Can You REALLY Trust the English Standard Version (ESV)?

"The decision now to create the Permanent Text of the ESV was made with equally great care—so that people who love the ESV Bible can have full confidence in the ESV, knowing that it will continue to be published as is, without being changed, for the rest of their lives, and for generations to come."

esv.org

http://www.abebooks.com/ESV-Classic-Reference-Bible-Hardcover-Black/17908713719/bd?cm_mmc=gmc-_-new-_-PLA-_-v01&product=COM9781581343878NEW#&gid=1&pid=1ESV Classic Reference Bible

The first time I ever laid eyes on the English Standard Version of the Bible was around 2003, just two years after the ESV was first published by Crossway.  My Sunday School teacher, who taught English at the College at Southeastern, had a copy that looked just like the one pictured above, and he would often read from it as he taught the lesson.  I was intrigued and came close to buying my own copy; however, in fairly short order my husband and I ended up switching Sunday School classes, and the desire to own this version of the Bible faded.  Divine providence perhaps?  My pastor at the time preached from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), so I stuck with that one.   

It wasn't until Dee and I began doing internet research in late 2008 and early 2009 that we learned the ESV was the Bible of choice for those who identify as Neo-Calvinists (aka New Calvinists, or Calvinistas as we call them).  According to the ESV website:

The English Standard Version (ESV) is an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors, the ESV Bible emphasizes "word-for-word" accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning.

The ESV is essentially a revamped version of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible.  When I graduated from Duke many years ago, I was presented with a navy blue RSV Bible from the university, which I still treasure.

According to information provided by Wayne Grudem:

In 1997, Crossway Books, an evangelical publisher based in Wheaton, Illinois, obtained the rights to use the 1971 update of the RSV as the basis for a new translation in the KJV tradition, to be called the English Standard Version (ESV).

A footnote at the bottom of Grudem's article The Advantages of the English Standard Version (ESV) Translation reveals the following:

http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-advantages-of-the-ESV.pdf

A recent Christianity Today article indicates that the ESV had been gaining ground since it was first published 15 years ago.  The CT article states:

By most counts, the ESV is the third most popular Bible translation in America, after the KJV and the New International Version (NIV). More than 100 million printed copies have been distributed since the ESV was first published in 2001, including 30 million last year.

Hopefully, those who use the ESV are aware of this recent announcement:

http://www.esv.org/about/

Here is the complete list of word changes that have been incorporated into the 'Permanent Text of the ESV Bible'.

The Christianity Today article highlighted wording changes in Genesis with which many complementarians would agree (see below).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/september/after-tweaking-29-verses-bible-esv-english-standard-version.html

These are significant changes that are in direct contradiction to the wording in most (if not all) other versions of the Bible. 

Scot McKnight wasted no time in sharing his concerns about these changes and how the translation committee went about making them.  In his post entitled The New Stealth Translation: ESV, McKnight begins with this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/

McNight then states the following (with which we agree):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/

Denny Burk, who succeeded Owen Strachan as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), recently published a post entitled:  Five Quick points on the ESV's rendering of Genesis 3:16.  In that post he addresses Scot McKnight's concerns this way (see screen shot below):

http://www.dennyburk.com/four-quick-points-on-the-esvs-rendering-of-genesis-316/

The ESV version of Genesis 3:16 has gone from this… 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3%3A16&version=ESV

to this… (screen shot)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A16&version=ESV

So what do you think about these significant changes to the ESV?

Comments

Can You REALLY Trust the English Standard Version (ESV)? — 783 Comments

  1. Barbara Roberts wrote:

    https://twitter.com/NotUnderBondage/status/777336099362381825

    Oh my goodness!! You’re the author of “Not Under Bondage!!” Your book helped me SO much when I was going through my divorce. My husband kept telling me that he hadn’t had sex with the other woman so I was sinning by divorcing him. I had hit a point in the marriage where I didn’t care if it was a sin or not, I couldn’t live with his emotional/verbal/spiritual abuse any longer. Thank you so much for writing it!

  2. Lea wrote:

    It’s a really bizarre theology.

    It all makes *sense* with Mrs Kassian’s 4 blue/pink puzzle people. 1: Blue god head over pink christ body. 2: Blue christ head over pink church body. 3: Blue husband head over pink wife body. 4: Blue elders head over pink believers body.
    I hope this helps.:(

  3. Lea wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    @ Christiane:

    I think that you are entirely missing the point.

    I must have touched a nerve. Sorry.

    Why make this emotional?

    I do believe in listening to your conscience. I think what okrapod is getting at is that it’s very easy to rationalize things away that we want to do. Also, some people don’t actually care if they hurt others – maybe their conscience is faulty.

    As with most things, there is a happy medium somewhere between listening to what is in us and the spirit and balancing that with scripture. It’s when we try to unteather the two or massage them to fit what we want that we really run into problems.

    LEA,
    if you were addressing me in your comment, I am VERY aware that the theologies of God-given conscience are different in Catholicism and in the evangelical world. I speak about ‘conscience’ from what I know. If that doesn’t ‘translate’, then I must take the responsibility for any misunderstanding.

    My comment to OKRAPOD was a recognition that she had written of a negative situation involving an ex-husband’s use of the term ‘conscience’. I can acknowledge her for telling it like she saw it, and I can appreciate and affirm her point of view.

    I hope this helps, but if it doesn’t, at least I made effort.

  4. @ Anonymous:
    A translation the “royal we” can control as in rewrite the text, needs publishing and printing. But thanks for trying to clarify.

  5. Christiane wrote:

    if you were addressing me in your comment

    I was addressing you with ‘touched a nerve’ which relegates okrapods views to merely emotional, imo, and they deserve more weight than that. It had nothing to do with Catholicism.

    The rest is a general response, not specifically towards you.

  6. Christiane wrote:

    okrapod wrote:

    @ Christiane:

    I think that you are entirely missing the point.

    I must have touched a nerve. Sorry.

    No, she made some great points. While reading I was thinking of the historical Catholic teaching on divorce and how that would inform “conscious”. Rose Kennedy is an example. Hailed as mother of the year while enabling her philandering husband as they both influenced their sons on how marriage works. All acting on “conscious” within Catholic teaching.

  7. Lea wrote:

    Also, some people don’t actually care if they hurt others – maybe their conscience is faulty.

    The biblical word is ‘seared’. I agree with you about balance.

    I also think that whatever it was that Calvary Chapel was trying to say to some of the lost generation of sex, drugs and rebellion scarred kids may have been to people who saw nothing wrong with their lifestyle except possibly for some untoward medical and emotional residuals. I don’t know-wasn’t there. But talking about conscience to that population would be quite different from talking about conscience to some kid who made first communion at 7-ish and regularly was going to confession.

    And then there is the issue that what people may be calling conscience is mostly just the memory voice of some hypercritical mother from childhood. These people would need to learn to quit listening to that particular inner voice, for example. That would be complicated.

    I think we need to cut people some slack on this whole business and understand that it can get very complicated and quit being all that critical when people take a somewhat different approach in this area. Should somebody listen to their conscience? I think it depends on what their conscience is telling them. Should people listen to the leadership at church? Depends on what they are saying.

  8. Lydia wrote:

    @ Christiane:
    I thought she was “a matter of fact about it” as in trying to explain her position. Not “a nerve was touched” about it.

    I read her comment with some comprehension that she had been through an experience where the word ‘conscience’ was used manipulatively. Of course, I can appreciate her experience and how the context of the word ‘conscience’ was used by her ex, and I can validate her statement as meaningful to her.

    She was sharing something personal from her past, and it was helpful for her to explain her point of view by sharing her experience. I do suppose any discussion here of God-given personal conscience will be seen from different perspectives.
    Okrapod’s perspective was made more clear to me by her sharing of what she had been through.
    I acknowledged my recognition of her difficult experience that in my response to her and I stand by it as an appropriate response.

  9. okrapod wrote:

    The biblical word is ‘seared’.

    The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

    Ah. I had forgotten that verse!

  10. okrapod wrote:

    it can get very complicated and quit being all that critical when people take a somewhat different approach in this area. Should somebody listen to their conscience? I think it depends on what their conscience is telling them. Should people listen to the leadership at church? Depends on what they are saying.

    Yes. This is in sync with what I also believe.
    I once wrote this on Wade Burleson’s blog:
    “…it has always been asked of the people of my faith to consider three things before making important decisions based on the realities and the issues we faced in our live.

    Yes, so as to be informed,
    the ‘Church’s teachings’ were always to be carefully considered and pondered in our hearts.

    And we were to pray most sincerely and earnestly for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    But there was another consideration t . . . our consciences needed to be consulted.

    It is taught to us, this:

    “Deep within his conscience,
    man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.
    Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . .
    For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . .
    His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary.
    There he is alone
    with God Whose Voice echoes in his depths.”

    ‘Authority’ may teach, it may offer guidance, and give direction, but for a Christian person, no ‘authority’ can ever take the place of his or her own moral conscience.
    I wondered what was troubling me about this discussion . . . and it looks like perhaps for many who are not of my faith, there is little or no recognition of the supreme importance of informed ‘conscience’ as moral guide, within the whole tradition of mainstream Christianity.

    Samuel Clemens, who wrote under the name of ‘Mark Twain’ once cautioned people, this:
    “re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”
    Perhaps he had a insight that might prove useful in our own time,
    when we are pulled this-way and that by so many who would decide for us too many things,
    and if we let them decide for us, our own hearts must ‘look away’.
    We were not made for that.
    Our God has made us better than that.”

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept, and I have little real comprehension of the process evangelical people undergo as the tradition is very different and even the terminology doesn’t translate well.

  11. Christiane wrote:

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept

    And yet, it doesn’t always work, does it? Not even in Catholicism. Or you wouldn’t have had priests shuffled about (and yes I did finally watch spotlight this weekend.)

  12. Christiane wrote:

    Okrapod’s perspective was made more clear to me by her sharing of what she had been through.

    Strange that you referred to it as “hitting a nerve” then. Oh well.

  13. @ Christiane:

    Well, that is indeed one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that referencing first hand experience tends to validate whatever one is saying, as we see when people talk about how they have personally know people of one or the other Abrahamic faiths, or Orthodox, or recent immigrants. One does list references, as it were, and this is one way of doing it.

    I doubt that this would make either of us some emotional cripple unable to think objectively or clearly and I did not take your comment to be saying that concerning me nor do I think that of your use of personal references.

  14. Lydia wrote:

    Strange that you referred to it as “hitting a nerve” then. Oh well.

    not to me, LYDIA, not to me 🙂

  15. Lea wrote:

    (and yes I did finally watch spotlight this weekend.)

    It’s a great film. The Church accepts this film as worth watching. Unlike some groups, we Catholics are VERY well aware that we are flawed beings, but we also have a whole lot more trust in Christ’s care for His creation. Christ is about ‘renewal’ and ‘reconciliation’ and ‘forgiveness’ and a REAL justice tempered with mercy. And on the Day, we completely trust that He will judge all mankind with a wisdom far above what we can imagine.

  16. I have a question about Biblical Canon for anyone who can give me a hand. It concerns the Canon (Biblical) and Inerrancy of Scripture (that Protestant group that met in Chicago in the 1970’s).

    It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church came up with the Canon, the Scriptures read at Mass, because each local church had a different Canon of their choosing. When Arian heresy made inroads (the Subordination of the Son) versus Trinitarianism than Canon was created to combat these problems.

    Greek Orthodox Christians do not read Revelation as part of their Canon, however
    Russian Orthodox Christians do.

    Questions:

    *Who came up with the Protestant Canon?
    *Did Protestants a long time ago believe that the Canon was Inerrant? (What did they believe about the Scriptures?)
    *If Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Canons precede Protestant Canon than how come Protestants claim that their Canon is Inerrant but that the older Canons are not?
    *If the point of the Catholic Canon was to prevent Semi-Arianism/Subordination of the Son heresy from spreading, than how come the same Protestant Canon is used by so many American Protestants today to spread Arian heresy (the Subordination of the Son argument to get the Subordination of women)? Is that because so many Protestants are each their own “authority”?

    http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

  17. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    My husband kept telling me that he hadn’t had sex with the other woman so I was sinning by divorcing him.

    My first reacton to that sentence was “Define ‘have sex with’.”

    Remember Doug Phillips ESQUIRE? (“I did not know her in a Biblical sense.”)?

    Or the term “Clinton Sex” after Monicagate in the Nineties?

    Or the highly-NSFW Garfunkel & Oates song “Loophole” about preserving technical virginity? (Using the same technique as the old Dr Demento piece “A-hole from El Paso”)?

    As long as it isn’t precisely Tab A in Slot B, you can wipe your mouth and announce “I Have Not Sinned”.

  18. @ Nancy2:

    One Sunday I missed picketing at the House of Driscoll because my on-again, off-again boyfriend had gotten himself stranded in Tucson late on a Saturday night. He thought he might limp home but I was concerned he might have trouble on the very dark freeway between Marana and Chandler. So I went and fetched him. I thought nothing of it, it’s just something you do for a friend. That whole fear thing, I just dn’t get.

    Nor do I get this “some things are for the men and others are fo the ladies.” I’ve always been fascinated by astronomy. I was over at the bf’s place yesterday and he brought out a volume of a new deep sky atlas to replace the old Burnham’s Celestial Handbook. He had a page marked in it to loom at, and it was a picture of the surface of the star Altair, which had been imaged by the CHARA telescopic interferometry system. But the whole book entranced me. I finally had to push it away because, as I said to him, I was tempted to take it.

    Yeah, my “ooh,shiny” moments are astronomy books. I am so not a typical woman in the eyes of the comps.

  19. Velour wrote:

    At my former church the abusive Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley the senior pastor (Cliff) asked us in Adult Sunday School if God could kill gays. I was the first to respond. I said that God could kill any of us and I quoted various Scriptures.

    This the same pastor who would bend your ear about riding his Warhorse at Christ’s right hand during The Second Coming/Battle of Armageddon?

  20. mirele wrote:

    I was over at the bf’s place yesterday and he brought out a volume of a new deep sky atlas to replace the old Burnham’s Celestial Handbook. He had a page marked in it to loom at, and it was a picture of the surface of the star Altair, which had been imaged by the CHARA telescopic interferometry system.

    THEY GOT AN IMAGE OF THE SURFACE OF ALTAIR?

    I remember the images of Betelgeuse showing it was actually irregular in shape; I remember Vega being so bright for its spectral class because it’s a fast spinner and we’re looking almost straight at its hotter polar regions; but Altair?

  21. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    At my former church the abusive Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley the senior pastor (Cliff) asked us in Adult Sunday School if God could kill gays. I was the first to respond. I said that God could kill any of us and I quoted various Scriptures.
    This the same pastor who would bend your ear about riding his Warhorse at Christ’s right hand during The Second Coming/Battle of Armageddon?

    That would be Clifford. Cliffy to you and me. Perhaps “Gone-Over-The-Cliff.”

  22. mirele wrote:

    But the whole book entranced me. I finally had to push it away because, as I said to him, I was tempted to take it.
    Yeah, my “ooh,shiny” moments are astronomy books. I am so not a typical woman in the eyes of the comps.

    Good for you.

  23. Christiane wrote:

    when you see that teaching, you will know that you are no longer in Kansas anymore; and since there is no ‘time machine’ you have not traveled back into Nazi Germany

    Somebody told me once that “I was only following Orders” is understandable if you know about German bureaucratic tradition from unification under Bismarck until the end of WW2. In German bureaucracy, the one giving the orders was responsible, not the one who obeyed them — as long as the one who obeyed could produce a paper trail that he was following orders, he was off the hook. This means standard procedure for CYA in German bureaucracy was DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. TOTAL DETAILED PAPER TRAIL WITH ALL NAMES NAMED AND CHAIN OF COMMAND IDENTIFIED. (Which is why there was so much solid written evidence for the Nuremberg trials, who did not follow German bureaucratic tradition.)

  24. @ mirele:

    Here’s an Astronomy link for you: http://www.space.com/science-astronomy

    I enjoy getting all of the wonderful outerspace pictures on my Twitter feed.

    I liked Astronomy in college, except for the labs. I disliked being up late at night (1 a.m. to 4 a.m. out in the middle of no-where to take pictures and I disliked being out in the freezing cold.

  25. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Barbara Roberts wrote:
    https://twitter.com/NotUnderBondage/status/777336099362381825
    Oh my goodness!! You’re the author of “Not Under Bondage!!” Your book helped me SO much when I was going through my divorce. My husband kept telling me that he hadn’t had sex with the other woman so I was sinning by divorcing him. I had hit a point in the marriage where I didn’t care if it was a sin or not, I couldn’t live with his emotional/verbal/spiritual abuse any longer. Thank you so much for writing it!

    And my public library just ordered Jeff Crippen’s book for their collection.

  26. Velour wrote:

    It’s my understanding that the Catholic Church came up with the Canon, the Scriptures read at Mass, because each local church had a different Canon of their choosing.

    You have raised some really good questions. I have some insight into the formation of the Canon through the Councils of the early Church. In order to make certain that ‘what had been handed down’ from the Apostles was preserved, the Church examined which Scriptures had been read at mass consistently throughout Christendom (the five centers of the faith that spread out from Rome) over a period of time from the beginning during the part of mass called ‘the Service of the Word’ (the second part being the celebration of the Thanksgiving/Eucharist). There were many extant texts out there but the only ones accepted by the Church were the ones that were being universally used over time. That was seen as a very important criterion.

    It was the latter councils that began the work of defending the Church from heresies which attacked ‘Who Christ was’, and the Church’s developing doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And yes, you might say that the ESS of today is a form of Semi-Arianism, and once again there are even among Calvinists, those who will rise up to defend the ancient Doctrine of the Holy Trinity against the ESS heresy (and this is what has freaked out the neo-Cal/CBMW crowd).

    I do not know the story of the Eastern Orthodox canon differences from the Catholic canon, but I’m interested in learning more about it.

    As for the formation of the Protestant canon, I think it might have more of a matter of what was left out than what was included in the books that were accepted. The ‘apocrypha’ is not a part of the Protestant canon, although many Protestant bibles include it for reference.

    Great comment, Velour. Much to think about in it.

  27. Velour wrote:

    @ mirele:

    Here’s an Astronomy link for you: http://www.space.com/science-astronomy

    I enjoy getting all of the wonderful outerspace pictures on my Twitter feed.

    I liked Astronomy in college, except for the labs. I disliked being up late at night (1 a.m. to 4 a.m. out in the middle of no-where to take pictures and I disliked being out in the freezing cold.

    Velour, mirele, et al., here’s a site I check every morning with my coffee that you may enjoy:

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…

  28. Have any of you who are on Twitter or FB seen *any* rationale for changing the words of Genesis 3:16 from “for” or “toward” to “contrary to”? I’ve looked and looked, but I cannot find any reason why the change was supposedly necessary.

    I was extremely disappointed to find that the NET Bible has incorporated Foh’s *interpretation* into their *translation.*

  29. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I remember the images of Betelgeuse showing it was actually irregular in shape; I remember Vega being so bright for its spectral class because it’s a fast spinner and we’re looking almost straight at its hotter polar regions; but Altair?

    Yes, Google image altair star chara and a bunch of results will come up. Boyfriend was impressed that Altair spins on its axis 2.5 times per DAY and is spinning so fast it’s at 2/3rds of its breakup speed. Of course, this has an effect on the star’s shape; it’s flattened at the poles.

    It’s way cool.

  30. @ Velour:
    I’m just now reading the interesting links you provided. Thanks.
    And last night I saw ‘The White Helmets’ on netflix on your recommendation. Wow! Very moving film.

  31. mirele wrote:

    Boyfriend was impressed that Altair spins on its axis 2.5 times per DAY and is spinning so fast it’s at 2/3rds of its breakup speed. Of course, this has an effect on the star’s shape; it’s flattened at the poles.

    Just like Vega, and Pleionie in the Pleiades.

  32. Christiane wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I’m just now reading the interesting links you provided. Thanks.
    And last night I saw ‘The White Helmets’ on netflix on your recommendation. Wow! Very moving film.

    Excellent.

    And “White Helments”…tears. Those men have been, rightly, nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

  33. Gram3 wrote:

    Have any of you who are on Twitter or FB seen *any* rationale for changing the words of Genesis 3:16 from “for” or “toward” to “contrary to”? I’ve looked and looked, but I cannot find any reason why the change was supposedly necessary.
    I was extremely disappointed to find that the NET Bible has incorporated Foh’s *interpretation* into their *translation.*

    I apologize I’ve seen a lot of articles come through my Twitter feed about the ESS controversy but I haven’t had time to read them (and we’ve covered it here).
    I will post the links for you here if I see any more that come my way.

    I only recently got on Facebook and I’ve seen of a few articles about ESS, but haven’t read them.

  34. roebuck wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    @ mirele:
    Here’s an Astronomy link for you: http://www.space.com/science-astronomy
    I enjoy getting all of the wonderful outerspace pictures on my Twitter feed.
    I liked Astronomy in college, except for the labs. I disliked being up late at night (1 a.m. to 4 a.m. out in the middle of no-where to take pictures and I disliked being out in the freezing cold.
    Velour, mirele, et al., here’s a site I check every morning with my coffee that you may enjoy:
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…

    Thanks, Roebuck. I will check that link and follow them on Twitter and Facebook.

    I like the night sky, I’d just rather somebody else take the pictures so I can fall asleep and be warm in my bed.

  35. Velour wrote:

    Those men have been, rightly, nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

    Agreed. Beautiful people. Brave and humble.

  36. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Those men have been, rightly, nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
    Agreed. Beautiful people. Brave and humble.

    Gems for human beings. High ethical standards — like physicians. We’re here to help anybody, regardless of the side they’re on.

  37. roebuck wrote:

    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…

    I still mark my calendar for when Mercury will be visible in the dawn or sunset sky so I can try and spot her with binoculars.
    It’s getting harder and harder though, cuz’ the light pollution has gotten so bad in my area.

  38. Velour wrote:

    Gems for human beings. High ethical standards — like physicians. We’re here to help anybody, regardless of the side they’re on.

    Our own medical people in Iraq and Afghanistan were there to support our troops but often volunteered to care for natives and for wounded enemy. My niece volunteered at a clinic for women and children on her days off. Sad stories she tells. Proud of her.

  39. @ Jeannette Altes:
    Thanks, Jeannette
    I had heard he had some concerns about some books, including the Book of James, but it was still included in the Lutheran canon. We have had some discussions about this over on Imonk blog where Chaplain Mike, the administrator, is Lutheran. Very informative. We have all sorts of Christian people over there, and we have some really great discussions.
    Thanks again. I keep you in my prayers, dear. God Bless.

  40. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    @ Velour:
    @ Christiane:
    This is off the cuff without back checking – just pulling from dusty memory bins…but I think the Protestant canon was put together by Martin Luther.

    I know Martin Luther the translation. I just didn’t know about the Protestant Canon and I can’t comment until I do further research or someone else knows.

    For instance, I don’t know if there were councils involved in choosing the Protestant Canon, etc.

    Here is one link with some information: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

    Thanks, Jeannette.

  41. @ Velour:
    you would enjoy Imonk, I think, from time to time we have an Orthodox priest come to write a guest post and also to comment, and we have a number of Eastern Orthodox people who participate

    Like TWW, it is an ‘international’ blog and that’s always a plus as different points of view come in from various sources and widen the lens and increase the light 🙂

  42. Christiane wrote:

    Samuel Clemens, who wrote under the name of ‘Mark Twain’ once cautioned people, this:
    “re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”

    Clemens conjured up Muff Potter too ya know.
    But yeah, I too love Twain’s aphorisms, especially the ones on ‘heaven’.

  43. Muff Potter wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…

    I still mark my calendar for when Mercury will be visible in the dawn or sunset sky so I can try and spot her with binoculars.
    It’s getting harder and harder though, cuz’ the light pollution has gotten so bad in my area.

    Mercury is always something to try for. Alas, where I live now (and for the last 23 years), though it has very clear and dark skies, has poor E and W horisons (and N and S, for that matter) – low ridges with tall trees. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Mercury…

  44. Christiane wrote:

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept,

    No. This is a very Christian concept.

  45. Christiane wrote:

    @ Velour:
    you would enjoy Imonk, I think, from time to time we have an Orthodox priest come to write a guest post and also to comment, and we have a number of Eastern Orthodox people who participate
    Like TWW, it is an ‘international’ blog and that’s always a plus as different points of view come in from various sources and widen the lens and increase the light

    Yes, I sometimes check out iMonk, but it’s infrequently. Are you on Twitter? Facebook?
    I’m on both. I’ve just joined a book club on Facebook to read Wild & Free by Jess Connolly and Hayley Morgan.

    Additionally, I started a book club over on FB for Love Warrior, by Glennon Doyle Manning, the Oprah Book of the Month. We haven’t started it officially yet. Let me know if you’d like an invite to these groups.

  46. Velour wrote:

    Todd Wilhelm did a blog article and posted it yesterday about Jonathan Leeman’s/9Marks’
    article about me and my Amazon review (1-star) of Mark Dever’s book.

    Great article. Leeman’s article (https://9marks.org/article/dont-be-a-9marxist/) currently has 10 comments, which is about 10 times what most of the 9Marks articles get. Most of the comments are critical, a couple are supportive. Mirele’s is still there.

  47. Velour wrote:

    Are you on Twitter? Facebook?

    not on Facebook anymore since I started the grieving process, no; not on Twitter ’cause I’m an old dinosaur and that’s too new for me 🙂

  48. Christiane wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Are you on Twitter? Facebook?
    not on Facebook anymore since I started the grieving process, no; not on Twitter ’cause I’m an old dinosaur and that’s too new for me

    OK.

  49. Ken F wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Todd Wilhelm did a blog article and posted it yesterday about Jonathan Leeman’s/9Marks’
    article about me and my Amazon review (1-star) of Mark Dever’s book.
    Great article. Leeman’s article (https://9marks.org/article/dont-be-a-9marxist/) currently has 10 comments, which is about 10 times what most of the 9Marks articles get. Most of the comments are critical, a couple are supportive. Mirele’s is still there.

    Thanks to Mirele for having them change my pronoun from a “he” to a “she”.

  50. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    This is off the cuff without back checking – just pulling from dusty memory bins…but I think the Protestant canon was put together by Martin Luther.

    There are tons of resources on this that go into great detail. Here is a site I find interesting: http://www.christian-history.org/history-of-the-bible.html.

    In short, the Eastern and Western churches recognized most of the same books early on, but there were disputes about some of the books, such as Hebrews and Revelation. They finally agreed. The earlier church considered the apocrypha important and good for reading in church, but non-canonical in the sense that the other books were. I personally believe RCs have over-emphasized it and Protestants have gone the other way by rejecting it. History of the canon is both fascinating and controversial.

  51. @Velour,

    Christiane wrote, “In order to make certain that ‘what had been handed down’ from the Apostles was preserved, the Church examined which Scriptures had been read at mass consistently throughout Christendom (the five centers of the faith that spread out from Rome) over a period of time from the beginning during the part of mass called ‘the Service of the Word’ (the second part being the celebration of the Thanksgiving/Eucharist). There were many extant texts out there but the only ones accepted by the Church were the ones that were being universally used over time. That was seen as a very important criterion.”

    The Eastern Orthodox would largely agree with this. Remember that there was only one Christian Church for 1000 years, though cracks between east and west were beginning to form after about 700 AD. We in the west are familiar only with the western expression of it, which spread from Rome to elsewhere in western Europe. Arianism was a problem pretty much everywhere, because by that time Christianity was made legal, and wider discussions regarding what Christians believed were much more open between Christians and non-Christians of all kinds. But non-Christians were asking questions from the beginning. Read the Apostolic Fathers from the end of the first century, or Justin Martyr from the mid-second century.

    [Orthodox would not agree that the 5 centers of Christendom “spread from Rome”; they actually spread from Jerusalem to Antioch, Alexandria and Rome – within relatively short order, and from Jerusalem to Antioch to Constantinople, the New Rome, a bit later, which became sort of the “axis” of EO after the fall of Old Rome.]

    Like RC, for EO the criterion was what was handed down from the Apostles that was actually used in worship. “Lex orendi, lex credendi” is very much the rule in EO. EO does not have the same kind of volumes of theology as are found in the west. EO theology is expressed in the Liturgy (what Catholics call the Mass, though there are some significant differences between the two in many of the prayers) and the prayer services (the monastic Offices) of the Church. EO theological works are generally explanations of the dogmas that are first and foremost expressed in those services.

    All EO churches accept Revelation in the Canon of Scripture, especially for its description of worship in its opening chapters and Christ’s victory in the end, but no EO churche reads it in any service. More about this here:
    https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/new-testament/book-of-revelation

    The Septuagint version of the OT is the one used in EO, same as RC. It was the most widely known and accepted group of sacred writings among the Jews of Jesus’ day (they hadn’t “canonized” their scriptures yet), and actually comes from an older textual line than the Masoretic/Hebrew text used for Protestant Bibles.

    Timothy Ware’s book “The Orthodox Church” is a very readable history. It’s been around long enough that it’s probably available through your local interlibrary loan, if you don’t want to buy it; both the new and old editions are equally good.

    Who came up with the Protestant Canon? I suppose Wikipedia would provide the info you need for that.

    I think your last two questions have pretty much the same answer: The same groups that teach the neo-Arianism that is Complementarianism are the most energetic about resisting anything that would lead a person to believe RC teaching, and there are things in the Septuagint that support doctrines Protestants reject. (EO is not even on the radar screen for them.) Protestant theology, especially belief about Scripture, does indeed make each Protestant the “authority.”

    One last note: for EO, the question about scripture – or doctrine in general – is not so much about “authority”, but rather what has been handed down faithfully through the years, especially as has been received as worship praxis. EO does not have a Pope, and its “teaching magisterium” resides in every bishop, not a group of them that decides what the rules are going to be (simplistic, I know, but it boils down to that). It’s about faithfulness, to Jesus Christ above all.

  52. roebuck wrote:

    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…

    During my high school/junior college days, I used to know my way around the night sky. Haven’t had much opportunity in the past 40 years, and I’ve forgotten a lot.

    I do remember taking a serious hit from a Jesus Juke on it sometime in the Eighties; I was checking out churches, and was on a young adults retreat to Palomar Observatory. I opened up about astronomy to some of the others (including the youth group leader) and got shut down with a smug Jesus Juke about “I KNOW The One Who Created All That!”

    These days I work my remaining astronomical interests into world writeup articles for the online game zine Freelance Traveller; I try to keep them as astronomically accurate as I can. (As well as trying to give each system & world its own unique feature(s).)

  53. Bridget wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept,

    No. This is a very Christian concept.

    Then why are the Catholics the ones most associated with it these days?

  54. Did anyone catch Mercury’s transit across the sun a few months ago? The local astronomy group had several telescopes out. I got to look through a telescope that showed the infra-red view – got to see amazing detail of the sun but Mercury was just little more than a speck.

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    These days I work my remaining astronomical interests into world writeup articles for the online game zine Freelance Traveller; I try to keep them as astronomically accurate as I can.

    P.S. If anyone’s interested in seeing some of them, I can post the links. I use my real name on those articles, so searching on “Headless Unicorn Guy” won’t get you any hits.

  56. @ dainca:

    Thank you so much, Danica, for your thorough response and loads of information. I shall research more.

    Spot on: ” It’s about faithfulness, to Jesus Christ above all.”

  57. Jacob wrote:

    Did anyone catch Mercury’s transit across the sun a few months ago? The local astronomy group had several telescopes out. I got to look through a telescope that showed the infra-red view – got to see amazing detail of the sun but Mercury was just little more than a speck.

    Considering the relative diameters of a G-class Main Sequence Star and a rockball world, all you’d see in a transit WOULD be a speck.

  58. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    These days I work my remaining astronomical interests into world writeup articles for the online game zine Freelance Traveller; I try to keep them as astronomically accurate as I can.
    P.S. If anyone’s interested in seeing some of them, I can post the links. I use my real name on those articles, so searching on “Headless Unicorn Guy” won’t get you any hits.

    Interesting, H.U.G.

    Yes, put the links up.

    By the way, Ishy is a geek and will be coordinating our online version of Camp Backbone here. You know, the one that we’re supposed to have in Nancy 2’s neck of the woods, Kentucky.

    If you want to coordinate with Ishy about any online events for Camp Backbone please send me an email at gbfsvsurvivors@gmail.com

  59. Muff Potter wrote:

    Clemens conjured up Muff Potter too ya know.
    But yeah, I too love Twain’s aphorisms, especially the ones on ‘heaven’.

    “Captain Stormfield”, “Letters from the Earth”, or both?

  60. Ken F wrote:

    The earlier church considered the apocrypha important and good for reading in church, but non-canonical in the sense that the other books were.

    Ken, EO has the same view of the books called “apocrypha” – part of what EO accepts as having been handed down from those first Christians. Those books aren’t called “apocrypha”; they’re simply part of the Septuagint OT. For “Bible-believing” Protestants, all the verses of Scripture are of equal weight. For EO, all Scripture is indeed inspired, but not everything has the same weight. The Gospels “weigh” the most, and they are the only portion of Scripture that is kept on the altar in an Orthodox Church.

  61. dainca wrote:

    [Orthodox would not agree that the 5 centers of Christendom “spread from Rome”; they actually spread from Jerusalem to Antioch, Alexandria and Rome – within relatively short order, and from Jerusalem to Antioch to Constantinople, the New Rome, a bit later, which became sort of the “axis” of EO after the fall of Old Rome.]

    YES. You are right, the first five great centers of Christianity spread from Jerusalem. Rome was only one of those five locations, although the city Rome was the center of the Empire at that time.

  62. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I opened up about astronomy to some of the others (including the youth group leader) and got shut down with a smug Jesus Juke about “I KNOW The One Who Created All That!”

    I have had experiences like that. Once they find out you know a thing or two about real science, and don’t worship at the shrine of YEC, you are pretty much an atheist to them.

    I think the Catholic Church in modern times has a sane and balanced way of dealing with science that other churches could learn from (I am not Catholic but lean that way on a number of things).

  63. Ken F wrote:

    Because Protestants forget that “we have the mind of Christ.”

    well, having ‘the mind of Christ’ IS a goal of Christian formation …. at least in the orthodox and mainline Churches …. once you get into the fringes it gets murky what is going on and although I attempted to explore some of that murkiness, I was repeatedly advised on SBCvoices that ‘each Church’ had its own ways and I shouldn’t keep looking for similarities 🙂

  64. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept,

    No. This is a very Christian concept.

    Then why are the Catholics the ones most associated with it these days?

    I don’t know that they are.

    Looking up the history on this and found This:

    Protestantism was created when Martin Luther was asked to recant his teachings at the Diet of Worms, asked to submit to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church. There Luther famously declared: “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand I can do no other.” That’s Protestantism. The elevation of the individual’s conscience over the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church. “

  65. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Jacob wrote:
    Did anyone catch Mercury’s transit across the sun a few months ago? The local astronomy group had several telescopes out. I got to look through a telescope that showed the infra-red view – got to see amazing detail of the sun but Mercury was just little more than a speck.
    Considering the relative diameters of a G-class Main Sequence Star and a rockball world, all you’d see in a transit WOULD be a speck.

    It was a tiny round shape. You could see its round shape – almost a speck but slightly larger. They used some magnification – I don’t remember exactly – it was neat to see.

  66. dainca wrote:

    The Gospels “weigh” the most, and they are the only portion of Scripture that is kept on the altar in an Orthodox Church.

    This is very interesting!

  67. dainca wrote:

    For “Bible-believing” Protestants, all the verses of Scripture are of equal weight. For EO, all Scripture is indeed inspired, but not everything has the same weight. The Gospels “weigh” the most, and they are the only portion of Scripture that is kept on the altar in an Orthodox Church.

    YES. It is similar in the Catholic Church, with the Holy Gospels as the primary books of the Bible, and the Gospels are carried into the Church in procession. And the words and teachings and actions of Christ Himself are especially honored, as He spoke and acted in the very Person of God.
    I am aware of the idea in evangelical circles that this is not the same, but to be honest, I can’t understand it. But is sure has been ‘used’ by some people with agendas who will choose a verse and act on it without considering the Royal Law and how their actions violate the Law of Christ. The ‘reasoning’ they give doesn’t make any sense to someone like me, no.

  68. dainca wrote:

    Ken, EO has the same view of the books called “apocrypha” – part of what EO accepts as having been handed down from those first Christians. Those books aren’t called “apocrypha”; they’re simply part of the Septuagint OT. For “Bible-believing” Protestants, all the verses of Scripture are of equal weight. For EO, all Scripture is indeed inspired, but not everything has the same weight. The Gospels “weigh” the most, and they are the only portion of Scripture that is kept on the altar in an Orthodox Church.

    Thank you for the clarification. Every time I dig into this I find new info. Here is something I just looked up based on what you wrote: http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php. Given all the evangelical emphasis on inerrancy, this history can be unsettling. We tend to want a very crisply defined canon, but history apparently did not give us that.

  69. Christiane wrote:

    And the words and teachings and actions of Christ Himself are especially honored, as He spoke and acted in the very Person of God.
    I am aware of the idea in evangelical circles that this is not the sam

    They are still in red in all the bibles. They are given weight. We just don’t have processions.

    Now people with agendas are a different story.

  70. Ken F wrote:

    Given all the evangelical emphasis on inerrancy, this history can be unsettling. We tend to want a very crisply defined canon, but history apparently did not give us that.

    Exactly.

  71. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I opened up about astronomy to some of the others (including the youth group leader) and got shut down with a smug Jesus Juke about “I KNOW The One Who Created All That!”

    Pretty much the same thing happened to me. I became rather anti-Christian for a while, actually. I believe we are of similar vintage – ah, the 70’s… so much strange stuff bubbling around back then

  72. dainca wrote:

    For EO, all Scripture is indeed inspired, but not everything has the same weight.

    What is a good version of the EO Old Testament? I’ve been wanting to read the “apocrypha” but I suspect that reading it stand-alone might not be the best approach. And I’m sure that its translators inserted their own biases.

    I’ve heard all kinds of arguments about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic text. The sides seem pretty polarized.

  73. Lea wrote:

    The elevation of the individual’s conscience over the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church. “

    In Catholicism, it is expected that a person will consider the ‘teachings of the Church’, will pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance, will consider their own situation reasonably, and in the end, they are expected to rely on their conscience to make a decision.

    The REASON: people are answerable to God in the end, and their conscience is the private place where they meet with Him …..
    the Church can advise and counsel, but a person’s informed moral conscience takes precedence in the Catholic faith. Can we mess up this process? Sure, we’re human, but it’s a good process and I don’t know any better way for moral decision making for myself.

    We have something called ‘catholic guilt’ built in because we are trained to ‘examine our consciences’ rigorously from childhood on up before confession,
    so we KNOW when that invisible red-light goes off in our consciences that we are ‘turning away’ from the Lord. It hits us viscerally. 🙂

  74. Lea wrote:

    @ Jacob:

    Not an astronomy geek at all but the moon was certainly pretty the other day!

    Lea, that’s really the best part. Those of us who are astronomy geeks, we said to ourselves, that’s certainly a pretty moon…

  75. Lea wrote:

    @ Jacob:
    Not an astronomy geek at all but the moon was certainly pretty the other day!

    I never get tired of seeing the moon. There is so much that a lot of people don’t notice or appreciate.

  76. Velour wrote:

    By the way, Ishy is a geek and will be coordinating our online version of Camp Backbone here. You know, the one that we’re supposed to have in Nancy 2’s neck of the woods, Kentucky.

    If you want to coordinate with Ishy about any online events for Camp Backbone please send me an email at gbfsvsurvivors@gmail.com

    I wish we could talk on-again, off-again boyfriend into lending us binoculars or a telescope for some late-night viewing of glittery celestial objects.

  77. roebuck wrote:

    Lea, that’s really the best part. Those of us who are astronomy geeks, we said to ourselves, that’s certainly a pretty moon…

    He’s gotten better about this, but on-again, off-again boyfriend really dislikes the moon as his is not interested in lunar astronomy and the brightness tends to blot out all but the very brightest stars in the sky.

    To each his own…

  78. mirele wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    By the way, Ishy is a geek and will be coordinating our online version of Camp Backbone here. You know, the one that we’re supposed to have in Nancy 2’s neck of the woods, Kentucky.
    If you want to coordinate with Ishy about any online events for Camp Backbone please send me an email at gbfsvsurvivors@gmail.com
    I wish we could talk on-again, off-again boyfriend into lending us binoculars or a telescope for some late-night viewing of glittery celestial objects.

    We can design the online version, since our “camp” will be online since we are spread out all over.

  79. mirele wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    Lea, that’s really the best part. Those of us who are astronomy geeks, we said to ourselves, that’s certainly a pretty moon…

    He’s gotten better about this, but on-again, off-again boyfriend really dislikes the moon as his is not interested in lunar astronomy and the brightness tends to blot out all but the very brightest stars in the sky.

    To each his own…

    As an amateur astronomer of nearly 50 years, I’ll just say that my policy has always been to roll with whatever is there on a given night 🙂 In any case, I love the moon.

  80. @ Ken F:

    With the background I grew up in, when the truth of this (the canon development is messy and the translations don’t agree), it did shake my faith. But contrary to what my former associates may think, this has not been a bad thing. It has shifted my faith focus off the book and onto the Person….

  81. Christiane wrote:

    the Church can advise and counsel, but a person’s informed moral conscience takes precedence in the Catholic faith.

    So was Luther right to follow his conscience away from the RCC?

  82. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    @ Ken F:

    With the background I grew up in, when the truth of this (the canon development is messy and the translations don’t agree), it did shake my faith. But contrary to what my former associates may think, this has not been a bad thing. It has shifted my faith focus off the book and onto the Person….

    Jeannette,

    Oh yes. Wisdom – attend!

  83. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    It has shifted my faith focus off the book and onto the Person….

    Maybe this is the point. If we had a perfect canon we might elevate it to deity. The “Word of God” is Jesus (logos made flesh), not the printed papers.

  84. dainca wrote:

    For “Bible-believing” Protestants, all the verses of Scripture are of equal weight. For EO, all Scripture is indeed inspired, but not everything has the same weight.

    I know what you are saying, but people really do not think that everything is of equal weight. To mention the absurd, I never heard anybody say that Paul’s wish that some folks go ahead and emasculate themselves was equal to I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. I think that we more closely think what you say in the second sentence above, and in the episcopal liturgy the reading from the gospels is accompanied by procedures (my word) that visually emphasize the difference. But yes, there is a disproportionate amount of preaching from the epistles in some stands of protestantism, or at least I think there is.

  85. Ken F wrote:

    The “Word of God” is Jesus (logos made flesh), not the printed papers.

    We SO need to be reminded of this…

  86. okrapod wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    the Church can advise and counsel, but a person’s informed moral conscience takes precedence in the Catholic faith.

    So was Luther right to follow his conscience away from the RCC?

    Luther was right to stand on his conscience, yes. And he was right about many things. This is now being studied in the Church in detail, and it’s long overdue.
    The Church is now actively engaged in reconsidering the contributions of Martin Luther and I am hopeful for good to come from this effort.
    I think ‘ecumenism’ IS possible when people engage in it who have the great and holy gift of patience at the front of their efforts . . . the whole ‘fruit’ of the Holy Spirit is needed, but ‘patience’ allows for differences, and for new efforts at understanding, and at allowing time. . . enough time, which so many without the ‘fruit’ of the Spirit of Unity will not understand who will not appreciate the value of small steps in the right direction . . .
    small steps are still a part of the way forward, which in the paradox of the Kingdom gently leads the struggling Church on the return journey back to its unity in Christ

  87. Lea wrote:

    Protestantism was created when Martin Luther was asked to recant his teachings at the Diet of Worms, asked to submit to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church. There Luther famously declared: “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand I can do no other.” That’s Protestantism. The elevation of the individual’s conscience over the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church. “

    And that’s what, it appears, these men want to take away from us.

  88. roebuck wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    roebuck wrote:
    I used to be an avid amateur astronomer back in the day. Yes Velour, lots of late, cold nights at the telescope…
    I still mark my calendar for when Mercury will be visible in the dawn or sunset sky so I can try and spot her with binoculars.
    Muff wrote: It’s getting harder and harder though, cuz’ the light pollution has gotten so bad in my area.
    Roebuck wrote: Mercury is always something to try for. Alas, where I live now (and for the last 23 years), though it has very clear and dark skies, has poor E and W horisons (and N and S, for that matter) – low ridges with tall trees. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Mercury…

    I never take for granted how good I’ve got it. Rural area, no city lights. Our farm joins my dad’s and my brother’s farms ………
    I live on a hill. My dad owns the top of the hill – I can walk up there and see for miles. I’ve set up my tripod and photographed the moon on several occasions, including the last lunar eclipse.
    Two years ago, I took a photo of one of our dogs, standing atop a large mound of gravel, with the rising harvest moon and a bare dead treetop behind the dog. I love taking photos!
    I have a telescope, too.
    We really do need to have a Camp Backbone near my house! It would be a blast! Of course, I’d take tons of photos. If the my photos fell into the wrong hands, though, all of the guilty parties could be identified!

  89. Gram3 wrote:

    I was extremely disappointed to find that the NET Bible has incorporated Foh’s *interpretation* into their *translation.*

    I was looking at the verse in all the translations the other day, to see if there were any other English versions with that wording.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%203:16

    The NET Bible is one of two.

    I had a hard time finding out who translated it exactly, but found this
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html

    The NET Bible was produced by a team of translators under the direction of W. Hall Harris (the General Editor), Daniel B. Wallace (Senior New Testament Editor) and Robert B. Chisholm (Senior Old Testament Editor). All three are professors at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). The preface of the first “Beta Edition” (printed in 2001) stated that the version was “completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.” They were identified only as scholars who “teach biblical exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools,” each of whom were “chosen in every instance because of his or her work in that particular book—often extending over several decades.” It also stated that these scholars were “assisted by doctoral students.”

    The inference is that students did a lot of the translating under the professors’ authority.

    The other version is the Expanded Bible which is a similar idea to the Amplified Bible, based on the New Century Version. The scholar involved in that one are Tremper Longman III, Mark L. Strauss, Daniel Taylor.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Expanded-Bible-EXB/

    So, with the ESV, that is 3 versions out of around 50?

  90. Velour wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    We really do need to have a Camp Backbone near my house! It would be a blast!
    Wouldn’t we?

    Nancy2, you should email me at: gbfsvsurvivors@gmail.com (that’s my email for my new blog)

    We could come up with a spending plan, etc. How much it would cost. Location. Transporation information. Food costs. Etc.

    In the meantime, Ishy has said that we could have an online camp. Our camp was competing with Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood’s Conference which I think someone (perhaps it was Mirele?) pointed out that the next one was in 2018, not 2017.

  91. siteseer wrote:

    And that’s what, it appears, these men want to take away from us.

    They want at least that. This ESV stunt is notice to every woman who reads it that every single member of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee and every single one of Crossway’s board members is hostile to every woman, each of whom they see as an enemy seeking to undermine them rather than a person who wants to partner with them.

    If you (generic) see an ESV Bible in the pew in front of you, then it is “reasonable” (using Denny Burk’s use of that word to describe said ESV stunt) to conclude that the pastor who put it there is hostile to women. It is reasonable to conclude that he believes that women are, by nature, contrary to men until he teaches otherwise or gives an explanation for the necessity of the “contrary to” translation.

  92. Ken F wrote:

    Maybe this is the point. If we had a perfect canon we might elevate it to deity. The “Word of God” is Jesus (logos made flesh), not the printed papers.

    That’s a very good point.

  93. Gram3 wrote:

    This ESV stunt is notice to every woman who reads it that every single member of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee and every single one of Crossway’s board members is hostile to every woman,

    This ESV stunt is notice to every woman AND MAN who reads it…

  94. Bridget wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    I believe that when the Holy Spirit connects with us in His gift of discernment, it is felt in our conscience, but that is a Catholic concept,

    No. This is a very Christian concept.

    My statement is correct as per the Vatican catechism:
    “1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”47
    (from the Vatican Catechism)

    I’m glad to know you think this is a very Christian concept. Not all evangelicals feel as you do.

  95. Ken F wrote:

    What is a good version of the EO Old Testament?

    If you read Greek, you could get hold of a modern Greek bible from an Orthodox publishing house, or a Rahlf’s Septuagint, which is the go-to for serious Septuagint study among Protestants.

    The NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) is a good, recent study edition; this is my go-to, since I don’t read Greek (yet). It is based on the NRSV and is the work of real scholars, a collaborative effort of Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. I have this as a hard copy, but it can be read on line:
    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

    I have a pocket edition NRSV that has all the books of the Apocrypha, including those extra 2 or 3 recognized by EO but not RC – handy for travel. Also the product of very good scholarship.

    The Orthodox Church recognizes the old RSV as “approved for reading” – Oxford RSV with Apocrypha is available. This has the RSV study notes by Bruce Metzger et. al. if you’re used to that format. It’s not my favorite on the readability scale, but again it has the scholarship creds. Also, I don’t like that the Apocrypha follows the NT, as an addendum. In most other Bibles where it appears as an addendum, it’s usually placed between the Testaments. This is logical, because the writings stem from that time period.

    When I want the best readability, I go to the old Jerusalem Bible from the early ’60s. (Did you know that the book of Jonah in the old JB was translated by JRR Tolkien? Yes, really!) Its notes reflect Catholic doctrine, but I don’t mind that. These are scarce as hen’s teeth, having been replaced by the New Jerusalem Bible, but perhaps you can find one in a nearby library, esp a university library.

    The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the NKJV. It’s okay, but I don’t own one; the notes are not to my inclination. If I want to read Orthodox commentary on Scripture, I prefer to go back to the works of the pre-Schism Greek Fathers that are available in English.

    There are several Catholic Bible editions around – RSV, New American Bible, others – again, likely available in your library.

    No English translation is perfect, but since I am academically inclined, I trust any of the above listed translations because I recognize the names of scholars who worked on them. Those scholars are head and shoulders above anybody who worked on the ESV.

  96. roebuck wrote:

    This ESV stunt is notice to every woman AND MAN who reads it…

    Yes, thank you. Gramp3 is one of them. How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you? How can any man who believes this have trust in his wife and her intentions toward him? It is relationship poison.

  97. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, thank you. Gramp3 is one of them. How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you? How can any man who believes this have trust in his wife and her intentions toward him? It is relationship poison.

    As I’ve noted before, complementarianism does not make marriage look appealing.

    Complementarians who take note of the falling marriage rates have a cow about it and try to pressure singles into marrying, but the product they’re pushing (as they teach it) does not look appealing.

  98. Ken F wrote:

    @ dainca:
    Great info. Thanks.

    I have copied Danica’s information about these resources to the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/Movies/TV, etc. tab, for future reference if anyone is looking for it.

  99. Gram3 wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    This ESV stunt is notice to every woman AND MAN who reads it…

    Yes, thank you. Gramp3 is one of them. How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you? How can any man who believes this have trust in his wife and her intentions toward him? It is relationship poison.

    Such insanity. A woman and a man come together, and try to make a good go of it. If there is no sense of being on the same team, what’s the point of it?

    Such insanity.

  100. Gram3 wrote:

    How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you?

    Changed a couple of words here for ya, Gram3. It makes so much more sense when worded this way:
    Yet, how natural it must be to be a slaveholder who believes that your slave desires to undermine you …… that she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you.

  101. roebuck wrote:

    If there is no sense of being on the same team, what’s the point of it?

    There is no sense in it, as far as. Some may think my judgment that these men are hostile to women is harsh, but the ESV and its apologists have offered no explanation whatsoever for this change. Did the Translation Oversight Committee and the Crossway board have some special revelation of the true translation of “desire for” since the last non-Permanent edition of the ESV? Who was on that Translation Oversight Committee and who were the Crossway board members when they released that inaccurate translation?

    This looks like making a legacy for Wayne Grudem at the expense of the reputation of every woman and the trust which should be at the heart of a marriage between two people who are in Christ. Crossway has prospered by putting out this propaganda, so they do owe Grudem in that respect.

  102. @ Nancy2:
    Just imagine if every wedding ceremony had a short instruction to the groom to be vigilant because his wife will want to undermine (destroy) him at every opportunity. How about a short instruction to the bride that her husband will want to be a slacker and lazy and not protect her? That is exactly what these men and a few women are teaching the next generation. Every week.

    As Roebuck said, INSANITY.

  103. dainca wrote:

    (Did you know that the book of Jonah in the old JB was translated by JRR Tolkien? Yes, really!) Its notes reflect Catholic doctrine, but I don’t mind that.

    So does JRR Tolkien’s LOTR (Catholicism in technicolor), but no one seems to mind that either.

  104. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you?

    Changed a couple of words here for ya, Gram3. It makes so much more sense when worded this way:
    Yet, how natural it must be to be a slaveholder who believes that your slave desires to undermine you …… that she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you.

    good insight

  105. Gram3 wrote:

    Just imagine if every wedding ceremony had a short instruction to the groom to be vigilant because his wife will want to undermine (destroy) him at every opportunity. How about a short instruction to the bride that her husband will want to be a slacker and lazy and not protect her? That is exactly what these men and a few women are teaching the next generation. Every week.

    LOL

  106. Christiane wrote:

    I’m glad to know you think this is a very Christian concept. Not all evangelicals feel as you do.

    The point was that it is not just a Catholic concept.

  107. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I do remember taking a serious hit from a Jesus Juke on it sometime in the Eighties; I was checking out churches, and was on a young adults retreat to Palomar Observatory. I opened up about astronomy to some of the others (including the youth group leader) and got shut down with a smug Jesus Juke about “I KNOW The One Who Created All That!”

    I know exactly where you were. They will squeeze all the curiosity, joy, and wonderment out of your very soul if you let them.

  108. Muff Potter wrote:

    I know exactly where you were. They will squeeze all the curiosity, joy, and wonderment out of your very soul if you let them.

    …Ah but don’t you let them…
    — Carole King 1971 —

  109. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    How awful it must be to be a married man who believes that your wife desires to undermine you (generic)? That she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you?

    Changed a couple of words here for ya, Gram3. It makes so much more sense when worded this way:
    Yet, how natural it must be to be a slaveholder who believes that your slave desires to undermine you …… that she is not for you and does not desire you and your good, but is bent against you.

    Well, the ESV version of Matthew 10:36 reads
    “And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
    If THIS is what passes for marriage counseling in neo-Cal world, it’s a wonder those guys EVER find someone willing to step into the role of ‘enemy’ of her husband. This emphasis on negativity may serve an agenda, but it sure doesn’t bode well for a happy marriage, no.

  110. Nancy2 wrote:

    The slave cylinder had gone out ….
    That’s when I began to realize that so many churches teach women to be helpless and dependant.

    That is because they want to be the master cylinder.

  111. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Just imagine if every wedding ceremony had a short instruction to the groom to be vigilant because his wife will want to undermine (destroy) him at every opportunity. How about a short instruction to the bride that her husband will want to be a slacker and lazy and not protect her? That is exactly what these men and a few women are teaching the next generation. Every week.

    It makes perfect sense if you view EVERYTHING as Power Struggle and ONLY Power Struggle.

    “The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among the Powerless.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four

  112. Bill M wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    The slave cylinder had gone out ….
    That’s when I began to realize that so many churches teach women to be helpless and dependant.
    That is because they want to be the master cylinder.

    ROFL!!!!!

  113. Velour wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    These days I work my remaining astronomical interests into world writeup articles for the online game zine Freelance Traveller; I try to keep them as astronomically accurate as I can.
    P.S. If anyone’s interested in seeing some of them, I can post the links. I use my real name on those articles, so searching on “Headless Unicorn Guy” won’t get you any hits.

    Interesting, H.U.G.

    Yes, put the links up.

    OK, you asked for it. There’s a lot of links.

    These were done for the online game zine Freelance Traveller. Traveller was the first SF role-playing game to see widespread sales circa 1977, but never really caught on in my area. The milieu and “feel” of the background are somewhat similar to Firefly, with player-characters usually running small Free-Trader starships and getting in trouble on the frontier. (Firefly itself has been referred to as “Joss Whedon’s Traveller campaign”.)

    These were written for gamers and have a bit of game jargon in them. If you run into codes or strings of letters/numbers/abbreviations you don’t recognize, it’s probably game mechanics/shorthand codes or in-universe references. A minor glossary of some non-technical terms:
    * Tech Level (TL) — the technological advancement of the world.
    * Vargr – non-human race, uplifted Wolves courtesy of a Forerunner race.
    * Belter – asteroid prospector/miner.

    Glavion Cluster – these were adapted from fragmentary 40-year-old campaign notes of another gamer:
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/breeforth.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/cathai.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/evansion.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/zandisill.html

    Dole Moving Group – these are based on system profiles from software runs used to test a planetary-accretion theory at Rand Corporation in the mid-Sixties:
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/telerine.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/korvo.html
    (I have two more of these in the chute.)

    Independent writeups:
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/agudegh.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/alkaidin.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/bryant.html
    http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/culture/reference/worlds/khorlu.html

  114. Christiane wrote:

    Well, the ESV version of Matthew 10:36 reads
    “And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
    If THIS is what passes for marriage counseling in neo-Cal world,

    Women are told to “obey” and “to submit” and that the problem is theirs. For having an iota of critical thinking skills, conscience, and decision-making, women are threatened and brought up on ‘church discipline’ charges before the entire church.

    One dear woman (middle-aged, professional in finance, volunteers with adults who are mentally ill in group homes and with the elderly in convalescent homes) wanted to leave our abusive church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, which her husband planned to remain at. She went to a saner church. She told me when I interviewed her that the pastors/elders screamed at her, including at her home. They told her to ‘obey’ her husband. When she refused to return to the church, the senior pastor ordered that hundreds of church members harass her to “repent”. She moved out of the family home, disconnected her cell phone and her email. Basically it was pastors/elders sanctioned stalking/criminal harassment, the poor dear.

    They happily destroyed her reputation before all. Vicious. Vicious. Vicious.

    NeoCals have set women back by hundreds if not thousands of years.

  115. @ Velour:
    Yes, but the sheer viciousness of what is being done to the women is a seed that will grow into destruction for the whole neo-Cal 9 Marks heavy-shepherding evil mess.

    No good can come of something so vicious. It will destroy the perpetrators themselves in the end. They will get worse and worse until they themselves turn on one another. These men cannot treat women so poorly that they can avoid being consumed by their own viciousness.

  116. Christiane wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Yes, but the sheer viciousness of what is being done to the women is a seed that will grow into destruction for the whole neo-Cal 9 Marks heavy-shepherding evil mess.

    No good can come of something so vicious. It will destroy the perpetrators themselves in the end. They will get worse and worse until they themselves turn on one another. These men cannot treat women so poorly that they can avoid being consumed by their own viciousness.

    Preach it, Christiane!

  117. Lea wrote:

    Indeed. I don’t know why this is complicated. We just don’t point to catechisms all the time.

    And the concept is clearly in scripture.

  118. Christiane wrote:

    No good can come of something so vicious. It will destroy the perpetrators themselves in the end. They will get worse and worse until they themselves turn on one another.

    What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?

  119. Christiane wrote:

    Well, the ESV version of Matthew 10:36 reads
    “And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
    If THIS is what passes for marriage counseling in neo-Cal world, it’s a wonder those guys EVER find someone willing to step into the role of ‘enemy’ of her husband.

    Power Struggle Without End, Amen.

  120. Christiane wrote:

    No good can come of something so vicious. It will destroy the perpetrators themselves in the end. They will get worse and worse until they themselves turn on one another. These men cannot treat women so poorly that they can avoid being consumed by their own viciousness.

    Makes me wonder if Grudem, Burk, and the whole lot of them have realized that their gender-based ideology is on life-support and will not see the turn of the new century (84 years).

  121. dainca wrote:

    These are scarce as hen’s teeth,

    I used to use a 1973 RSV “Common Bible” which was highly UNcommon, being the only one I ever saw. A couple Evangelical friends raised eyebrows since it included the Apocrypha.

  122. @ Velour:

    Thanks, Velour! Good info, and I appreciate the reminder of things said. Sometimes I will go back to old discussions, but that's a good idea, saving pertinent information and well-reasoned comments.

  123. Gram3 wrote:

    the ESV and its apologists have offered no explanation whatsoever for this change.

    My first problem with the ESV was with Ps 18:26/2 Sam 22:27.
    “with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.”
    They differ from all other versions with “purified” rather than “pure” or similar. I suppose this one could be for Calvinist purposes. Then they have “make yourself seem” as if God is purposely deceptive, unlike all other versions with “show yourself” or “will be” or similar. Maybe they thought God actually showing himself tortuous makes Him look bad– but they offer no explanation.

  124. Muff Potter wrote:

    Christiane wrote:
    No good can come of something so vicious. It will destroy the perpetrators themselves in the end. They will get worse and worse until they themselves turn on one another. These men cannot treat women so poorly that they can avoid being consumed by their own viciousness.

    Makes me wonder if Grudem, Burk, and the whole lot of them have realized that their gender-based ideology is on life-support and will not see the turn of the new century (84 years).

    Hmmmm. I do hope that the animal species known as “women who submit to comp/pat male headship” is truly an endangered species, soon to be extinct!

  125. Muff Potter wrote:

    Makes me wonder if Grudem, Burk, and the whole lot of them have realized that their gender-based ideology is on life-support and will not see the turn of the new century (84 years).

    Then like al-Taliban and al-Daesh, they HAVE to take over and make their Ideology the One True Way.

    “Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    — L Ron Hubbard

  126. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    And the RSV in general was considered a “liberal” version.

    In that context, anything other than the ol’ King Jimmy is a “liberal” version.

  127. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In that context, anything other than the ol’ King Jimmy is a “liberal” version.

    Most of my Navigator friends liked the NASB. Pretty sure the EFCA I attended and Pastor Wilson used King Jim only. His son Doug still does. I was likely the only one with a Pope-approved version.

  128. Tempest in a tea pot to me. The new reading does not prescribe patriarchy actually. Those who believe in that doctrine will read this that way, but those who don’t will just understand the new version as describing the very real effects of the curse: it does hurt to give birth, we do often “desire” contrary to our husbands, and they often do desire to rule over us. In other words, God designed no battle of the sexes but humankind, as a result of the fall, has been in one ever since.

    Now as for me and my house? We see the curse as still applying to the lost, but part of salvation is the beginning of the lifting of the curse. Thanks to Adam and Eve our natural tendencies are for me to desire dh but often run contrary to him out of selfishness, and his natural tendency is to want to boss and dominate. But in Jesus, thankfully, we are freed. I’m freed to love and serve and enjoy and aid and receive from and be an equal to, and he is freed from the tendency to run roughshod over me and dominate. Jesus lifts the curse, allowing us to be joyful free and equal partners.

    But you can get that out of any translation, even this new one.

  129. Christiane wrote:

    But I do know at the heart of the Orthodox concept of Christian humility, you will find this ancient prayer:
    “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

    I am having trouble understanding why someone would believe that being elect was something to be proud of. The correct understanding of it is that all glory for it goes to God – and none reflects on the elect. Nothing they did. Nothing they understood. Nothing they deserved. Just grace and mercy from the only One Who can save.

  130. mirele wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Sometimes, what I hear from the comps regarding women feels like the opening lines of Patti Smith’s “Gloria”, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine.”

    Well, the NeoCal Comps do believe in Limited Atonement so….Jesus didn’t die for everyone.

  131. Gram3 wrote:

    Patriciamc wrote:
    That’s exactly their twisted logic.
    Imagine the poison that this injects into the marriage relationship. The husband is taught that his wife is *by nature* set against him. The wife is taught that God designed her to be her husband’s subordinate who should *joyfully* submit to his fallen judgment because she, as a woman, is *by nature* more easily deceived than her husband is. If there is a difference in judgment, then the husband must rule over her judgment because he is the male.
    This is a toxic doctrine that has nothing of the true Gospel in it. It sells to weak men and weak women who do not find their identities in the Risen Christ but rather in idolatrous abstractions of “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” or in human idols who promote those idolatrous abstractions.
    A Biblical Man is one who emulates the Risen Christ. A Biblical Woman is a woman who emulates the Risen Christ. The Good News is that in Christ men and women can live in harmony rather than in enmity. The true Gospel brings reconciliation, but this false gospel creates suspicion and fear where there should be trust and unity.
    CBMW, ESV, Crossway, and the Gospel Glitterati do not grasp the very heart of the Gospel. Rather they want to perpetuate the consequences of the Fall and call it “God’s good and beautiful design.”

    Gram3, Excellent observations. You have much wisdom.

  132. Lea wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    I can’t figure out if creation of woman is considered to be God ordained slavery, or if they just believe women are two-legged Labrador Retrievers that can be used for the propagation of the male human species
    I really think they don’t realize that women are human. So they expect us to have no opinion or emotion or thought? Because Jesus? Really?
    Pass.

    Just saw this article on The Bayly Blog today and their view of women resonates with your statement. I have no doubt that the Bayly Bros. will be thrilled with the new translation of Gen. 3:16.
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/09/feminists-and-libertarians-my-fathers-world

  133. refugee wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Thanks, Velour! Good info, and I appreciate the reminder of things said. Sometimes I will go back to old discussions, but that’s a good idea, saving pertinent information and well-reasoned comments.

    Most welcome.

  134. linda wrote:

    The new reading does not prescribe patriarchy actually.

    It will be used that way regardless but that’s not the main reason I have a problem with it (because these guys will use anything to justify their position)…

    linda wrote:

    we do often “desire” contrary to our husbands

    That may be true. And they often ‘desire’ contrary to their wives opinions or needs. But that’s not what the text actually SAYS.

    This translation is wrong. It is the opposite of what the text says. It is inelegant. And it is agenda driven. That is my opposition to it.

  135. Lea wrote:

    agenda driven

    Everything about the reformed movement is agenda driven! There is little evidence of its leaders being driven by the cause of Christ. The new reformers are more concerned about an agenda to plant theology as quickly as they can, than to plant Jesus in the hearts of lost souls. Twisting Scripture to make it fit the reformed agenda is but one symptom of a movement running contrary to the Kingdom of God on earth. New Calvinist leaders will one day give an account for their rebellion.

  136. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Not to mention they destroy the parallel poetic structure by the added words.

    Parallel poetic structure cannot be permitted to interfere with Purity of Ideology, Comrades.

  137. dainca wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    What is a good version of the EO Old Testament?
    (portion deleted for brevity)

    The Orthodox Study Bible is based on the NKJV. It’s okay, but I don’t own one; the notes are not to my inclination. If I want to read Orthodox commentary on Scripture, I prefer to go back to the works of the pre-Schism Greek Fathers that are available in English.
    There are several Catholic Bible editions around – RSV, New American Bible, others – again, likely available in your library.

    No English translation is perfect, but since I am academically inclined, I trust any of the above listed translations because I recognize the names of scholars who worked on them. Those scholars are head and shoulders above anybody who worked on the ESV.

    Dainca, you did a wonderful job outlining resources–thank you! In my response, I offer a slightly different view on the relatively new Orthodox Study Bible.

    I have heard from some who have been Orthodox a long time that the OSB’s comments are less than what they need or want, and that they prefer to read the early fathers commentary. I totally get that. But when I was first looking at Orthodox teachings, I read the OSB and was blown out of the water with the commentary. The richness and depth was so refreshing to me…but I could not have taken in much more than what it offered at the time.

    I would not have had the knowledge or (in my case) the inclination to go digging up the writings of the early church fathers, but having the notes at the bottom of the page and the short article explaining some of the Orthodox teachings made it possible for me to go wading, at least.

    In addition, the OSB comments have been written at a time when there _is_ a Protestant church, which is different from the times in which the early church fathers wrote. The OSB takes the time to clarify words used by many Christian traditions–but with different meanings–which I found helpful.

    Ten years later, I’m reading different commentary, but I’m glad I had the OSB when I was first reading as a lifelong not-Orthodox Christian. They still help me from time to time when I am trying to get words around an explanation.

    Oh…I think the OSB Old Testament was a new rendition of the Septuagint, and only the New Testament was based on the NKJV. The making of the OSB is described in the front matter.

    (FYI for those who are interested: the OSB is available in Kindle, but I don’t recommend it as a sole copy. Between formatting issues and color panels, the Kindle experience is … lacking. You can get a used hardback copy from Amazon for about $25.)

    Dainca: a last personal note–I got to meet Bruce Metzger and attend a conference in how biblical translation works. Isn’t that neat? And was THAT conference ever illuminating! Dr. Metzger was a most humble and winsome man, his wife a delight, and it was one of the happiest experiences of my life to have lunch with them.

  138. @ Christiane

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. That was the quote to which I was referring.

    Apologies — I still can’t get the copy function to work and this is a different computer.

    I don’t believe Calvin either. And my understanding of RT is that no one can know whether or not one is chosen, not the preachers nor the congregants.

    To be a little more clear with my question.

    I understand why anyone would ask any person why said person believes they are God’s elect.

    I don’t understand why believing that Christ has chosen a person “out of the darkness into His marvelous Light” is arrogant.

    Jesus told His disciples (John 15:19) that He had chosen them. Further, as a RESULT of being “the chosen,” people would treat them they way people had treated Him, their Master (v. 15:20). BECAUSE He had chosen them, they would be identified with Him — and He’s really fine with that.

    So, being chosen, was a “given.” Their “chosen-ness” was the exact REASON for people’s responses to them.

    So, how can “claiming such a status” be arrogant?

    To me, arrogance would have been if, at that point, one of the disciples had stood up and told Christ he or she didn’t believe she or he was one of the chosen.

    I’m not directing my question at you, personally. Just trying to clarify my thoughts about this thought.

  139. In the interest of full disclosure ~~

    According to official RC doctrine, I’m pretty sure I qualify as ~ anathema ~ on one and probably more points recorded in the 6th session of the Council of Trent.

    Thing is, I’m not sure I understand EXACTLY what the anathemas are talking about, so maybe there is a little wiggle room in there for me.

  140. trs wrote:

    Jesus told His disciples (John 15:19) that He had chosen them. Further, as a RESULT of being “the chosen,” people would treat them they way people had treated Him, their Master (v. 15:20). BECAUSE He had chosen them, they would be identified with Him — and He’s really fine with that.
    So, being chosen, was a “given.” Their “chosen-ness” was the exact REASON for people’s responses to them.
    So, how can “claiming such a status” be arrogant?

    I will try to answer this as best I have completed a *tour-of-duty* of a NeoCalvinist church. Hopefully it will be comprehensible.

    It’s one thing to bask in the goodness of God, that He is so good that He chose us.
    He does so much for us. Isn’t that awesome?

    It’s quite another thing how the NeoCalvinists deliver the message. They are arrogant. They are puffed up. And they are proud! They literally talk about – brag about – how they were chosen before the beginning of time. Everything is framed as how superior and special they are and that basically everybody else is a loser.

    God’s people are to be known for their humility, not arrogance.

    NeoCalvinists talk and write about how their churches are for The Elect. And if you disagree with them on anything, have any critical thinking skills, you’re destined for Hell and “not one of us”. They are chilling. And yes, they are arrogant.

    There is nothing humble and appreciative about them.

  141. PaJo wrote:

    –I got to meet Bruce Metzger and attend a conference in how biblical translation works. Isn’t that neat?

    That is neat. Today, at the meeting of the small eclectic group of women I pray with, one of the older women told us (because I brought up the subject of translations) that she was on the committee that did the NLT for children and told us a little about the process. 🙂

  142. Daisy wrote:

    Regarding the one ESV translation from Genesis of “for” to “contrary to”, what does that even mean?
    The “contrary to” (in my mind) suggests something totally opposite from what the underlying text is saying.
    If my understanding of that verse is correct, how is that accurate biblical translation?????

    Well, I’ve been having a discussion with some folks on a Calvinist Facebook site about the 2016 ESV. My comment to one fella was, “The change (in Gen 3:16) cannot be significant, deviating from other translations, and at the same time accurate.” I made this comment in response to him saying that the change was significant and yet does not violate the Hebrew text. This idea made no sense to me. So then he responded to me by saying:

    “I disagree. The change is significant in the sense that, at first glance, it says something different than the other translations (although the implications are much the same). But that does not mean it is inaccurate. The precise meaning of the Hebrew text, in particular the preposition ‘al, is not easy to ascertain. It would be wrong to vilify a translation because it differs from earlier translations; that is precisely what KJVO folks do. It is also not fair to condemn a translation because translators occasionally come down on a side with which you disagree.”

    So, according to this fella, Nancy2 can have a desire for ice cream, while at the same time having a desire contrary to ice cream, and yet somehow both of these scenarios can be true at the same time. Me thinks this sounds like hermaneutical gymnastics. Interesting that he thinks it isn’t fair to condemn a translation because it may come down on the side which you disagree with. And yet, what about the criticism of the NIV from folks in his camp that call it a liberal translation due to making certain texts genderless? Conversing with Calvinists about this ESV debacle is like being in an alternate reality.

  143. Daisy wrote:

    Jamie Carter wrote:
    Perhaps their complementary natures are the reason why, since men are on God’s side, women must be contrary because it’s impossible for men and women to be the same or men to be contrary.
    Why do complementarians say that the sexes are complementary when they go around in a lot of their teaching saying that Men Are From Mars, Woman Are From Venus.
    They simultaneously teach women and men pair up well together (because their differences go well together like PB and Jelly)
    but they also teach women and men are so totally unlike, one wonders how any men or women anywhere ever marry??

    Daisy, it doesn’t matter if they contradict themselves. Just as long as the bottom line is: Men Are Supposed To Be In Authority and Women Are Always Supposed To Submit. All the other words are just fluff.

  144. Deb wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Why now?
    I have been asking this question as well.

    Why now? To squelch FEMINISM in the church!!!

  145. Burwell wrote:

    siteseer wrote:
    I suppose they thought the ESS would be accepted by now, they’d slide this new ESV into place and then just sit back and gloat.
    Grudem certainly is doubling down on promoting his own special heresy, isn’t he? As far as I can tell, he is still going forward with his talk at ETS: “Why a Denial of the Son’s Eternal Submission Threatens both the Trinity and the Bible.”

    When and where will this take place? Do you know? Perhaps some loyal TWW’s can demonstrate outside, like Mirele does outside Driscoll’s “church.”

  146. trs wrote:

    So, being chosen, was a “given.” Their “chosen-ness” was the exact REASON for people’s responses to them.

    So, how can “claiming such a status” be arrogant?

    To me, arrogance would have been if, at that point, one of the disciples had stood up and told Christ he or she didn’t believe she or he was one of the chosen.

    I’m not directing my question at you, personally. Just trying to clarify my thoughts about this thought.

    Thank you for your reasoned response, trs.

    My own thought is that those God ‘chooses’ and gifts with talents and the blessings of the Holy Spirit …. these people are His servants and the servants He is sending out to those who need Christ …. they are not to ‘lord it’ over the ones they are helping, but instead they are asked to help them ‘bear their burdens’ in accordance with Christ’s Royal Law.

    This serving cannot be done by proud people who want to ‘control’ others. Not even the Holy Spirit was sent to ‘control’ us, but to come along side of us and be a comforter and point us ever to Christ. And our reception of the Holy Spirit among us will yield fruit that you won’t see in those who elevate themselves above ‘that other sinner’, no. You will see humility and patience and long-suffering and loving-kindness among these servants of the Lord, the ‘chosen’ bearers of His grace to those who need Him.

    The distance between a chosen ‘servant of the Lord’ and one who self-proclaims ‘headship rule’ is as far from the east to the west ….. no comparison, only contrast.
    One brings light and help and bears within himself/herself the gift of Christ’s peace to those who need Him;
    the other brings rules and ‘contracts’ and ‘discipline’ and ‘control’ and punishment and shaming before a congregation …. so much for the gifts of the Spirit

    the ‘elect’? God will give to some the opportunity to give of self in ways that witness to Christ …. if that is not ‘election’ enough,
    I can’t think what other honors there are that rise above that loving-kindness in imitation of Christ.

    Now I come from a different point of view. And that may hinder me understanding you, but I hope not. Thank you for trying to dialogue with me. God Bless!

  147. Darlene wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    Gram3 wrote:
    Why now?
    I have been asking this question as well.
    Why now? To squelch FEMINISM in the church!!!

    if anything would make me declare myself a feminist its these idiots.

  148. Mark wrote:

    Is this the Newest manifestation of King James onlyism?

    No doubt about it! The New Calvinists are “ESV-Only”, to go along with “Only We Have The True Gospel”, “Only We Bear Truth”, “Only We Are The Elect”, and other assorted arrogant mumbo-jumbo which defines their tribe.

  149. Nancy2 wrote:

    I didn’t get back home until Sunday afternoon, so I missed church. The next Sunday, everyone wanted to know why I missed, so we told them. I could not believe how many of the women said that they never could have driven that far alone – they would have had to have called another man to go get their husbands!!!

    My dearest friend moved back to her hometown (here) from another part of the country. She drove all the way, in a U-Haul with her furniture, then turned around & went back, picked up a second u-haul full of her things and brought the rest back. (With another friend–also female–following her in my friend’s car (also full of stuff for her home place). Now, she was the tiredest person I ever saw for a few days, but she did it. At 60+, yet…..
    Don’t tell the poor people who were so appalled at you, though. They might all swoon on the spot!

  150. Christiane wrote:

    At best, you have a cult forming, at worst, you have possibly a connection of forces and entities that seek control eventually at a dominionist level.

    I think you’re right.

  151. linda wrote:

    Tempest in a tea pot to me.

    Perhaps you haven’t really grasped the issue or its importance.

    The new reading does not prescribe patriarchy actually.

    Really.

    Those who believe in that doctrine will read this that way, but those who don’t will just understand the new version as describing the very real effects of the curse: it does hurt to give birth, we do often “desire” contrary to our husbands, and they often do desire to rule over us. In other words, God designed no battle of the sexes but humankind, as a result of the fall, has been in one ever since.

    You are trying to minimize the difference but it won’t work. The new translation is the exact opposite of what the text is saying.

    Now as for me and my house? We see the curse as still applying to the lost, but part of salvation is the beginning of the lifting of the curse. Thanks to Adam and Eve our natural tendencies are for me to desire dh but often run contrary to him out of selfishness, and his natural tendency is to want to boss and dominate. But in Jesus, thankfully, we are freed. I’m freed to love and serve and enjoy and aid and receive from and be an equal to, and he is freed from the tendency to run roughshod over me and dominate. Jesus lifts the curse, allowing us to be joyful free and equal partners.

    Equal partners meaning what? You are freed by Christ’s sacrifice to be subordinated to a human being?

    But you can get that out of any translation, even this new one.

    Well, certainly a person can always twist the words to fit their own ideology. But this new version does it for the male supremacists. It’s “pre-twisted.”

  152. Christiane wrote:

    The distance between a chosen ‘servant of the Lord’ and one who self-proclaims ‘headship rule’ is as far from the east to the west ….. no comparison, only contrast.

    What a beautiful comment, Christiane! I loved every word

    Hugs.

  153. Jerome wrote:

    We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake

    Oooh! Interesting.

    The question is, will they fix the translation.

  154. Crossway Reverses Decision to Make ESV Bible Text Permanent
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/september/crossway-reverses-decision-esv-bible-text-permanent-mistake.html

    The publisher of the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible has reversed its controversial decision to finalize the text after tweaking 29 verses.

    “We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake,” stated Crossway president and CEO Lane Dennis in an announcement released today. “We apologize for this and for any concern this has caused for readers of the ESV, and we want to explain what we now believe to be the way forward. Our desire, above all, is to do what is right before the Lord.”

    “Good for the ESV,” tweeted Scot McKnight, who had criticized the decision to make the text permanent.