Changes

1. The object of these lessons is at least three-fold:

(1) To point out to women the fallacies in the "Scriptural" argument for the supremacy of the male sex.

(2) To show the true position of women in the economy of God.

(3) To show women their need of knowing the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies, and also to show that such a knowledge of the Bible would have great influence for good on the progress of the Church and womanhood.

2. Our argument assumes that the Bible is all that it claims for itself. It is (1) Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16;[1] (2) Infallible, Isaiah 40:8; and (3) Inviolable, John 10:35. Indeed, no other basis of procedure is available for us. However freely certain male scholars of the present day manipulate the text, no confidence would be placed in the results thus obtained by a woman, at once, she would be faced with the charge that she had manipulated the text to suit her argument. But a manipulation of the text is unnecessary, even if we thought it lawful under any circumstances.

4. The Lord Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The "jot" (letter j), is nearly like our single quotation mark ( ‘ ), in form and size; the "tittle" is not a letter, but the distinguishing point of difference between one Hebrew letter and another much like it. For instance, the Jewish rabbis, who taught also the infallibility of the text, in a treatise called Vayikra Rabba (s.19) declare:

Because these passages would then mean respectively,

1. "Hear, O Israel; the Lord is a false Lord."

2. "Thou shalt not worship the one true God."

3. "Neither shall ye praise [for "profane"] My Holy name."

4. "Let everything that hath breath profane [for "praise"] the Lord."

5. "They have lied like [for "belied"] the Lord."

6. "There is no holiness in [for "none holy as"] the Lord."

5. But when we speak of the Bible as inspired, infallible and inviolable, we do not refer to our English version, or any mere version, but to the original text. Prof. Deissmann has well said, "All translation implies some, if only a slight, alteration of the sense of the original." Now we must explain more precisely what "the original text" really implies, and how much it includes. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament was written without any spaces between words in totally different looking letters from those we call "Hebrew” at the present time; and the language as first written contained no vowels, as though the English of Genesis 1:1 were written:

<center>NTHBGNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH</center>

6. Hebrew ceased to be spoken by the common people during the Babylonian captivity. It was practically a "dead language" as early as B.C. 250. In the absence of expressed vowels, its pronunciation was likely to become lost. So the Scribes took four consonants, "a h w and j," and inserted them into the text to indicate the vowel sounds. While this device helped to some extent, in the end it led to confusion, often raising the question: "Is this letter a consonant, belonging to the original, or is it a vowel-letter, added by the Scribes?" Moreover the insertion of these vowel-letters did not prove sufficient; then, as late as 600-800 A.D., a whole system of vowel-signs was added, most elaborately indicating the vowels of each word as tradition had preserved it. These vowel-signs were interlinear, and therefore did not confuse the text, as did the vowel-letters. With vowel-signs we might indicate the pronunciation of Genesis 1:1, as given above, something like this (separating the words):

7. We understand, now that the Hebrew text may have mistakes which we are free (with due respect for the scholarship which has given to it its present form, and due reverence for God's Word), to amend, so far as the vowel-letters and the vowel-signs are concerned, for no one claims that the Scribes who made these additions to the text in comparatively recent times did "inspired" work, as did the original authors.