been cumulative. (Bushnell, 1923)”

For the sake of brevity, I will stop here. Later, though, I will bring more examples to the surface on this issue. It is time for these lies of the religious system to be exposed  for what they are — weapons for men to use against women in order to keep them on an un-equal level than them. This inequality has permeated all societies around the globe and it is time for this to change.

More Mistranslations that have HARMED Women

translationsSimple changes in translation can make a BIG difference. Notice, as I begin to bring these changes to the forefront, that all the wrong renderings of words in Scripture affect women and their roles to men. Do you think this is a coincidence?  The following, unmasks one of the Church’s lies regarding women and, male dominance over women. The following excerpt draws attention to the undeniable inconsistency existing between what theologians THINK something means and what close examination of the original Hebrew reveals. This research is the result of a Greek and Hebrew scholar, physician and missionary, Katherine Bushnell, written in 1923. Since women have born the brunt of such oppression and abuse throughout history, it is imperative that EVERY man and woman the WORLD over knows where the corruptions lie and how they came about. We must set right, what has been rendered wrong and give women back, their autonomy, honor, dignity and equality. It is only RIGHT that current translations be revised to reflect the true renderings, thus ending the suffering that women are enduring under the exacting and heavy hand of religion everywhere.

Gen 3:16  Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The correct rendering of Gen. 3:16:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee,”

“The usual construction put upon the language of the first verse fits accurately nowhere; the correct interpretation of the second verse fits all around.  The original word used here is teshuqa and only occurs three times in the Hebrew language. From this, we can conclude that its sense must be fixed by studying its relation to other words in the sentences where it occurs. We can also study its derivation and structure and the way it is rendered in the ancient versions of Scripture.

Gen. 3:16 – “-and-to-Adam”  –   Eve’s teshuqa”

Gen. 4:7 – “-and-to-Cain”     Abel’s teshuqa” – (or perhaps sin’s teshuqa)

Sol. Song 7:10, “-and-to-the-Church     Christ’s teshuqa” – (as usually interpreted)

Comparing these, we find there are no verbs expressed. The conjunction is one for all, as is the preposition. This is true of the Hebrew original also. In fact, there is variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must then, be similar.

All the stress of teaching woman’s supposed obligations to man is in the “shall be,” which is SUPPLIED by the translators. The force of the mandatory teaching, then, rests upon a hiatus in the sentence. A hiatus is defined as: A gap or interruption in space, time, or continuity; a break.

If we conclude that the context proves that this is an imperative, then the previous sentences must be imperative, or the following occurs:

  • MUST women bear children in sorrow, whether she wishes to rejoice or not?
  • MUST the serpent bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, whether he will or not?
  • MUST man rule woman, whether he will or not?

If this be the commandment of God, and a man must rule women, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!”  But the Apostle Paul said: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Thus we see that the context does NOT prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action.  So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative.  As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over women, especially in heathen lands. But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”

The word teshuqa does not necessarily refer to the appetite between male and female, either, because it would then be out of place in the second sentence. It does not necessarily imply the subordination of Eve to Adam, as many religious leaders imply. If it did, then the third sentence would make Christ subordinate to the Church; or, according to the other interpretations of the Song of Solomon, the man is, at any rate, subordinate to the woman.

Nicholas Fuller, an eminent Oriental scholar, wrote an interesting chapter on this subject in a Latin work entitled Theological Miscellany, published in 1612. In reply to those who hold that the sense of the passage is, “the appetite of the wife is about to be in the power of the husband and subdued by him,” he says: “Just as if the nothing would be longed for by the wife excepting what would be pleasing to the husband. Absurd notion! Others again wish the appetite to be understood as that by which woman seeks marital dominion. And yet it is not very probable that this yoke is sustained by spontaneous longing for it . . . This is not effected by longing, then, but it is suffered because it is not declined. Besides, Scripture saith NOT, “The appetite of the wife shall be inclined to the dominion of the husband,’ but ‘to the husband’ himself. Wherefore, if teshuqa is allowed to be translated ‘appetite’ certainly this appetite is common and by nature reciprocal, and bending each in like manner to the other. Therefore, it displays a more equitable condition of life than dominion. Nay, moreover, if this form of speech declares the appetite for a ruler, Christ would adopt the Church as His ruler, for in the same manner the Church speaks, when, of Christ as a Spouse, in Canticles 7:10 it says, ‘I am my beloved’s, towards me is His appetite,’ as indeed they would there translate.”

Also, Lewis’ note in Lange’s Commentary declares: “The sense of this word [teshuqa] is not libido, or sensual desire.”

As to the structure, and derivation of teshuqa, apparently it is derived from the verb shuq, meaning in its simplest form “to run.” The prefix, te, gives the word and abstract sense, and it corresponds to our termination – “ness” in such words as “goodness,” “kindness,” etc. The ending a, is added to give the word the feminine form usual to Hebrew abstract nouns. If this word is taken from the intensive form of the verb, it would bear the sense “to run repeatedly,” that is “to run back and forth.” But to keep running back and forth would necessitate frequent turning, and hence the word might easily have the derived sense of “turning;” and an abstract noun be derived therefrom, not meaning a literal “turning,” but a quality of the character, a “turning.” The sense “desire” has come to us from the Talmud, in the “Ten Curses of Eve.” All the most ancient versions, give the idea of “turning,” and that alone, for this Hebrew word “teshuqa.”

The Pentateuch of the Septuagint is especially esteemed for its accuracy. This version renders teshuqa into the Greek word apostrophe in both passages in Genesis: and epistrophe in Canticles. The former word, apostrophe, is familiar to us all: it means “turning away,” and the latter, “turning to.” The teaching is, that Eve is turning away from God to her husband, and, as a consequence of the deflection, Adam will rule over her. All ancient manuscripts without any exceptions whatever, give no other sense by “turning” for teshuqa.

Now, as to some variations in the rendering of the passages in Genesis: The Talmud, as stated earlier, sets for the teaching that God pronounced “Ten Curses” upon Eve; but the Talmud is not a translation of the Scriptures, but a compilation of the TRADITIONS of the Jews. The fifth, sixth and ninth of these “curses” supply the sense “lust” for the Hebrew of these “curses” together with the teaching that woman must center her “desire” upon her husband alone; his “desire” could wander away to other women. From this immoral teaching the English rendering has its sole original authority.

Jerome’s LATIN VULGATE was made about 382 A.D. He went to Palestine and studied Hebrew under Jewish rabbis. He renders the first passage, “Thou shalt be under the power of a husband, and he will rule over thee.” The first phrase is mere guess-work; it is no translation of the original words. The second passage reads “his appetite,” — whatever that may mean in a relation between brothers. The third passage reads, “his turning.” The ARABIC is of the most uncertain date; probably not earlier than the tenth century. It renders the word teshuqa in the three places, respectively, “direction,” “moderation” and “turning.”

A TARGUM is not a translation, but a paraphrase, — the Synagogue explanation of the sense of Scripture. The TARGUM of ONKELOS, or Chaldee Paraphrase, was published at Babylon, and therefore would conform quite closely to the traditions embodied in the Babylonian Talmud which teaches the “ten curses of Eve.” This Targum–the mose reliable one–relates only to the Pentatuch. It renders, “lust” in the first passage, and “turning” in the second. A very unreliable Targum, accredited wrongly to “Joseph the blind,” of about the eleventh century, renders “lust” in the third passage.

Wiener says: “The coincidences of truth are infinite. In other words, the true hypothesis explains ALL difficulties.” Let us apply this scientific test to our claim that teshuqa means “turning:”

Aquila and Symmachus assume that Eve “turns” to make an alliance with her husband, hence they translate “alliance.” Or, according to other readings, Symmachus assumes that the “turning” is rather, as yet, an impulse, than an act, — he translates “impulse.” (This Greek word for “impulse” does not necessarily imply a sensual impulse. It is used in Acts 14:5, and translated “assault,” and in James 3:4, – not rendered in the A.V., but the R. V. reads: “whither the impulse of the steersman willeth.”) The Arabic reasons, “If Eve is about to turn away from God, it must be in some direction;” so it renders, “direction.” Jerome plainly shows he does not know what teshuqa means, but since the latter part of the phrase refers to the man’s part, — “he will rule over thee,” — he concludes that the beginning of the passage must refer to woman’s position, and renders, “Thou shalt be under the power of a husband.”

Likewise, the sense “turning” reconciles the three passages one with another, whereas the sense “desire” puts them in utter conflict. Eve is “turning” from God, and He warns her that if she does this, she will fall under the dominion of Adam. Abel is “turning” toward Cain, in all the confidence of a younger and unsuspecting brother. God warns Cain prophetically that this confiding approach of his brother will be a temptation to slay him in his defenselessness. The third passage is a joyful boast of the bridegroom’s favor and attention, “He is turning to me.”

Prof. H.G. Mitchell of Boston University, in his book, The World Before Abraham, has well represented the general sense of the phrase translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband.” He says, “This interpretation, however, is not altogether satisfactory. the word here used is found only in two other places int he O.T., Gen. 4:7 and Cat. 7:10. In the former of these two passages, if it means anything, it must mean mere inclination, or something equally removed from sensuality: and in the latter, where a man is the subject, it has the force of affection, devotion. there is therefore ground for the opinion that the author in this passage intended to make Jehovah say that the very tenderness of the woman for the husband would [eventually] enable him to make and keep her his inferior.”

Were the teaching true that all women must suffer pain and servitude for the sin of Eve, then it would be pertinent to ask ourselves, “Why must we suffer?” Is it because we are Eve’s offspring?  Aren’t men equally Eve’s offspring?  The only conclusion we can draw is that it’s because we are FEMALE offspring. But who made us female offspring – Women or God? GOD.  If God made us females, then is he punishing women, not because of our own fault,  not because we are sinners, not even because Eve sinned? In reality, God would be punishing women for what He Himself made us – because we are women and not men. This has to be one of the most vicious attacks on God’s reputation for justice that we have ever heard. The idea that “sorrow” in this verse means labor pains, or periodical suffering in women, is far-fetched. The same word is used of Adam in the very next verse. This word is not used for such suffering anywhere in all the Scriptures.

Since this passage in Genesis, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband,” has been the cause of much immorality among men, in the cruelty and oppression they have inflicted upon their wives; since this false translation has been the cause of much degradation, unhappiness and suffering to women; and since this translation has been made the very keystone of an arch of doctrine subordinating woman to man, without which keystone the arch itself falls to pieces; and since the Apostle Paul’s utterances on the “woman question” are always interpreted as though this perversion of the sense of Gen. 3:16 was his accepted foundation upon which he builds his super structure, it behooves us to review again the history of the ancient translation of the word teshuqa, and this we will do with the aid of the appended table:

teshuqaFrom this Table we readily see that of the twelve ancient versions, 10 furnish us with the rendering “turning”, in at least one passage.

Of the 28 known renderings of teshuqa, in the above Table, the word is rendered “turning” 21 times.

In the 7 remaining renderings, only 2 seem to agree; all the others disagree.

With such testimony as this. . . we can see no justification for rendering this word “desire.” Even the Babylonian Targum renders it “turning” in the second passage (Gen. 4:7), and thus lends its authority to this sense. Nothing but the rabinic perversion and addition to the Scriptures, teaching that God pronounced ten curses on Eve (something that Scripture nowhere teaches) seems to be at the bottom of this extraordinary reading. A hint of such a meaning for teshuqa as “lust” seems to have crept into the Bible through Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But even he did not give the sense “appetite” for the word as relates to Eve, but as to Abel; and further, even Jerome adds his authority, in his translation of the third passage, to the sense “turning”, and for 3:16, in his writings.

But let us now trace the adoption of “desire” into the English versions. In 1380 appeared the first English version by Wycliffe. It was not made from the Hebrew original, but from the Latin Vulgate, and it follows its readings in all three places. The Douay Bible, of 1609, of the Roman Catholic Church, is also a reproduction of the Latin Vulgate. Putting these two on one side as mere translations of the Vulgate, we turn to the others.

After Wycliffe’s version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: “Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis.” what would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word “lust,”–and that is precisely what he does in the first and third place; in the second, he translates, “appetite.”

Pagnino’s version was published at Lyons in 1528. Seven years later, in 1535, Coverdale’s English Bible appeared, published at Zurich, probably. Tyndale’s version, in sections, had appeared in the time between Pagnino’s and Coverdale’s, published at Cologne and at Worms. It is to be noted that these were days of persecution, when no English Bible could have been published in England, and this may in part account for these versions being influenced by Pagnino.  At any rate, from the time Pagnino’s version appeared, every English version, excepting the two Vulgate translations we put on one side, has followed Pagnino’s rendering for the first passage, up to the present day. As to the second passage, Cranmer’s Bible (1539) first introduced “lust” into this place, which was later followed by the Geneva Bible, and the Authorised and Revised versions. But Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew (John Rogers) and Cranmer all retained “turning” in the third passage. But the three latest Protestant Bibles, Geneva, Authorised and Revised, have obliterated all trace of any other sense but “desire.” The reading of the older English Bibles which follow Pagnino is, “Thy lust (or lusts) shall pertayne to thy husband.”

Now will you please turn to the Title Page of your Bible. If you have an Authorised Version, you will read the assurance given to the reader, that the Book has been “Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” If you have a Revised Version of 1884, it will claim to be “the version set forth A.D. 1611 compared with the most ancient authorities and revised.”  These assurances do not hold good, in this case where the status and welfare of one-half the human race is directly and vitally concerned; and the highest good of the other half just as vitally concerned, if even more remotely and less visibly. Pagnino’s word has been retained against the overwhelming authority of the ancient versions.”

Additional Note: It is to be noted that the Church Fathers seem to be ignorant of any other sense but “turning” for this word. We have noted that the following employ “turning,” in one, two or all three passages: Philo (a Jew,-not a Ch. Father died 50 A.D.), Clement of Rome (d.100), Irenaeus (d.202), Tertullian (born 160), Origen (b.186), Epiphanius (b. 310 in Palestine), Jerome (b. 335,–in both Genesis verses, in spite of his own different renderings), Ambrose (b. 340), Augustine (b. 354) and Theodoret (b.386).

In spite of plain sense of the Greek words apostrophe and epistrophe, and the Latin rendering of teshuqa, conversio (all conveying, in their root, the sense of “turning”), the well known translation of the Church Fathers, published by T. and T Clark of Edinburgh, renders the word “desire,” in these passages. But these words cannot be LAWFULLY rendered thus.”


From all of this research, one can clearly see that “translation” by MEN and their “interpretations” and “opinions” and “desires” (for control and power over women), have “tainted” scripture translations and rendered most Bible versions as “weapons” to be used against women to keep them in BONDAGE to MEN. Because of these mistranslations, women have borne the brunt of sexual exploitation, sexual mutilation, incest, rape, physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, oppression, inequality, torture and murder. They have been relegated to servitude regardless of morality, ethics, honor, dignity, love, respect and compassion. One can clearly see this fruit of corruption in countries where religion is interwoven with civil law and women have no rights to protect themselves from these abuses or their abusers. The lies of the “religious system” need to come to the forefront of humanity and wrongs need to be made right. One half the human race suffers and no one seems to really care. This is a testament to the reality that there is a clear lack of moral integrity the world over.

When a Branch Falls – The tactic of “Shunning” used against Victims of Abuse

Author’s Note:

One of the main tactics used by the Religious System against those who speak out about their abuse is “ostracizing” or “shunning” of the victim and his or her family. Throughout the years, it has become a weapon of choice amongst clergy and Christians. It is used to SILENCE victims. By using this tactic, the church leadership enables perpetrators to move on to their next victim and the trauma inflicted on the victims and their families, is huge! For some, the risk of losing all the friends that they have ever known, their “church family”, is enough to keep them silent. Relationships in the Church all hinge on the premise that we must “keep the unity” of the church family intact. When there are hidden abuses that come to the surface, however, it brings conflict into the church as other members take sides and are pitted against each other. Many churches have been split over this type of conflict arising in the church.

When the abuser is the pastor or a person in a position of leadership in the church, the trauma to the victim and their families is ten-fold. I speak about this in my book, Religion’s Cell: Doctrines of the Church that Lead to Bondage and Abuse. “This type of behavior leaves its victims in a state of shock at first. Then the shock turns into a deep and hurtful wound of the spirit. Some will walk away from the faith as a result of this tactic, while others may walk away from the church. And yet there are some that will stay and take the abuse because they have been brainwashed into believing there is no other place to go that preaches and teaches the truth. In all instances, the wound eventually becomes covered over without ever being dealt with properly. This type of wound is dangerous and can manifest itself later on by being duplicated by the victim against someone else, or it can manifest itself in adverse behaviors and vices that will be hidden from the view of the church body.” (Religion’s Cell, pg. 23)

Attached to “shunning” is shame and guilt. The abuser wants to put on the back of the victim the guilt that it was “the victim’s fault.” This mindset is also propagated throughout the congregation against the victim. Many church leaders have made victims stand in front of their congregations and “confess” to their “sin” of __________. (You can fill in the blank.) I have seen children standing before my own “church family” and having to admit that they were the guilty one simply because that is what leadership told them they needed to do! CHILDREN! When a girl is molested or raped in the church setting, the mentality is that it is the girl’s fault. When a young boy is molested or raped in the church setting, it is the boy’s fault. This guilt that these CHILDREN carry with them has destructive tentacles that poison every aspect of their lives. The tentacles are far reaching and, the destruction attached to these tentacles, can even carry over into their children’s lives when they get married and have families of their own. This path of destruction has no end UNTIL the abusers have been dealt with and these victims are FREED from the shame and guilt and pain and suffering that they have been carrying. I tell victims of abuse often, that God made a provision in scripture to protect victims of abuse and crime. It involves RESTITUTION to the victim. However, today’s clergy have by-passed this provision and teach a “forgive and forget” mentality that perpetrates more abuse in the church.

Nancy’s story is not an isolated one! I too, have been on the receiving end of shunning. It is painful and hard to deal with. Nancy’s story is a tragic one. The “family” that she so desperately needed to support her and her sexually abused boys, left her alone to fight in the darkness of anguish and despair; all the while, hoping that their tactic would silence her lips from going to the authorities about the abuses. What a sad state the church has fallen in to! Here’s Nancy’s Story:

When a Branch Falls
By Nancy Bicknell

One of my favorite drawings I was drawn to as a young teen artist was from the poem, The Last Leaf. I suffered from childhood depression and was eventually admitted to an intensive impatient program after some observant professional in my life picked up on the cues I was sending out in my drawings. I would draw this gnarly tree that had all but one of its branches cut off and, on that branch, was one leaf hanging on as the wind whipped it back and forth. That drawing actually saved my life when a teacher, seeing the signs of depression and assessing my self-harming behaviors, reached out to get me help. Unlike many of the Independent Fundamental Baptist survivors put in unregulated homes where Ungodly Discipline was used, I was in a state run Mental Hospital in Madison , Wisconsin, and I did very well.

I got up this morning and that drawing came to my mind…no, not because I am thinking of harming myself, but because I am remembering when a branch fell out of a tree and took out the back window on my car. That was a couple of years ago when I was still in the IFB cult and my husband was suddenly struck with a severe mental illness leaving me as the main branch to hold things together. I was not much stronger than my husband, at that time, who was hospitalized with Depression with Psychosis and catatonia. (This was quite weird because, that is what had happened to me as a teenager.)

I was determined to be the ‘Strong Branch’ and, to lean on God again and have the Independent Fundamental Baptist church hold me up, as I knew my own history and did not want my mental health issues to be triggered. So, I did what an artist does, and that is to begin to draw pictures to sell and keep my home together. I had been shunned from the Independent Fundamental Baptist church some years ago after my son, Scott’s IFB teacher, had sex with him and we were fired as teachers. The family branches were broken from the IFB abuse and we separated. I remarried many years later to my current husband who continues to suffer today, being bedridden as well.

During this time, an IFB Professor and his wife who had been my friends for years, saw my suffering and reached out to me to encourage me to come back to the IFB fold and connect my disconnected branch back into the IFB tree trunk. I felt alone and desperate for family at this time, and remembered this professor and his wife’s love for me over the past years in the IFB. The professor had always supported my art work. He had me paint a life portrait of his children when I was his student. When he had a house fire, he risked life and limb to save the portrait from the fire. Later, my house burned, and he and his wife sat with me every day as we sorted through my burned up paintings I had in my personal collection in my home. Our spirits were melted together by the fires and we became family.

So, I again connected my broken branch to the support of the IFB Tree Trunk. When another tree branch fell on my car, the professor seeing I was driving with a plastic window, offered to pay for a new one. When he saw a need in my family, like with the fire, he and his wife came to the rescue. The professor’s wife, who was now my best friend, also became ill, so we both had spouses who needed our care. We understood each other; I thought we were all like family.

Then, another BRANCH FELL. My other son, Doug, who had become isolated and seemingly depressed, spilled the beans about his violent sexual abuse during a spanking at the same Independent Fundamental Baptist School! Immediately, I saw The Last Leaf drawing in my head, for him. I was stunned, and unable to respond for weeks, until one day, I finally reached out to my professor friend. I thought he would know what to do, but, as it turned out, he was friends with the abuser. My beloved professor friend, a deacon at the church, now saw that my family had once again become a branch that need to be severed. We now had become a liability to the IFB church and the only way he would continue to be our friend was if we never talked about the abuse outside of the church walls.

Well, not talking about the abuse was going to cause my son’s Last Leaf to fall, and I was not sure of my own mental health, so, we as a family, including my other son, Scott, reached out for help on the IFB cult Support groups on Facebook. Because of this, my professor friend said that he would not talk to me ever again and, if I tried to come to his Sunday school class he would not acknowledge me. Shunned again, and cut asunder, we went through another fire. Even though we both had chronically ill spouses, the exposing of my other son’s abuse, became the “last straw” that severed our relationship not only with the Professor and his wife, but the church, for the final time. We left the church and, once again, experienced loss of friendships, hurt and ostracizing from those who “professed to love us.”

Well, a Branch Fell on my heart last night. “I heard that my best friend, the professor’s wife, who I have not seen or talked to for 2 years now, has died. I asked my very ill husband who fights depression and went through the trauma with me regarding our boys’ sexual abuse, If we should attend the funeral. His response was, “No, you can’t.” So, here I am, once again, cut off. My heart is broken for the loss of my friend whom I loved so dearly. I am crying as I write this, but realize that the day will come when I can talk to her in Heaven. There won’t be any shunning in Heaven. God has not cut me asunder like the IFB church and its people have; and last night, it seemed like I saw her peaking though a cloud saying in her lovely impish way. “Hi, there friend, heaven is just as we thought it would be, and I will talk at ya’ later.”

From the Author: Stories like this drive home the reality of the pain and suffering that those who are shunned feel. Even after the severing of the ties, the emotional bonds never die. Victims struggle from day to day trying to figure out how they can suddenly “not be loved” anymore; especially when they desperately NEED the support of friends and family in order to overcome the abuse and trauma. They feel betrayed and, struggle with this betrayal. Sadly, victims of abuse in today’s churches have a long way to go in affecting any changes in the religious system and the use of these types of abusive tactics. However, do to the advent of the internet, victims now have a medium that gives them a voice and, that voice is ever growing in VOLUME. The voices of the abused now encompass every area of the world and allows these victims to come together as one to shout to the world what they have suffered at the hands of clergy. It is enabling them to finally seek the RESTITUTION they have been denied by the church. My hope is that these voices will be heard by those who can affect change in order to protect victims of clergy abuse.

Translation Errors Have ALWAYS Brought Harm To Women

Throughout religious systems of the world, there is a “supposed” law of retribution upon all women because Eve sinned. The “sentence,” I will multiply . . . thy conception,” has wrought terrible havoc with the health and happiness of wives; because, so read it has been understood to rob woman of the right to determine when she should become a mother, and to place that right outside her will, and in abeyance to the will of her husband, — at least, the law has been read thus, because of its connection with what follows in this passage. This word is spelled, in Hebrew HRN,–but that is NOT the correct Hebrew way to spell “conception.” The latter occurs, and correctly spelled, in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11, and nowhere else. The real word, “conception,” as it occurs in the above passages, is spelled HRJWN. This word in Genesis comes two letters short of spelling the word. All Hebrew scholars know this. For instance, Spurrell says: “It is an abnormal formation which occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.” Our highest lexical authorities (Brown, Briggs and Driver) call it a “contraction, or erroneous.” Indeed! And is one half the human family to be placed at the mercy of the other half, on  such a flimsy claim as this! So could Rehoboam have sent a man to the gallows, instead of sending him to gaol, by such a method of manipulating the law. We stand for our rights, as women, on the assurance of our Lord, that NO WORD in Divine law has lost any of its consonants, or angles of a consonant; and on our Lord’s promise we can demand a very different rendering of the word. While it is possible that the W of this word might be omitted in this particular formation, the J is a CONSONANT of the root, and cannot be lost or omitted, PARTICULARLY at the end of a phrase where the voice pauses or rests for awhile upon it; such is the Hebrew correct reading here, which is, “thy sighing,”–the whole sentence meaning, then, “A snare hath in creased thy sorrow and thy sighing.” Many ancient authorities agree with the Septuagint.

— Katherine Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, Pg. 53-54

Humiliation and Murder – More Weapons of Choice

Humiliation has to be one of the cruelest forms of abuse one can perpetrate against another individual. Yet, countless millions of men, women and children are publicly humiliated every day as a result of religious institutions and their followers the world over. Under the guise of “religion,” “faith,” “Christ,” or “God,” the “clones of the religious systems of the world” are using God and scripture not only to humiliate people, but to hurt them and  murder them.

Humiliation inflicts irreversible damage by placing a banner of “shame” and “stigma” upon its victims. As a result of this shame and stigma, anyone associated with the one being humiliated has that same shame and stigma transferred to them.  This is why humiliation is a weapon of choice, not just to religious fundamentalists here in America, but to religious fundamentalists everywhere.  The real tragedy, though, is that this is done in the name of the “God” of the religion that the one inflicting the humiliation serves.  As a result, countless millions are turning their backs on God, not just the “religious system.”  Victims of the abuse are blaming God for everything that these religious fundamentalist do to them; not realizing that the abusers are MEN, not God.  God is bearing the blame for what wicked men have done to others as a result of religious indoctrination. Why aren’t the perpetrators of these crimes being held accountable for their crimes and being prosecuted? Because the “Beast” has become big, powerful and dangerous.

Unfortunately, what “zealots for God” do not realize is that they are portraying their “God” as a merciless, hateful deity who exacts abusive behaviors from its followers. Who would want to hang around a person that perpetrates abusive crimes against others; humiliates others, murders? Why would anyone want to worship a deity that exacts these qualities from its followers toward others, especially children?  Think about it. A deity that WANTS you to publicly humiliate and destroy another is worthy of love, respect and honor? Not only are fundamentalist zealots using humiliation, they are using cruelty and murder  toward those that oppose them; and, doing it all in the name of their “God.”

How did humanity become so cruel that they no longer look to the benefit and welfare of others because of religious beliefs? Where has love, dignity, respect, compassion and mercy gone?  Has humanity lost its milk of human kindness and compassion? Where’s the protection from these crimes that the weak and vulnerable deserve?  The religious systems of the world have become a  ferocious “Beast” that is so great and powerful, that it can dish out crimes against people without accountability.  Because of this, they use this weapon of choice on all who oppose it and, actually put their “stamp of approval” on all who use it.

This “Beast” sways political leaders, governments and millions of peoples the world over.  It devours multitudes leaving behind a swath of destruction that makes the worst criminal pale in comparison to it.  They influence followers to murder and mutilate all in the name of the “God” they serve.

Throughout the world, the atrocities and crimes against women and children meted out publicly, defy conscience and morality.  Recently, I came across the following news story online and it broke my heart.  Not only was this lady publicly humiliated, she was tortured and killed publicly. Is this the state and mentality of religious believers that the religious systems of the world wish to portray?

Read the last line of this story. The mentality is no different than during the “Inquisition”.  The fruit of that “mentality” is murder, torture and public humiliation.  The targets are usually women and children.

burnPapua New Guinea woman burned alive for sorcery – Feb. 7, 2013

MSN News – February 7, 2013 – A young mother accused of sorcery was stripped naked and burned alive in front of a crowd.

According to UPI, the relatives of a six-year-old boy who died in Papua New Guinea tortured and burned the woman to death because they believed she had used sorcery to kill the boy.

The incident took place Wednesday in Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea’s third-largest city.

Papua New Guinea’s The National reported Thursday that the boy had been taken to Mount Hagen hospital Tuesday after complaining of stomach and chest pains. He died at the hospital.

The boy’s family accused three women of using sorcery to kill the boy. One of them, Kepari Leniata, 20, admitted she was responsible.

The relatives reportedly tortured Leniata with a branding iron, stripped her naked, tied her hands and feet with rope and threw her onto a pile of burning car tires and rubbish in front of a crowd that included schoolchildren, The National reported.

Although paramedics responded to the scene, they were unable to save Leniata, who has a 8-month-old daughter.

The Papua New Guinea Post-Courier reported that the sorcery-related murder took place in full view of hundreds of onlookers. “The torture and brutal murder of a mother of two provided a photo opportunity for many of the onlookers, including school children, who crowded around and took photos of the woman being consumed alive by the fire,” said the newspaper, which published a photo of the incident.

The newspaper also reported that although firemen rushed to the scene, angry perpetrators chased them away. Several policemen present at the scene were unable to save the women because they were outnumbered by the perpetrators and their supporters.

The lives of the two other women accused of sorcery were spared.

Papua New Guinea police are planning to file murder charges against those responsible.

”People believe it’s (sorcery) something that exists, but it’s a crime. People will have to be arrested,” said Papua New Guinea police spokesman Dominic Kakas, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

“As long as people believe in sorcery and they will tend to take violent action in relation to that, we will still have such killings in relation to that. That is why the commissioner is concerned, and he wants everyone to sit down and put their heads together and find a way to address this issue so that we can end or stop such senseless killings.”

The incident was condemned by David Piso, the head bishop of Gut Nius Lutheran Church.

“Sorcery and sorcery-related killings are growing and the government needs to come up with a law to stop such practice,” Piso said.

An Oxfam research project concludes that legal reform and education are essential to reduce the damaging effects of sorcery beliefs in Papua New Guinea.

The Oxfam report says that many people in Papua New Guinea don’t want to accept natural causes as an explanation for misfortune, illness, accidents or death, instead attributing them to supernatural causes called sorcery or black magic.

An excerpt from the report says: “Belief in black magic is so ingrained the government recognizes it under the 1971 Sorcery Act. This punishes those practicing black magic with up to two years’ imprisonment. Murderers can reduce penal sentences by alleging black magic was involved.”

People believed to have committed black magic have been subject to shocking “payback” murders, torture or punishments. The report says that women, widows without male kin, elderly people and independent and progressive women are often victims of sorcery accusations and attacks (emphasis mine).

HOW can this type of atrocity be attached to a “loving” God? How can religious people’s consciences be so seared that they become so cruel? How can people be so ignorant of truth?  Before you take to using these weapons of choice, think about the kind of character and testimony you are exhibiting about yourself and your “God.”