Finally, the last two MISFITS are unveiled regarding these passages of scripture. Hopefully, one will realize that the changes made due to Sex Bias have had profound repercussions to women worldwide; especially those that still have to “veil” today due to men’s interpretations of “scripture.”  One must realize that men have kept women from translation and, have changed the original manuscripts, so that THEY can determine what the scriptures say regarding themselves and women. Without fail, men have made absolutely sure that they are written into scripture as the dominant and “most beloved of God,” people.  Rest assured, that women would not make changes that would be to their detriment and cause the sexual exploitation, abuse and subjugation that women have endured throughout history as a result. Let’s look at the last two MISFITS. Here’s the passages, once again, in question:

1 Cor. 11: 1-16 – The usual sense (not ours) put upon these words by expositors, beginning with verse 3, we give in the language of Dr. Weymouth’s Modern English translation:

(3) “I would have you know that of every man, Christ is Head,  that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head. (4) A man who wears a veil praying or prophesying dishonours his Head; (5) but a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her Head, for it is exactly the same as if she had her hair cut short. (6) If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair, but since it is a dishonour to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil. (7) For a man ought not to have a veil on his head, since he is the image and glory of God: while woman is the glory of man. (8) Man does not take his origin from woman, but woman takes hers from man. (9) For man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s. (10) That is why a woman ought to have on her head a symbol of subjection, because of the angels. (11) Yet, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. (12) For just as woman originates from man, so also man comes into existence through woman, but everything springs originally from God. (13) Judge of this for your own selves: is it seemly for a woman to pray to God when she is unveiled? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him, (15) but if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering? (16) But if anyone is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.”

I would sincerely ask that you please click on these links to read the first six MISFITS: Part 1 and Part 2.

The Seventh MISFIT

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 a barber who keep’s 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 (Num. 6:1-21), long hair, religiously speaking, was more of a “glory” than a “shame.”  Additionally to this, the native Corinthians 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.

The Eight MISFIT

Verse 16, “We have no such custom.” What custom? Most commentator’s assume that this means, “We have no such DEFIANCE of custom, as women unveiling.” But this is not what Paul says, but the exact contrary. We cannot insert “defiance of custom” in the place of “custom” without introducing a contradiction. Paul is talking of some custom, which he repudiates. What is it? Veiling, of course; this is the only custom mentioned (unless it be that of wearing long hair, a custom for women; or wearing short hair, which was the usual custom for men,–and no one thinks it means these latter). Paul has been talking, almost wholly, of the custom of veiling, and he now says, “We have no such custom.” He renounces the custom. this verse cannot be easily reconciled with the teaching that St. Paul is here strengthening a prevalent custom.

Now we have discovered that every portion of St. Paul’s argument (if we change the punctuation of verses 13 and 14), and certainly his plain statement that women “ought to have authority” over their own heads, fits better to an argument for UNVEILING than for veiling. But there remain the statements in verses 5 and 6, where Paul says that the woman who unveils dishonours her head. Can they be explained to accord with the idea that St. Paul is not teaching the veiling of women? We promise a satisfactory explanation to that effect in due course.  But before we leave our present topic, we must consider how at variance with COMMON SENSE and true religion as well as sound logic is the whole tenor and spirit of this traditional MISINTERPRETATION of St. Paul. So true is this, that after standing for its teaching, as to the main points (those that appeal to the vanity of the male sex, and the love of dominion over the female sex), the men apologize that such (worthy) points are not supported by worthier arguments on the part of St. Paul,– as though the Holy Spirit could not have caused the Apostle to set forth God’s GOOD reasons for veiling women, had God wished women to be veiled!

To impress the need of a more intelligent interpretation of this passage, we must give some further idea of what has been taught by commentators. If after this general survey you want to cling to the traditional misinterpretation, then it will not be for the lack of knowledge that something better is sadly needed.

“The image and glory of God.” The comments here must needs remind one of the words of the Psalmist, “Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity.” Dr. Agar Beet says, “Man is an outshining of the splendour of God. By looking at him we see in dim outline what God is.” Dr. Kling, “Paul indicates the godlike rule and lordly majesty which the position of man as the head of his wife involves.” He explains the meaning of “the woman is the glory of the man” thus: “In her management as his housewife, the exalted position of man is manifest.” Men would have made precisely the same sense out of the words, doubtless, if Paul had said instead, “The man is the glory of the woman.” Dr. Cruden says, “Since God would have the male sex to be a kind of representation of His glory, majesty and power, a man ought not, by hiding his face, . . . to conceal the glory of God shining in him.”  Dean Stanley says, “Man, therefore ought to have nothing on his head which represents so divine a majesty–nothing on a countenance which reflects so divine a glory.” Dr. Adam Clarke says: “Man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God. . . So woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man.”  . . .(to be continued)

— Katherine Bushnell, 1923

As always, I must stop for brevity’s sake. These lessons need to be easy to read and quick to read. I will continue the last parts of Bushnell’s lesson in the next article entitled “Sex Bias in the New Testament – The “Veil” – Part 4.  If ever there was a Bible lesson that one needed to partake of, it would be these lessons on this topic of veiling that have caused women so much abuse throughout history and even today, the world over. Once I have covered the corruption in these passages, I will then show what Paul’s real teaching as to Veiling, is. Be sure to subscribe to my news feed so as not to miss these important lessons!

In part one of “Sex Bias in the New Testament” I started covering passages of scripture that have been used for centuries to subjugate and control women. What people do not know about these passages, due to lack of education in Hebrew and/or Greek, is that men have changed the meaning of scripture through translation to insert their own preconceptions and opinions about women. They have substituted and/or changed words or, changed or added punctuation that will change meaning and take authority and power away from women. Many of these words that they substitute, have nothing to do with the original words in the manuscripts.  Thus, the end result being subjugation and abuse of women throughout history.

Since this is a long topic and I have eight MISFITS in these passages to cover, it is imperative that I break it up into several articles for ease of reading as well as for brevity. Let’s review the passages in question:

1 Cor. 11: 1-16 – The usual sense (not ours) put upon these words by expositors, beginning with verse 3, we give in the language of Dr. Weymouth’s Modern English translation:

(3) “I would have you know that of every man, Christ is Head,  that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head. (4) A man who wears a veil praying or prophesying dishonours his Head; (5) but a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her Head, for it is exactly the same as if she had her hair cut short. (6) If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair, but since it is a dishonour to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil. (7) For a man ought not to have a veil on his head, since he is the image and glory of God: while woman is the glory of man. (8) Man does not take his origin from woman, but woman takes hers from man. (9) For man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s. (10) That is why a woman ought to have on her head a symbol of subjection, because of the angels. (11) Yet, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. (12) For just as woman originates from man, so also man comes into existence through woman, but everything springs originally from God. (13) Judge of this for your own selves: is it seemly for a woman to pray to God when she is unveiled? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him, (15) but if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering? (16) But if anyone is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.”

I would sincerely ask that you please click on the link above for the first article to see the first three MISFITS. I will take up on Misfit #4 here.

The Fourth MISFIT

Verse 7 reads, “A man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” And so is woman, in precisely the same sense,– “In the image of God made He him, male and female made He them,” — and hence she ought not to cover her head. Any argument drawn from the “image” idea must apply surely quite as equally to woman, who was created at the same time as man, and by the same act (Read my chapter, “Male and Female Created He them”  in my book, Religion’s Cell: Doctrines of the Church that lead to Bondage and Abuse). It is the spirit of phallic worship which contends that this image inheres in physical sex, not the spiritual characteristics. And if a man ought not to veil before God because he is “the glory of God,” then woman should not veil before man because she is “the glory of man.” Here then is set forth again a double reason for women unveiling. . . Yet the commentator declares this an argument for the veiling of woman.

The Fifth MISFIT

Verses 11 and 12, if they mean anything, are an argument that men and women are to be dealt with exactly alike, are on precisely the same level “in the Lord” (that is, after they become Christians); these words cannot be fitted to an argument placing woman under the power of man, or legislating specially for her part from man, in the Church of God.

The Sixth MISFIT

Verse 13, “Judge in yourselves.” Rather, “among yourselves.” This phrase should end verse 12; see 10:15. According to the usual representation of conditions at Corinth, St. Paul would never have said this, in connection with verse 13, unless he meant that the men should judge for the women; and there is not a scrap of evidence that he meant any such thing, especially since he had already said that the woman ought to have authority over her own head. We will describe these conjectured conditions at Corinth in the words of Dr. Ernest Von Dobschutz, Prof. N.T. Theology in Strasburg University, written in 1904:

“Corinth was full of prostitutes. The temple of Aphrodite on the fort alone possessed over a thousand ‘hierodules,’ (temple slaves), a dedicatory gift to the goddess from men and women, as Strabo tells us. We cannot discover the character of the female element in the Christian church. It is very certain that many honourable women of better standing were Christians. . . But the Christian community could not have lacked persons who before their conversion followed dishonourable pursuits any more than it lacked slaves. . . Should the honourable matron, used to a strict morality, sit, not only next her slave, but also next a former prostitute? Should the former lay aside her veil, which she was accustomed to wear outside the house, or should the latter assume it? Were the freedom and equality with men, which were conceded in public life to the hetaira, to hold good, or the chase seclusion and subjection prescribed by usage for the honourable wife? the Gospel recognized the full equality of man and woman in religion, more clearly perhaps than was the case in pagan cults, or even in Judaism itself. Did not the claim of women to equality of position within the Church follow? As usual, the freer and more progressive tendency gained more acceptance.”

Then the writer draws a picture of the women all arrayed against Paul, proving themselves his worst enemies in the Corinthian church, and adds:

“He (Paul) becomes impassioned whenever he has to speak of their ’emancipation,’ which nothing could bring to reason . . . Paul insists on veiling.  He declares their position of subordination “demands an external sign, ‘because of the angels’ lest they [the angels] should lust after the woman, who belongs to her husband alone.”

Let us women exercise a little common sense here. These temple women, dedicated to the goddess of sensuality, Aphrodite, were slaves. They went bareheaded, having shaved heads. Some were supposed to have been converted, and to have entered the church; and the question arises, shall the “honourable women of better standing” be allowed to copy slave-prostitutes in dress and manners? They are determined to do so, and defy Paul’s authority, while the latter “becomes impassioned whenever he has to speak of their ’emancipation’.” Could anything be more ridiculous? Free women, because emancipated, wishing to imitate slaves! Imagine women of our Southern States, after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, or their own enfranchisement, being provoked thereby to copy the dress of the negresses!

This is all pure conjecture.  There is not a scrap of historical evidence that the women at Corinth wished to unveil, and there exists considerable evidence to the contrary. But were it true, and St. Paul had such difficulties to contend against, then he would never have said, “Judge in yourselves,” but “The men alone must judge for the women.”

We believe that the remainder of the verse is a simple statement: “It is comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered.” Moses, when veiled before the people, always unveiled when he went back into the Tabernacle to commune with God,–Ex. 34:34; Thence Paul rules that the women, even if not free to unveil before men, will be doing a very proper thing to unveil before God (2Cor. 3:18). We must bear in mind, here, that a change from question to statement does not involve the change, in Greek, of the order of words, (such as from “is it” to “it is”); and punctuation is a matter of more recent days than Paul’s time.

— Katherine Bushnell, 1923

(To be Continued)

David Hayward is the “nakedpastor”: A graffiti artist on the walls of religion. He is also the artist that drew the artwork on the cover of my book, Religion’s Cell: Doctrines of the Church that Lead to Bondage and Abuse.  He draws satire and reveals truths through his art that many are afraid to speak aloud. His latest artwork hits home as always.  You can view more of his work on his website by clicking here – nakedpastor

I have been in and observed spiritually abusive situations. I think this diagram generally represents most of them. I can identify with all of them. You?

I have entrusted myself, willingly, to leaders I admired. Even loved. I wanted to serve them, help them, and further their ministry. I believed in it. I was on board, on the same page, riding the same bus to the same destination. I voluntarily and enthusiastically signed up.

I have also entrusted myself to leaders because I felt that I should. They were my pastors or my teachers or my leaders. Sometimes even my bosses. I agreed to the terms and conditions and, because it was the right thing to do and because I was being paid by them, I therefore submitted myself to their authority.

I have also entrusted myself to leaders because I didn’t feel that I had a choice at the time. The situation was so complicated and my family or friends were so enmeshed in the system and I was so enmeshed with my family or friends that I couldn’t see a way to extricate myself from it all. The best way that I could see my way through at the time was to stay, not rock the boat, and wait for the prime opportunity when it presented itself to get the heck out of there.

This is all from my perspective. But the other ingredient is the leader’s belief that he can use that. . .

To read the rest of this story, click here – nakedpastor

Understanding the impact that these seemingly minor changes in scripture have had upon women is vitally important. Women everywhere suffer bondage and abuse because of these changes made in translation. This is why I continually point out the changes that translators made due to Sex Bias.  The wrongs that have been done to women are huge as a result of these changes. They have affected every woman worldwide for centuries. Because of the many changes that translators have done, the Bible has become a weapon used to abuse women without recourse to the abuser.  It’s time for people to wake up to these changes and give women their proper authority, equality, honor and dignity back– as men stripped these things from us through translation. In the following passages of scripture that are used to subjugate women, Bushnell exposes the changes made by translators to write women out of equality, power and authority. There are a total of EIGHT changes that will be covered in subsequent articles that unveil the truth of what these passages really mean and how men’s changes in translation, give them all power and control over women.

Exousia – this word occurs 103 times in the N.T. It is rendered “authority” 29 times; “power” 69 times; “right” twice; and once each “liberty,” “jurisdiction,” and “strength.”

Its meaning is patent; there is no mystery about the word. But in one single instance it happens to be used exclusively of woman’s power. Here at once its sense is called into question. It cannot be possible that women should have power! (sarcasm intended) In the margin the translators write the longest note to be found in all the Bible (see A.V.) to explain how Paul means that this “power” must be abdicated by woman, in order that her HUSBAND may assume it instead.  How typical of men to do this in scripture. Let’s talk about this misfit, and others, that rob women of power and gives that “power” over to their husbands. These are only small changes in translation, BUT, with HUGE consequences for women everywhere.

1 Cor. 11: 1-16 – The usual sense (not ours) put upon these words by expositors, beginning with verse 3, we give in the language of Dr. Weymouth’s Modern English translation:

(3) “I would have you know that of every man, Christ is Head,  that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head. (4) A man who wears a veil praying or prophesying dishonours his Head; (5) but a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her Head, for it is exactly the same as if she had her hair cut short. (6) If a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair, but since it is a dishonour to a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her wear a veil. (7) For a man ought not to have a veil on his head, since he is the image and glory of God: while woman is the glory of man. (8) Man does not take his origin from woman, but woman takes hers from man. (9) For man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s. (10) That is why a woman ought to have on her head a symbol of subjection, because of the angels. (11) Yet, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. (12) For just as woman originates from man, so also man comes into existence through woman, but everything springs originally from God. (13) Judge of this for your own selves: is it seemly for a woman to pray to God when she is unveiled? (14) Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him, (15) but if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering? (16) But if anyone is inclined to be contentious on the point, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.”

THE FIRST MISFIT

Now please note, first of all, that at verse 10, first clause, Dr. Weymouth substitutes something totally different from what the text says. The text reads, “ought to have power,” while Dr. Weymouth, following the usual interpretation, says, “ought to have . . . a symbol of subjection.” The original word for “power,” here, is exousia, meaning authority, right; the same word for “power,” and preposition for on, epi, (often translated “over”), with the same construction, will be found in many places,– for instance, Rev. 11:6, “They have power over waters to turn them to blood.” and likewise in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in the sentence, “The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” Furthermore, the original text here has never been called into question; the reading is as simple as it could possibly be, “The woman ought to have power over [rendered “on” in the English Versions] her head.” No scholar questions this.

At this place, the Authorized Version (KJV) introduces the longest Marginal Note to be found in the whole Bible. Where Paul says, “ought to have power,” the Note reads, “That is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband.” This is certainly a most extraordinary substitute for the words of Scripture. Had it read merely, that she was to be “under power,” even that would have been a contradiction of the explicit statement of St. Paul; but they add to this contradicting thought: The woman is not only expected to yield to authority, instead of wielding authority, but also to “wear a sign” that she renounces the authority Paul gives her. and not only is she to renounce that authority, but to renounce it in favour of a particular person, — her husband. The BIBLE–St. Paul–says nothing of this sort, but the Marginal Note, and the Bible Commentators teach it.

For our part, we think it suspicious because that husbands, not wives, have discovered this extraordinary meaning for St. Paul’s words. If indeed a woman should wear “a sign of subjection” (and scholars can produce no Scriptural proof that a veil is a sign of subjection), then why should it not rather be a sign of subjection to God, whom she serves in prophesying, or whom she addresses in prayer?  Why is the husband thrust in by husbands, at this point? Dr. J.W. Thirtle makes the sensible remark here, “The context puts in no plea for anyone outside of the woman: it is THE WOMAN’S OWN AUTHORITY that is in question, and the Apostle defends it with his decisive OUGHT.” [The capitals are Dr. Thirtle’s.]

This phrase in verse 10 is manifestly a conclusion–ergo–of all the foregoing arguments of the passage. . . Paul was a highly intelligent person who knew how to argue a point. To pretend that he could not express what he wanted to say here in plain words is quite ridiculous. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. These commentators are not. For this reason, we must yield at once that verse 10 means what it says, and we dare not reject its teaching for the “vain traditions of men.”

[But this is not the end of the misfits in these passages of scripture! Let’s look at two more:]

THE SECOND MISFIT

As to the clause of verse 10, “because of the angels,” a very common explanation, given by Dean Stanley for instance, one of the Translation Committee that produced our Revised Version, is that the angels and women fell into sin together, and therefore, he says, “Women ought not to part with the sign that she is subject, not to them, but to her husband. The authority of the husband is, as it were, enthroned visibly upon her head, in token that she belongs to him alone, and that she owes no allegiance to any one else besides, not even to the angels who stand before God’s throne.” This teaching (1) contradicts  Heb. 2:2. “The word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward.” (2) It assumes that angels are MALES, whereas they are sexless,–Mark 12:25. (3) We have already disposed of the superstition that angels sinned with women. (4) Christian women belong to Christ, who purchased them with His own blood,– not to their husbands.

THE THIRD MISFIT

Verse 4. Commentators set forth two or three views here: Men dishonour their own heads by wearing “a token of subjection.” If so, then Christ dishonoured His head when “He took on Him the form of a servant.” Why are not men called upon to imitate Christ’s humility? Another view is, that BECAUSE Christ is man’s Head man must not veil in His presence. This is more nearly correct. But if man must unveil before Christ, because Christ is man’s Head, in the same sense Christ is woman’s Head, and therefore she will dishonour Him unless she unveils in His presence. And if it is because of “headship,” then, since man is woman’s head, she should, for the same reasons, unveil before man. Here then is a double reason why women should unveil.

But next, in verses 5 and 6, we come to a clear statement which has given occasion for the assumption that Paul is arguing for the veiling of women, not against their veiling. Can we get an explanation for the words, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head.” which can be reconciled with St. Paul’s logic for unveiling? We promise a satisfactory explanation in due course. Please note that the penalty, “Let her be shown or shaven.” is softened to “let her cut off her hair,” by Dr. Weymouth, though it is not at all what the words mean. It is too much, even for these hardy expositors, to claim that Paul actually commanded the church to punish unveiled women after this fashion.

— Katherine Bushnell, 1923

(to be continued)

As 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.

Sophron – an 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?

The 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!

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 http://www.vimeo.com/58304996 w=500&h=281]

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

THE OUTLINE FOR THIS VIDEO:

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.

LIKEABILITY VERSUS TRUSTWORTHINESS

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)