"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."
Lane T. Dennis PhD, President and CEO of Crossway
Last month Crossway Publishers' Board of Directors made a surprising announcement. It had approved 52 word changes in 29 verses out of more than 775,000 words across more than 31,000 verses of the English Standard Version (ESV) and the ESV text would “remain unchanged in all future editions.” Christianity Today shared this news in the following article — After Tweaking 29 Verses Bible Translation Becomes Unchanging Word of God.
We discussed these changes in our post entitled: Can You REALLY Trust the English Standard Version (ESV)? Included at the top of our post was the following quote from the ESV website (see screen shot below).
Funny thing… when you click on the esv.org link, the following now appears:
Update 9/29/16 ESV.org is now working.
What in the world is going on? It appears Crossway's Board of Directors has just reversed its decision about the "permanent wording" of the ESV. Christianity Today broke the news with its article entitled Crossway Reverses Decision to Make ESV Bible Text Permanent. According to the CT article:
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.”
The CT article went on to state that Scot McKnight (who had criticized the initial decision) and Desiring God editor Bryan DeWire tweeted favorable comments regarding this decision, which you can read here and here.
It was changes to Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 that garnered the most criticism. Note the words "contrary to". At the time of this writing, Bible Gateway still had the updated wording. See the screen shots below of Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7.
It will be interesting to see whether the new wording is changed back…
Here is a portion of the announcement just made by Lane T. Dennis PhD, President and CEO of Crossway (see screen shot below):
The Christianity Today article published today revealed that:
About 8 percent of American adults, and a surprising 15 percent of millennials, prefer it, according to the 2015 State of the Bible report. The ESV has become the third most requested translation for those doing Google searches for Bible verses, according to an analysis by OpenBible.info.
What we still cannot comprehend is why did the translation committee change the wording of Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 to mean the exact opposite of what is stated in other translations of the Bible.
We are grateful that so many have taken to social media and the internet to express their concerns for these changes.
Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson have been writing a series on these drastic changes over at Theology for Women. It is entitled Toward a Better Reading: Reflections on the Permanent Changes to the text of Genesis 3:16 in the ESV, and you can access the first two installments here — Part 1 Part 2
Barbara Roberts, our Australian friend whom we met several years ago when she came to the states and who blogs over at A Cry for Justice along with Jeff Crippen, has written an outstanding article entitled — What is the woman's desire? How Susan Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16 fed steroids to abusers. It really is a must read! You can access it here — Part 1 Part 2
We will continue to keep our readers informed about any future updates regarding the ESV.
Admitting it was a mistake is a step in the right direction. Thanks Deebs for being part of the change!
Posting this here, too….Posted an update in the open discussion thread. Thank you.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open
I was just reading this article. They certainly changed their minds quickly. They must have felt the pushback was very strong, indeed. Very interesting.
Marquis has also posted a new update on the open discussion thread…
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-14/#comment-285316
Crossway will now be Crowssay.
This was a shocker, I must admit.
siteseer wrote:
Likely, the ‘pushback’ was some well-deserved ridicule for such pompous behavior.
NO. SKUBALON.
@ drstevej: Clever!
As a trained linguist, I am encouraged to see Crossway's initial stance on language permanency for the ESV was not immutable and that they changed their course on that matter.
I am also of the opinion that their revised "translations" of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 (ed.) were eisegetical readings of their predetermined theology into the text to justify hardcore complementarianism. Those choices seemed highly interpretive anomalies for what is supposedly a far more literal translation rubric, and I hope they will likewise reverse their decisions about these passages.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
well, now they are open for MORE CHANGES as well as the possibility of reversal of the travesty of pandering to neo-Cal agendas …. could it be that there are MORE changes coming down the pike ? more changes from ‘scholars’ like Grudem and Piper and Ware?
take a look at the publisher’s own wording about reflecting ‘the realities of biblical scholarship’, which begs those questions:
” the means to that goal, we now see, is not to establish a permanent text but rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text to reflect the realities of biblical scholarship such as textual discoveries or changes in English over time. These kinds of updates will be minimal and infrequent, but fidelity to Scripture requires that we remain open in principle to such changes, as the Crossway Board of Directors and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee see fit in years ahead.”
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Hi Brad, the word ‘qualify’ in that sentence of yours — is it a mistake? or typo? I don’t understand it.
Good post Deb.
And thanks for linking to mine!
Here is an excellent post on Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, written by a Hebrew scholar:
https://neurosciencelinguisticsandhebrew.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/on-the-new-esv-translation-of-genesis-316/
Tweeters, you might like to tweet this:
@crossway To say that fallen woman inherently desires conflict with man, is to risk misunderstanding issues of sin. http://theologyforwomen.org/2016/09/toward-better-reading-reflections-permanent-changes-text-genesis-316-esv-part-2.html
Short off-topic announcement.
Billy (son) and his mom (Marquis) need food, gasoline, and have other bills coming due.
Dee previously posted the story of Billy’s being a crime victim by a church member in Texas.
He started high school this year and is doing better. He and his Mom appreciate the help of Dee and Deb here who write the blog articles and all of the wonderful people here who comment.
The GoFundMe account continues to be open for them. Thank you.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
also, here is one more post I’ve written about the ESV translation of Genesis 3:16
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/09/14/the-change-of-genesis-316-ess-the-colonial-code-of-relationship-and-a-call-to-bystanders/
The link to Crossway’s announcement of the Permanent Text (the one that now goes to a 404 message) has been save at the webarchive. I think I was one of the people who saved it. 🙂
Here it is:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160820002244/http://www.esv.org/about/pt-changes/
It’s very useful that the article Crossway pulles is on the WebArchive, as that article listed all the changes they had made in this most recent translation.
And although they’ve decided that it is no longer the PERMANENT translation, they have not (yet) decided to modify any of the verses they changed.
AMAZING! The Bible Study Tools site has the OLD ESV’s version of Genesis 3:16 .
http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/genesis/3-16.html
Bible.com also has the older version:
https://www.bible.com/search/bible?q=genesis%203:16&category=bible&version_id=59
and so does net.bible.org
If you go to Gen 3:16 there and click on the Parallel tab you can see the old version.
I had a long comment but decided to just ask, am I the only one that struggles with Sola Scriptura as the only rule of faith and practice for Christians as defined in several Declarations such as the Cambridge Declaration, confessions, and doctrinal statements. Such NT verses like 1 Cor 4:6:Luke 1:1-4 Matthew 4:1-11 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Luke 10:26 Acts 17:11-12 2 Peter 3:14-16 and other such verses are used to define and defend this aspect of this teaching. I am not much against that in the sense that if one views scripture such as Dr. White said “Sola Scriptura, Briefly stated, is simply this, because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church, they form the only infallible rule of faith for the church.” It is the actual application in day to day real world life that it that I struggle with. It started for me with evolution and the age of the Earth. A simple reading of Gen 1-3 one seems to have to hold to a Young Earth / Creation of Kinds type beginning for life on this Earth. This runs counter if applied literally as we view literal history today against the volumes of evidence supporting a standard view of cosmology and common decent. But it seems to come up in many aspects of “reality” today such as complementarianism, eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, church polity, gifts of the Spirit Ie sign gifts, politics, medical treatment for some church groups, and one of my biggies is presuppositionalism as defined by Van Til. It is troubling in its application in these areas. The bible says very little about so many aspects of life but the application of Sola Scriptura are often applied to those areas such as mental health issues, medical issues such as vaccines, birth control, our republic, gravity, atomic Theory, Germ Theory……. Of course, much of what I am writing is very simplistic and I think I see a few categorical errors on my part.
Where it really tripped me up is almost all of the people and whom I have sown my life into, simply cannot read. Like the early church where most people were illiterate and the idea of each person / believer had access to the full scriptures in written form is just not tenable from a historic perspective. I mean the people who do this for a living struggle with interpretations applications etc. I get that we need an authority, the bible is very authoritative, it makes some statements that are stark blinding divine revelation right next to some well, text that is not so much.
Well back to my simple question, am I the only one that struggles with Sola Scripture in application?
brian wrote:
I don’t struggle with it – I reject it. Where does that leave the Holh Spirit?
I have a very elementary question: how did God create the sun and the moon in a day when there was no literal 24 hour day until after he created the sun and the moon?
Nancy2 wrote:
He must have drawn on extra-biblical revelation.
brian wrote:
Hi BRIAN,
the early Church did not have a put-together Bible with a canon. All of that came later. In the very early days, not a whole lot had been written down, but the Apostles and the ones who learned from them told of Christ, having witnessed His Presence among them …. this was done orally …… Then, when Our Lord did not immediately return, and the Apostles began to be persecuted as were their followers, they were inspired to write down what they had witnessed and heard from Our Lord into the Holy Gospels. Then St. Paul wrote letters to the different centers of Christianity that had spread out from Jerusalem. These Gospels (testaments) and epistles (letters from St. Paul and others) were then copied, and carried throughout Christendom and read aloud on Sundays at what was called ‘the Service of the Word’.
That custom of reading aloud is continued today, and people still stand up for the reading of the Holy Gospels in Churches that honor the Great Tradition.
When it came time to put ‘the Bible’ together (NT), there were Councils that brought together all of the writings that had been read aloud in all of the centers of Christianity over time;
and the Church, in council, then selected those books that were thought to contain what was handed down from the Apostles to their followers intact. These books were eventually to be listed to form a formal ‘canon’ of the inspired books of the NT.
I can’t say much about ‘Sola Scriptura’ which is not a part of my own tradition, so someone here who is more knowledgeable about it can help you with that, hopefully. I recommend KEN who is very knowledgeable. God Bless!
This was such a dumb decision at the start, made worse by the fact that it was pretentious and clearly for political reasons. I am amused that they didn’t even make it a month before changing it. They said the vote was “unanimous”, but I wondered how many people were allowed to vote.
Christiane wrote:
The importance of this cannot be over-stated!! The Bible as we know it today did not descend one day from a fiery mountain, with trumpets, blood, fire and billows of smoke. It was gathered over quite some time and its very contents were debated – again, over quite some time – by the Church. And this, of course, meant the whole of the Church – representatives from all over the then-known Christian world. It was not some isolated sub-group coming up with a translation to aid it in the battle to push some particular doctrine.
In fact, to my mind the true authority of Scripture stems from this phrase that the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts 16) wrote down and sent out to the new gentile churches:
So, the world-wide established consensus of followers of Jesus, sent out as the Father sent Him, agreed on it alongside the Holy Spirit himself. (A bit like the strange verse right at the end of Revelation 22: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come!'” – but that’s a whole nuther 1500 years of bickering and squabbling… 🙁 !)
Slight tangent, but this is one of the reasons that I personally value the Nicene Creed (and the Apostle’s Creed, slightly shorter but essentially similar) so highly. It’s been around for many, many centuries; in fact it’s older than the canon of Scripture. It represents a statement of the essentials of the Christian faith drafted by the entirety of The Church – something that is not practically accessible today – and I consider myself beholden to it.
brian wrote:
Sola Scriptura is a Reformation-era idea, it’s purpose was to prove how not-Catholic one is as Tradition was a big part of Catholic teachings and likely the source for Indulgences and Purgatory. None of the believers in the centuries before would have believed in it. It wasn’t meant to be isolated, the five solas combine to form the basis of Protestantism or anti-Catholic teachings.
The early Christians were also Jews who had to contend with the oral and written laws. The written law is the OT, the oral law was based on the OT but also full of commentaries and human additions. Some struggled knowing which one had the most authority, some did depend upon more than just Sola Scriptura, but their own cultural traditions.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
If I recall correctly, the Catholic bible has five extra books they consider important and some Ethiopian Christians have 81 books in their narrow canon, the broader canon has even more books. Perhaps they had far more insiration and open minds.
Babara Roberts wrote:
Edito. I missed removing that word when I edited the statement. Sorry about that — and thanks for catching it and asking about it. Should have read:
@ Jamie Carter:
That’s true. The fact that there’s more than one bible sets yet another cat among the fundagelical pigeons!
To my mind, the real problem of neoCalvinism and the youngRebelliousReformed movement is bigger than just their misusing of specific scriptures. It’s their distorting of the very nature of scripture itself. They’ve turned it from something God-given (God-breathed, to be precise) and, through a basic word-play on the word “word” and the phrase God’s word, have made the western Bible out to be the Creator Himself.
The well-worn phrase “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Scriptures” doesn’t fully describe this kind of thinking. In deifying scripture as God’s ultimate revelation of himself to humanity, they reject not only the Holy Spirit but also Jesus, who is God’s ultimate revelation of himself to humanity…
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Thanks Brad 🙂
And the bible, including the NT does not claim that it is the one and only source of authority. Romans 1, of course, but then there is the expression ‘profitable for…doctrine, reproof and instruction. Nothing about that encourages some idea of ‘one and only’ source.
And, sola scriptura is by far a minority opinion within Christianity, just looking at the numbers and for what that is worth.
Everybody needs to understand also, that what we usually consider the reformation strands of thinking do not comprise the totality of protestantism and/or protestant-like thinking. There are whole large non-catholic denoms who do not believe in ‘sola’ and there are people who are members of denoms who do preach ‘sola’ who themselves do not adhere to that doctrine but who find it to their advantage to stay where they are and say nothing about this.
This message brought to you by a former Baptist who never did believe sola scrip and who now is affiliated with a different non-roman tradition which itself does not believe sola scrip. No need for anybody to struggle with this. Trust you own good sense and look at the evidence. Rejecting sola scrip does not make you a catholic, if that is what people are afraid of. But accepting an untruth (sola scrip) might make you weird.
And a bit off topic, I have a protestant bible that includes the apocrypha. It is not just about the catholics. This idea lives on both sides of the Tiber.
Sigh…. and these "leaders" continue to demand that we follow them without question!!! I wonder what Mr Leeman has to say about this!
Babara Roberts wrote:
I have removed the word “qualify” from Brad’s comment. Thanks for catching it.
@ Christiane: Agreed!
Just remembering there were NO WOMEN involved with the ESV.
“We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake.” (Crossway)
While this reversal is sooner than I expected, I felt the “permanent” decision would prove to be temporary. Just think about all those other passages of Scripture just waiting for the New Calvinists to twist to fit a reformed grid! They have just begun!
A mistake?! Many of us had already concluded that the ESV, itself, was a mistake!
Max wrote:
I have drawn a line in the sand. Why in the world do I need to buy the ESV?
Max wrote:
It depends from whose POV, of course. The Watchtower could only get so far by teaching from a realistic translation of the Bible, and it was inevitable that they would sooner or later produce their own Bible that better supported their chosen Shibboleths. In the same way, the counterfeit reformation variously known as the resurgence, the youngRebelliousAndReformed, or as NeoCalvinism, was always bound to develop its own Bible.
So it was no mistake..! (But I know what you meant.)
@ Deb:
thanks Deb!
Deb wrote:
It’s clear in my neck of the woods that carrying an ESV is a sign that you are “in” the reformed movement. I liken it to wearing tie-dye garb during the 1960s hippie movement … a way to let others know that you, too, had joined the rebellion against the establishment. The YRR movement is certainly a rebellion! Advancing theology contrary to traditional belief and practice, worshiping 16th century reformers, idolizing New Calvinist celebrities, cool conferences, cool books, cool music … it’s very exciting stuff for young folks! Hmmm … I wonder if I could get a “Calvin Is My Homeboy” tie-dye t-shirt?!
@ drstevej:
🙂
@ Babara Roberts:
I just tweeted it.
Max wrote:
I like the shirt that says Calvinism: Some Lives Matter.
https://teespring.com/calvinism-some-lives-matter#pid=2&cid=2397&sid=back
From the Crossway announcement:
I do not see anything in that paragraph that would lead me to believe they have any intent to change what is clearly (to me, anyway) an agenda-driven attempt to enscripturate their particular interpretation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.
dee wrote:
Mine is arriving today!
@ Max:
However, Roger Olson wrote such a good post on this TShirt I am going to put it into my short post lineup.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/09/some-lives-matter-and-calvinism-my-response-to-the-t-shirt/
To continue…Apparently some folks who are influential persuaded the Board of Directors of Crossway that this particular move was a little shark-jumpy. However, there is no mention of the Translation Oversight Committee having any similar epiphany about the wisdom of doing what they did to the Hebrew text. And I think that is telling. ISTM that this move by the Directors is a pressure-release PR maneuver. For crying out loud, even a guy from Desiring God supposedly opposed the Permanent Text idea. I suspect that Denny Burk and the other Female Subordinationists favor a more subtle approach.
brian wrote:
As someone around here pointed out, a rigid application of Sola Scriptura leaves one with and empty New Testament. There is no verse that defines the books of the Bible. The Canon was a product of debate and consensus over centuries. One could call it tradition.
I do recall that Hebrews and Revelation were the last two books admitted. Hebrews because we don’t really know the author, and authorship was a big deal when a book HAS to be written by an Apostle or someone who hung out with the Apostles [and where did they come up with THAT rule? Not a bad rule, but again, it’s not a verse.]. And Revelation is just weird.
There were lots of competing canons in the early church. It must have been hard to do Sola Scriptura when different groups had different definitions of “Scriptura.”
Deb wrote:
Heavens no, we cannot have any Women involved. Goodness gracious.
From the Crossway announcement:
“We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake,” stated Crossway president and CEO Lane Dennis in an announcement released today.
Just wondering how much more passive could this statement be? There is no rationale for how the Board got from “God told us so” to “we have become convinced God did not tell us so.” Those are not quotes but summaries of the different positions the Board has taken which are totally incompatible.
Deb wrote:
Gurlz Got Cooties — it’s in Calvin’s Institutes!
brian wrote:
No, you aren’t.
I think one of the questions we need to ask is, what is Scripture? In particular, the Old Testament is a mixture of poetry, historical/theological text, folklore, and mythology, and it is not always clear which is which. Was the Book of Jonah meant by its writer to be a true story about an actual prophet, because to me it reads like something Aesop might have written. Was Job an actual person or the subject of a parable?
This might be controversial, but I think the story of Adam and Eve was a fable to explain why life is hard and snakes crawl around on their bellies. That some would twist it to justify their own misogyny in the name of Christ depresses me.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
If you look at the statements of faith for many of these churches, guess what comes first? It’s not God, it’s the Bible, then God. That to me says volumes.
Velour wrote:
Sorry, no tie-dye, YET… 🙁
https://www.amazon.com/CafePress-White-T-Shirt-Calvin-Homeboy/dp/B00XH4Q14K
dee wrote:
Olson provides a good perspective on “Classical” Calvinism vs. “New” Calvinism. I have said on TWW that it’s not the old guard Calvinists that I have a problem with, but their arrogant neo-brethren. For over 60 years in SBC ranks, I have worshiped alongside classical Calvinists. I have found them to be civil in their discourse and respectful of non-Calvinist belief and practice. That cannot be said about the YRR and certain New Calvinist leaders.
I have read Olson’s book “Against Calvinism.” He tells it like it is. His concluding remarks in that book summarize my position as well:
“Of course I would like to persuade fellow Christians to avoid Calvinism, not because I think it will kill their faith or spirituality but because I want people to think better about God than Calvinism allows … I think they are terribly inconsistent and teach and believe doctrines contrary to Scripture, most of Christian tradition, and reason. And I think some of those doctrines dishonor God even though that is not Calvinists’ intention. I also think some of those doctrines will lead at least some young Christians down theological and spiritual dead ends.” (Roger Olson, Against Calvinism)
@ Deb:
I ordered the Teespring t-shirt: Calvinism. #somelivesmatter
Tracking shows that it has arrived at my local post office here in Silicon Valley, California. It was shipped from Florida.
mirele wrote:
And before God and the Bible, is the power of the elders — with special claims that it’s “mandated by God” to be ‘overseers’ of adult Christians’ lives.
Robert wrote:
Just as depressing to me is that the story is used to explain cosmology, geology, biology and other branches of science, which it was NEVER intended to do (cf. “young earth creationism”). But this desire to have an unchangeable rock that is not Jesus* to cling to, no matter what the “world” says is extremely problematic, and that is putting it mildly!
* A week or two ago, I was watching a video with “apologist” James White and he was going on about how important the Bible was because without it, he wouldn’t know what to believe about Jesus. I understand what he was saying, but I kept going back to the earliest Christians, and Christians up until the advent of general literacy, and most people did not have a Bible to rely on. They heard about Jesus and they believed. This excessive reliance on a set of books for everything regarding belief is an artifact of literacy and simply was not known among the earliest Christians.
Max wrote:
I have just started reading Olson's book. I also plan to read the companion book by Horton.
Gram3 wrote:
Good point, Gram3!
Consider Crossway’s reversal on this in view of their previous stand, as quoted in the CT article announcing the “permanency” of the last ESV revision:
“In making these final changes, the Crossway board of directors and the translation oversight committee thus affirm that their highest responsibility is to ‘guard the deposit entrusted to you’ (1 Tim. 6:20) — to guard and preserve the very words of God as translated in the ESV Bible.”
So now, the “very words of God” are subject to change again on future ESV revisions?
Deb wrote:
Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God" is another great read. Lengthy (over 500 pages), but a good academic study of reformed theology … has an extensive bibliography I have found helpful in my own study to determine what makes these New Calvinists tick. As Hunt, I have found that the new reformation misrepresents the very character of God and have been left asking "What love is this?!"
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
*snort*
I think scripture is part history, part parable, part listing of old laws for a country and time we do not live in, part general life advice, part specific advice to specific people from which we can draw general principles, etc..etc… It seems silly to treat it all the same. If that’s what ‘sola scriptura’ means, then I pass.
But if it means I think it’s full of lessons that are relevant today and I can continually get something new out of it? Then I’m in. But I’m not going to be beholden to a clobber verse or throw out science entirely either.
Deb wrote:
Well, of course not! Women would be “contrary to” the men. How could the comp leaders rewrite a bible with women in the mix?
Gram3 wrote:
Absolutely it is. I think they hope maybe if they stop talking about the change being permanent people will forget the issue of the new translation? Or maybe be distracted from it. I would hate for that to happen.
Gram3 wrote:
I was wondering whether Wayne Grudem got the crown knocked off his head a bit because of pushback, or if the scholarly crew decided they need to make more changes in the future to further push their ESS/woman submit agenda.
These people are buffoons. To bolster their statement with a nod to a law of a pagan culture was the tipping point. Imagine, undermining the credibility of your new argument in the first statement.
@ Robert:
You might find “Genesis for Normal People” by Peter Enns and Justin Byers, instructive. It is short and written for non theologians.
One thing we are rarely taught is the ancient world used stories to teach overarching concepts. And the fact they are not literal narratives does not negate the overarching concept. Why can’t Genesis be about the One True Good God (as opposed to pagan gods) who creates and even provides rescue for His creatures?
Regarding the ESV, it’s obvious they were going for the next KJV. I agree with Gram3 about this being a pressure-release PR maneuver. There was nothing about changing certain verses back to the way they previously were translated, just a statement about going back to periodic updates. My guess is they were staring down the barrel of a likely boycott if they didn’t backtrack in a hurry like Wile E. Coyote from one of his own creations.
@ mirele:
Great comment. It’s like the sola scriptura folks relegate the understanding of Jesus Christ for the illiterate to the specially anointed caste system priests and pastors of the state church.
Hey brian, I discovered yesterday some Jesus Creed blog posts by RJS on the Grand Canyon and Noah’s flood. Scot McKnight and RJS appear to be old earthers with some interesting things to say, and I’ll be checking out their stuff more closely when I have some time this week.
siteseer wrote:
One wonders if the sales numbers declined rather sharply.
Lydia wrote:
Indeed. I think they are afraid if they say anything might not be literal it will destroy faith? But it destroys faith if you cannot believe the things you are told you have to believe to have faith. So puzzle.
Burwell wrote:
IMO there was not enough time to see that effect. I suspect that at least some of the Board of Directors and Translation Oversight Committee members received calls and emails from their scholarly peers which basically said, “Have you lost your mind? What are you thinking? You cannot be serious!” The esteem of peers is extremely highly-valued.
I think “young-earth creationism” is not only wrong on scientific grounds, and probably theological grounds, but a strategic blunder that makes Christendom look like uneducated hayseeds insisting on the truth of God’s Word (as they see it) in the face of all evidence. Evolution was not developed to try to disprove God. It was developed to explain the evidence found in the natural world.
@ Gram3:
I agree that the there was not much time between the original announcement and the subsequent retraction, but I disagree that they would not have noticed an effect. Sales figures can be tracked within hours and a burgeoning trend of declining numbers, coupled with the vocal, strong and varied criticism, would be enough to make Crossway think “maybe this wasn’t such a bright idea”.
I also think it is important to note that they are not recanting on their textual changes. For this reason I still will not recommend the ESV to anyone.
Robert wrote:
When people started talking about all this 6k old earth stuff, I literally thought this was an attempt to smear Christianity as anti-science because of a few oddball cultish types.
Apparently not.
In order to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, give or take, it is necessary to believe either that the dinosaurs did not exist, or that they went extinct during human history.
I wonder how many young earth creationists truly believe either of those.
@ Robert:
Or you believe dinosaurs were on the arc and hanging with humans. Which I also have heard.
Do the Neo-Calvinists generally insist that the Pentateuch was written by Moses as well?
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Thank you Jeanette your so sweet……
Nancy2 wrote:
The good news is that women can’t be blamed for this blunder. 😉
Robert wrote:
Sad thing is that ‘faith’ was never meant to cancel out ‘reason’ because God also created order out of chaos and reasoning is the God-given ability to make sense of that order; ‘faith’ considers the natural world which is accessed by reason and then faith extends beyond reason into the realm of what we call ‘all that is unseen’.
In this way, the Church acknowledges that God is the Creator of ‘all that is seen’ AND ‘all that is unseen’. The natural order is His work of bringing order out of chaos, and the ordered patterns and structures present in nature contain much that point to God as Creator.
It’ll be interesting to see how Denny Burk spins this reversal.
Deb wrote:
Truth! Women had nothing to do with it.
Reminds me of the powerful statement from old Sojourner Truth in her great speech ‘Ain’t I a Woman’:
““Den dat little man in black dar, he say women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wan’t a woman! Whar did your Christ come from?” Rolling thunder couldn’t have stilled that crowd, as did those deep, wonderful tones, as she stood there with outstretched arms and eyes of fire. Raising her voice still louder, she repeated, “Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him.” Oh, what a rebuke that was to that little man.”
Robert wrote:
Hee hee. Then Numbers 12:3 must have been added by his friends when he was not looking. :o)
Gram3 wrote:
Ooo, “enscripturate!” I love it!
Gram3 wrote:
Inscripturation is the writing of truths revealed by God to inspired men. These folks are not writing revealed truth, nor are they inspired men. They “enscripturate” Bible text (to use your word – a good one) to indoctrinate minds, pure and simple. I sense no leading of the Holy Spirit in what they are doing. They have some very educated folks on their ESV translation oversight committee; however, education does not produce one ounce of revelation.
Muff Potter wrote:
He’s too busy answering questions (ed.) from students like:
To see his answer: http://www.dennyburk.com/should-headship-determine-who-we-vote-for-in-the-presidential-election/ Don’t bother trying to leave a comment.
Burwell wrote:
Durn it. *answering questions…it was supposed to be plural.
@ brian:
Good question, brian. Our former church had the “5 Solas” prominently displayed on the worship bulletin each Sunday (excuse me, “Lord’s Day”, as “Sunday” is a pagan construct or something to that effect). I have given them no thought in the months since we left, and at this moment can only name two of them. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
Where do the five Solas come from? Is that a “Calvin” thing?
refugee wrote:
According to Wikipedia, while individually espoused by various Reformers, they weren’t really put together as a whole until the 20th Century.
ishy wrote:
Your last sentence struck me funny… I know it’s probably not a one-man decision, but if it had been one man, and he made a unilateral decision, then it would still be called “unanimous”, wouldn’t it? (I think about words and their meanings and application a lot.)
And now, for some reason, I’m reminded of the “Mork and Mindy” episode where Mork brings home a Russian emigre and tells Mindy, “Let’s play ‘democracy’!” And he and the Russian guy outvoted Mindy on everything, even though (if I recall) the guest didn’t understand much English at all. He just went along and raised his hand every time Mork did.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Excellent point.Jamie Carter wrote:
I was suddenly reminded of hearing how Ethiopia was one of the supposed places where the Ark of the Covenant ended up. I looked it up just now, and even though the link directs to the “Ethiopia” section, the entire article makes interesting reading. (At least for me. Am feeling geeky today. Or maybe it’s just my brain going on the blink.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant#Ethiopia
@ Burwell: It's plural now. 😉
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
They do seem to be “children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (ESV, Eph. 4:14)
Deb wrote:
No, wait. I knew a woman who worked on the ESV Study Bible. In what capacity, I do not know. But she was very proud of the product, and showed off the before-the-commercial-release copy, that she got in the mail, at church one Sunday.
(Assuming your remark was tongue-in-cheek. I have an odd sense of humor and don’t always understand when other people are joking.)
Max wrote:
Doesn’t inscripturation throw Sola Scriptura in the trash can?
http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/524215052_1280x720.jpg
So all our favorite gospel™-centered doofuses MEAN MUGGIN’ at us wasn’t enough to convince the detractors?
Now, is anyone expecting further changes or reversions to text to actually happen?
Burwell wrote:
In Judges, God voted for Deborah. That was the only vote she needed!
Stan wrote:
Depends on who’s standing next to who atop Lenin’s Tomb on May Day.
refugee wrote:
“NANOO! NANOO!”
(I miss Robin Williams…)
Nancy2 wrote:
It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
@ Stan:
I’m afraid I broke the sarcasm meter and didn’t realize how old that video was. My second point still stands.
Nancy2 wrote:
Oh no. Did you not hear Mohler? He claims they are God’s special anointed agents to teach the ignorant. So it doesn’t matter. Only they know truth for us. Their sola scriptura stands.
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/04/announcing-al-mohlers-save-them-from.html?m=1
Muff Potter wrote:
What reversal, Comrade?
Note: For anyone wanting to order a CALVINISM #SomeLivesMatter t-shirt from Tee-Spring, I just got my t-shirt in a lovely color (purple). I thought the women’s t-shirt runs small. So check the measurements on the chart carefully to make sure you have the right size.
Max wrote:
They have UNscripturated a portion of sacred Scripture. And yes, the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with this mess.
Burwell wrote:
OK, so then this really was all about money? Say in ain’t so! 🙂 I was trying to put a scholarly coat of paint on this latest debacle…
Velour wrote:
Here’s the link: https://teespring.com/shop/calvinism-some-lives-matter?tsmac=recently_viewed&tsmic=recently_viewed#pid=2&cid=2397&sid=back
Deb wrote:
There is a silver lining! I suspect that someone at CBMW or Desiring God will go to work pronto to find a female to blame. Perhaps these godly and wise men listened to their wives who sinfully suggested a Permanent Version with obvious eisegesis in 20 pt bold italics was a great idea? Surely, surely there is a Genesis 3:16 (ESVPV) reason for this blunder.
Lydia wrote:
Without looking it up, was that the one that says Moses was the most humble man ever? It seems that one should come earlier.
Robert wrote:
I think Ken Ham explains it as the dinosaurs having gone extinct during the Ice Age that followed the Flood.
Gram3 wrote:
There actually was a lady with this interpretation according to the cry for justice blog but I don’t think she had anything to do with this translation.
It’s crazy to me that they have a footnote with basically the opposite interpretation! And I cannot get over how terrible the sin’s desire is contrary to you sounds in English. Just as a sentence. It makes no sense.
T-shirts? Tie-dye? I know of a couple of shops that do custom T-shirts. The nearest one for me is 25-30 miles away (in rural Kentucky, that’s not very far).
How about:
“Forget Calvin:
Jesus is my Homeboy!”
Muff Potter wrote:
Perhaps he will open comments so that everyone can praise Crossway’s Board with the Late Unpleasantness of the Permanent (until the Board says Not Permanent) Version pronouncement.
Deb wrote:
Wait. Women being “contrary to” the men would be the “perfect” explanation for how this all went so very “wrong”.
…deleted from memory.
refugee wrote:
Wait, what? When does he think the last major ice age happened? Or is this just a pointless wormhole since iirc we’re talking 12k years ago. When the earth didn’t exist yet. (not counting little ice ages)
Christiane wrote:
Some 800 years ago in the wake of the Mongols, Islamic theologian Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali set Islam on the path where Faith cancels out Reason. Look where it got them.
Gram3 wrote:
Bwaaaahahaha! That would be an admission to being epic Adam-man-fails!
@ Lea:
Sorry, I mean we came out of it 11/12 thousand years ago or so. Not went in.
I don’t get how this 6k timeline even works, obviously.
Robert wrote:
This is what I was taught. So *somebody* insists that. I don’t remember where I first heard it, whether it was the “Walk Thru the Bible” folks (who, by the way, were very firm in their insistence that their seminar teachers must be men only), or the hyper-calvinist church we attended some years later.
Lea wrote:
Last time I visited my writing partner, his church had a 2x5m Ken Ham Ark poster up on the wall of its main hall (“Fellowship Hall?”). It showed the Ark design from Ham’s Ark Park being stocked (with Steaming Piles of Fresh Produce) by wooden cranes while pairs of animals were being led up the ramp. These animals included:
Two Uintatheriums,
Two four-tusked shovel-mouthed Mastodons,
Two Pteranodons coming in for a landing on the upper deck,
Two Smilodons (i.e. Saberteeth),
and two Sauropod Dinosaurs (Mokele-Mbebe?).
(I think there may also have been a pair of Tyrannosaurs, but I’m not sure.)
Lea wrote:
Oh, no, he has a whole spiel! *The* Ice Age (there was only one major ice age in his version) was a result of the climactic changes brought about by the world-wide Flood. The timeline goes something like:
Creation
Fall
Flood
Ice Age (which created land bridges that allowed people after the Tower of Babel to scatter all over the world)
(oh, and the Neanderthals were just “regular” men who’d lived hundreds of years, the lifespan before the Flood ripped away the cloud canopy that filtered radiation from space — we no longer have that filter, so we “age” a lot faster than they did — also why living things grew so much larger before the time of the Flood. Anyhow, a man who lived a long, long time would develop the bone structure of a Neanderthal over time. I don’t remember all the details.)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
OK, just for fun, I looked this one up. According to wiki, ” two species are currently recognized, U. anceps from the United States during the Early to Middle Eocene, and U. insperatus of Middle to Late Eocene China.[1]”
How do they think this Noah guy in the middle east rounded up dinosaurs that lived in China and the US? Do you just have to turn off your brain entirely to believe this stuff or is Ken Ham just doing this all as a big joke?
refugee wrote:
HA!! Wow.
BTW, this is all reminding me of this ‘walk through the OT’ thing I learned as a kid that started with ‘creation, fall, flood, nations, four thousand years’. Of course, I never saw a timeline in the OT about how long creation/fall etc took, so I still can’t figure out the YEC crowd at all.
Max wrote:
It’s a combination of “inscripturate” and “enshrine.” Because, really, I think the changes and the now not-so-Permanent ESV Unanimous Decision was a retirement gift and verbal shrine to Wayne Grudem and John Piper. Did not turn out very well, because now their shrine has TWW graffiti all over it.
Two Questions:
Does anyone know how many of the “new” ESVs made it to print/online?, and
What possesses publishes to do things like this? The NIV did its big mistake a number of years ago and seriously damaged a) their brand/customer allegiance and b) credibility.
It has been noted that this is the preferred version among the “men rule women drool” crowd, but that has not been my experience; therefore, I have used the ESV off and on and been OK with it. That said, given the changes, I won’t be recommending it anymore, even though like the old versions. It’s too confusing and opens too many cans of worms.
Just to take a side-track: I’m not sure there is a perfect translation. Companies/groups have agendas in producing translations, and the bias shows through. One example from the evangelical-favorite NIV is that the word “parodosis”–tradition–is translated differently according to the context. When “tradition” is being condemned, the NIV uses the word “tradition.” But when it is being praised or advocated, the NIV uses the word “teaching.” This is an example of predetermined doctrine (sola scriptura, primarily) impacting the translation…of the scriptures it uses to support itself. Very annoying.
Lea wrote:
I have been so immersed in cognitive dissonance the last couple decades, I’m sorry to say it makes sense to me. Or I can make sense of it, perhaps. Sin’s desire being contrary to someone, to me simply means that sin (personified — would that be the evil one?) desires that which is contrary to what would be best for the person. So sin’s desire is in opposition to what would be good for the person. Which (going back to Gen 3:16) would mean that the woman’s desire would be opposite to what was best for the man.
See? When you’ve been steeped in the culture, it’s all too easy.
PaJo wrote:
I don’t know that it makes a difference. They’d only said they retracted the “permanent” part of it; from what I read in the article, it doesn’t sound as if they’re going back to the previous version.
refugee wrote:
(Giggle!). So, Adam, Methuselah, and Enoch were Neanderthals! Gotta love it!
Uhm, what were Noah and his sons? The bridge between Neanderthals and modern man? Maybe the female humanoid bones archeologists named “Lucy” are the remains of Noah’s wife!
Lea wrote:
That was Susan Foh who wrote that paper while she was at Westminster Philly. I think there is a likelier female suspect, however. Mrs. Dennis Lane is on the Board of Directors. But then, she might have an excuse if Lane told her to vote for it before he told her not to vote for it. I don’t know. This is all so…complicated. 🙂
refugee wrote:
That’s just really…hackneyed phrasing. Sin’s desire is for you is poetic. Sin wants to pull you into its web. You know that sin is bad for you, because it is SIN! Instead of poetic pull of desire we have this weird phrasing. Sin’s desire is contrary to you. Contrary to you, as a person? That’s poor writing, plain and simple.
I know everyone is ignoring this one because it doesn’t have any practical harmful implications, but it annoys me almost as much as the other.
Nancy2 wrote:
Not to mention that Neanderthal DNA has been identified and still exists in many people (particularly those of white and Asian background iirc).
refugee wrote:
I’m surprised. These people are so seriously strange, that I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t want a woman involved since their sacred masculinity would be offended and contaminated by teachings coming from a lower order being like a female.
Lea wrote:
IMO they did it in order to be consistent. Much is made of the supposedly parallel structure of those two verses. That is basically Foh’s argument for the “contrary to” interpretation of 3:16. So, they need for 3:16 to actually *say* “contrary to” because that is what they have been screeching for decades that it *means.* And so that means that 4:7 must also be rendered “contrary to.” Otherwise, there would be no justification for making 3:16 say what they say it says. Simple, right?
Patriciamc wrote:
Their teaching on this topic comes from Susan Foh, a female. The irony is rich and delicious.
Gram3 wrote:
I know, but all it does is illustrate that it’s wrong, imo.
Lea wrote:
Yes. This seems to say that whatever it is that sin desires it is opposite of what man desires. In other words, man does not want to sin. Except, that trashes a lot of what scripture says and a lot of what their theology says.
And if a wife’s desire is contrary to her husband, and if they have never said that the husband is right all the time but only that he has the authority to do whatever regardless of right or not, then they are saying that the woman would be right every time the man turned out to be wrong. It would have to work like that is she is always contrary to him whether he is right or wrong.
They have put too many theological eggs in the basket of the subjugation of women. They are looking right foolish at this point.
@ Lea:
Yes. My comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the “logic” of the Translation Oversight Committee. Like the rest of the Female Subordinationist’s propaganda points, it is obviously ridiculous to outsiders. However, these guys are so invested in their ideology that they have rendered themselves blind to how their “reality” looks to outsiders. And, frankly, they don’t care, as I found out.
Lydia wrote:
Very gnostic of them.
For those who are interested, this is Foh’s paper that these male scholars are relying upon:
https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf
@ Robert:
Yep. :o)
NJ wrote:
Yes, they wanted generations of Christians worldwide to memorize their perma-Bible. Ugh. Why would anyone want to? So many translations have all the musicality of the Miranda warning.
The King James Version has real shortcomings, but no Bible will ever match its beauty:
My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.
My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.
–Song of Solomon 2:9-12
@ Gram3:
Thanks for that link.
@ Gram3:
Thanks for that link. Her first sentence says it all. Her “scholarship” to define “desire” was based on a response to culture.
I have never read the whole paper but only snippets here and there in other articles in referencing.. It is now downloaded. I am glad I read Bushnell first and learned about ancient translations of teshuqa.
Friend wrote:
Ha! And yes, I love the wording of KJV. I memorized a lot of verses in KJV and still love those versions.
Lea wrote:
My ex-church’s pastors/elders in Silicon Valley (Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley) espoused a Young Earth Creation, that the earth is 6,000 years old. The most ardent believe was the senior pastor who had two fake degrees (including a Ph.D.) from an online diploma mill that cost $299
and is not accredited according to the U.S. Department of Education.
In that crowd, it’s like everyone agrees that 2+2=5. Logic is tossed out the window.
My grandmother, who died at 102 years old, had a science degree from a top university. She graduated in the 1920’s. She and her friends at university worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers at the university. She, a Presbyterian, believed in an Old Earth.
There were many bright Stanford University undergraduate and graduate students who had gotten in to the church because they were invited to the Bible Study on campus. I wonder what those students’ thoughts are about such an inane and illogical teaching a YEC.
Lea wrote:
I’ll offer a compliment for Ken Ham: He’s an excellent business man creating his Genesis World theme park. He has the best understanding of the old HL Mencken quote usually paraphrased as “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” since PT Barnum.
@ OldJohnJ:
He even managed to get economic development dollars from our former governor.
Lea wrote:
Correct! I’m not even going to go there.
At one level, it’s comical.
refugee wrote:
So much ignorance compressed in such a small space — it’s almost breathtaking. And I’m pretty sure none of it is based on any physical evidence whatsoever.
Lea wrote:
OK, against my better judgement: I got one.
A day is like a thousand years and vice versa, right?
If we stick with the first half of that, then 6000 years comes out at about 2.2 billion years. Now, that’s still less than 4.5 billion years, but at least the order of magnitude is the same.
He also got Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate him.
The Comp interpretation of Gen. 3:16 actually makes me so angry I have to ask for forgiveness for my attitude. It is so absurd that it makes a mockery of the rules of hermeneutics.
All of the words God spoke to Adam and Eve were prophetic in preparing them for the adverse conditions they were going to face outside of the garden. To isolate verse 16 and take it out of context has led to this example of subjective eisegesis.
What Comps ignore is the fact that every single condition mentioned by God has been alleviated; i.e. tremendous advances in medicine (to alleviate pain), advances in agriculture (to alleviate work on the soil) and increases in the choice of careers and working conditions therein (to alleviate sweating). The last adverse, negative condition to be overcome is that of a wife turning toward her husband and his rule over her.
That condition has been intentionally perpetuated to maintain power and control. That Adam’s disobedience should be rewarded with such power is nonsensical to say the least. Further intentionally perpetuated is the idea that Eve desire control over Adam when scripture nowhere attributes any such thing other than her being deceived.
/end of rant (but not anger…..)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
What’s a billion between friends? (not that they are thinking like this, but at least that’s sort of defensible)
P.S. 🙂
One other thing that’s infuriating…
The “pain” that is attributed to Eve in childbirth is the very same “pain” attributed to Adam in verse 17 but is translated “toil.” He will experience the very same pain or toil that Eve will.
Strong’s H6093
pain/toil
From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: – sorrow, toil.
Lea wrote:
At present, only the order of magnitude is of the right order of magnitude. And only just even then.
Lydia wrote:
I’m aware of this. It’s in keeping with my compliments.
Did anyone see the post I made the other day about the Christian school that wouldn’t allow their boys to play soccer with girls?
Maybe future editions of the ESV can further alter their text to insert a “Girls shalt not play soccer with boys, Thus Saith the Lord”.
My post about the soccer snafu (“Christian high school soccer team refuses to play team with female players”) is here, on thread for a day or two ago:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/09/26/jonathan-leeman-parsing-words-and-deleting-comments-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-285249
Robert wrote:
He indeed did. But, don’t forget, as as been stated on TWW recently, the purpose of formal debate is not to establish truth. The purpose is to convince the audience that your side argued better. Here’s another compliment: I would not try to debate Ken Ham in front of primarily an evangelical/fundamentalist audience.
When I was being invited to Eric Simmons Redeemer Arlington, Andrew White gave that version of the ESV to me as a gift. He stated that is was the best Bible that existed and encouraged me to read it. I was in my faith crisis…when I saw the people who endorsed it…Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney and more I was stunned. I rejected it and told Andrew that I will not read from the ESV. I realized even in my faith crisis that if you could create your own Bible you could redefined the game. You could control the outcome.
Someday…(and I am drowning in postings at my blog to write) I would like to write a post and explore the question…is Wayne Grudem a modern day Joseph Smith? Joseph Smith created his own version of the Bible that the Mormons were supposed to use. Its called the “Joseph Smith Translation.” Is that what Wayne Grudem is doing? Re-writing the Bible for his own purposes and justification?
I actually wrote this post recently which is gaining a lot of traction at my blog.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/wayne-grudems-un-orthodox-view-of-the-trinity-and-the-question-that-must-be-asked-can-the-esv-bible-be-trusted/
brian wrote:
No, you’re not.
I’m partially okay with sola scriptura but do see some problems with it.
IIRC, this guy used to be a Christian but is now an atheist or agnostic because he noticed that all the denominations that believe in sola scriptura cannot agree on anything the Bible says, and he makes videos about it:
Christian Diversity
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC46_vlosspJ-yLFqEK9j8LQ
On the other hand, I’m also not fond of churches or denominations that claim they and they alone are the arbiter of proper biblical interpretation, so you can trust them and their supposedly infallible church bodies and/or their tradition to interpret the Bible for you.
I’m like, no, sorry, that approach doesn’t work for me either. 🙂
Deb wrote:
Do we know for sure, as in, maybe the submissive wives of the male ESV staff brought the men folk coffee and mopped their sweaty brows as they toiled all night at translating, and so on? 🙂
IMO, it appears that this most recent version of the ESV was perhaps made solely to bolster the complementarian position.
Which I find so strange.
Do you REALLY need to insert bogus verses proclaiming supposed God-designed male dominance of women, when most of these guys already interpret the ESV (and every other Bible version) through a male hierarchy lens?
I can only wonder if this ESV move, to enshrine female subordination through faulty, biases biblical translation, shows that complementarians are deeply concerned they are losing ground to egalitarians and other non-complementarians on the gender roles topic?
It’s getting harder for the complementarians to point to the verses they already have in order to make their case, so they are now quite desperate to back up complementarianism, so they feel the need to tinker with verses in Genesis in the ESV and resort to Trinity teachings – (?)
If this is so, wouldn’t this maybe indicate complementarians have lost some ground to non-complementarians, and even they know it?
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
A similar case could be made against the NIV–at several points, the text is driven by the evangelical theology. I cited one up-thread.
Translation is a tricky business even in the secular world. There are better and worse translations of the Russian authors, for example. When a translator works from a modern and American point of view, the lack of understanding of the Russian culture makes for a different slant on the way the translation turns out. The better translators have spent a lot of time interpreting (which is part of any translation) after immersing themselves in the history, the religious practice and understanding, the culture of Russia…and it shows in their translation.
It’s just part of how it works.
And for the record, I don’t think there were any women involved in the production of the KJV. And even tho there was a bit of an agenda there (some softening to not inflame either Roman Catholics or Protestants), it wasn’t the “men rule, women drool” agenda. In addition, the KJV was written to be read aloud, which is why it is easier on the ear (once the adjustment for the times is made)–the cadences match what works for reading aloud.
And no, I am not a KJV-only-ist. It’s just that there are issues with any translation without adding Agenda on top of it.
Daisy wrote:
Isn’t the ESV mostly the RSV, just with tweaks? It doesn’t seem like they did all that much actual translating.
@ OldJohnJ:
:o)
Lea wrote:
That was my understanding. The outfit that owned the RSV copyright was evidently desperate for some $$$, and sold the rights to the ESV people. They made very few changes to it, at least not at first. I don’t know why it became so ‘ooh shiny new’ and cool among the kids – the RSV has been around since the 50’s. My first Bible was an RSV given to me by my church in 1965. I still have it, though I almost never read it – the font is too small! 😉
@ dee:
I read Olson’s long post about it. I don’t think he truly understands the slogan on the T-shirt, or, he’s missing the forest for the trees.
Even given his long blog post about it, I still think the original gist of the “Some Lives Matter” shirt is an accurate representation of Calvinism.
Olson’s spin is that all lives matter to God because, in the view of some or most Calvinists, the lives that end up in Hell serve to show God’s sense of justice, and hence, this glorifies God.
But to someone such as myself, who disagrees or dislikes Calvinism, that is a distinction without much of a difference.
If a life really and truly matters to God, one would think God would allow that person a fair shot at eternal salvation, and not ‘willy-nilly’ select some for heaven and the rest go to Heck.
In that sense, (God randomly choosing some for salvation and damning the rest), is, in a manner of speaking, conveying the notion that to God only “Some Lives Matter.”
@ Daisy:
But then, I just noticed this comment by Olson (in the comments on his page):
“I think you missed my true intention which was to expose what Calvinism “really mean” by “all lives matter to God.”
So maybe his views on this are similar to mine, as I stated above. I wish he had been a little more clear on his view, though.
ION:
Slightly sore achilles tonight, for a variety of relatively minor reasons. Oh, and our dishwasher seems to be at least partially functional again, under bizarre circumstances.
IHTIH
mirele wrote:
It’s been awhile since I read my stacks of apologetic books, but some of them point out the the ANE cultures relied on oral tradition.
But oral tradition for them (ancient people) was not what a lot of us today assume it to be – it was not like a game of “telephone,” where, by the time the whispered line reaches the last person, the message is all garbled.
People way back when were really good at memorizing their stories that they passed down orally, so information didn’t get distorted, as a modern person may assume.
I also like the KJV, for several reasons: the sound of it, the fact that I memorized from it as a child, the fact that it is different enough from everyday language that I have to slow down to be sure that I understand what is being said. As to the latter, they say that people’s reading comprehension has dropped because of electronics which is faster, and that our brains have accelerated speed at the expense of comprehension. (I got that information from our in house educator from one of her recent continuing ed in teaching reading to problem readers.) But I also like having second person singular and plural pronouns. Speech still includes the plural ‘you-all’ but written English has just lost it. I really like it for specificity.
Robert wrote:
The Bible says that is exactly how Non-Christians view the Gospel – as bunk, as offensive, etc. How can God become a man, die but be raised three days later, etc? It looks like idiocy to Non-Christians.
Daisy wrote:
I used to teach at a small Christian school. The scoccer team is co-ed!
@ Lea:
I’m still sympathetic to the 6K earth view, and I don’t consider myself anti-science or an odd freak cult type. But this attitude pops up regularly in discussions about people who are YEC.
Daisy wrote:
I went to a christian elementary school that taught creationism (although they also taught evolution as a ‘theory’ that was wrong) and I still don’t remember hearing the earth was only 6k years old. So I’ve just found this baffling, i guess. If I had my old textbooks I would go check!
okrapod wrote:
I agree.
It might be better if the translators who go away from the single/plural “you” could help us out by using the brilliant Southern solution.
Single: y’all
Plural: all y’all
Daisy wrote:
That school is around the corner from my mother’s house. Not everyone in Mesa is like that.
dee wrote:
Interesting article. I guess I wasn’t off base.
PaJo wrote:
I have been holding back on this comment, but I’ll throw it out here now. The problem with the NIV from my perspective is that the translators had to sign a statement saying that the text was inerrant in its original autographs. This cut out a lot of people who could and would have been good translators, but could not ascribe to an inerrantist position. And it’s always left a huge question mark in my head about the validity of the NIV in my mind for decades.
Of course, every translation has its biases–the KJV was a royalist response to the Geneva Bible, for example. That said, we live in a time where you can put five versions on your phone or your computer and compare them to your heart’s content. But we need to keep in mind that Jesus is the Word of God.
Interesting comment on the RSV-ESV connection, upthread.
The RSV was considered agreed upon by mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (including the additional books of each of the latter two), but in the demise of the mainlines and the rise of Evangelicalism and its attached conservatism, it was considered too liberal, so many churches abandoned it in the 70s.
The NRSV came out in the late 80s or 90s. One of its intentions was to update the text to make generic all the personal pronouns that were not specifically stated in gender-specific form. So, “man” for “mankind” was adjusted as such. But “the man shall…” stayed “man”–it wasn’t blanket gender-inclusive, but it did recognize that our language has a lack in this regard and so worked on that issue.
I grew up on the RSV until The Good News Bible came out, and then my Methodist Church started using that. The Presbyterian Church I attended 1979 to 1988 used the RSV in the pew. The Presbyterian church I attended from 1991 to 2007 used the NRSV as its pew Bible. However, even though scholars roundly praised the NRSV as an work of excellence in translation, the conservative Christian press didn’t like it because it was so “women’s libby” and the liberal Christian press didn’t like it because it didn’t just go all out in completely removing gender from every personal pronoun and from the deity. So it didn’t catch on. I used it for awhile until I got the Orthodox Study Bible (which is the Septuagint in the Old Testament, and a NKJV with a few updates in the New Testament.)
I got out my NRSV copy the other day and was pleasantly surprised at reading it, now that all the sturm and drang is past. It helps that the edition I got is beautifully typeset and has a wonderful … feel? in the hand. It is a beautiful edition, and that’s not a bad thing. Cambridge Press, I believe.
My point in this too-long post is that there has been a certain amount of politics all along as to which translation/version of the Bible each church will use internally or recommend. I used to get all worried about it but I don’t anymore, MOSTLY because I don’t get involved in proof-texting anymore. There’s enough truth in any of the translations that I know what Christ said I need to do, and it’s more than I will accomplish in a lifetime.
@ mirele:
YES YES YES
Daisy wrote:
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman would disagree with you on this. His most recent book “Jesus Before the Gospels” argues that memory is not as concrete as you’re making it out to be. The notion of stories being passed down unchanged has been tested by psychologists and anthropologists in oral, pre-literate societies for almost 100 years now and the evidence is that the tellers of stories molded them to their audiences and changed them as needed. We can see this even in the Gospels, where the same (general) story is told, but there are different details in each one. Sometimes the details are wildly different (try matching up John’s chronology with the Synoptic Gospels–it’s a nearly impossible task).
brian wrote:
Here’s what John MacArthur says about it: “It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.” It’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not found in the Bible. Therefore, if one believes in sola scriptura one has to reject sola scriptura (because it’s not in the Bible). One also has to reject all of the NT because there is no scripture that lists the books of the NT.
But it gets worse. The only one of the five solas that is actually in the Bible is faith alone, and the one time it shows up in the Bible the actual verse says “not by faith alone.” So if one believes in sola scriptura, one has to throw out all of the solas.
Daisy wrote:
The strange thing is that the Church finds diversity to be a healthy part of the Body of Christ, so the claims of atheists that ‘diversity’ proves a faith community is not valid just don’t make sense. Churches who hold to the Great Tradition will find more unity in matters of faith and morals, yes, but that is because of the acceptance of the work of the early Councils and creeds.
Even in such Churches, there is an accepted diversity of thought on issues that are not at the core of the faith ….. but ‘Who Christ is’ and the ‘Doctrine of the Holy Trinity’ are not up for conjecture. At one point my Church had a roaring disagreement between the Thomists and the Molinists until finally the Church told them to cool it and agree to disagree on their diverse points of view, since they still shared the ‘essential’ teachings of the Church on faith and morals.
I would say that the LACK of tolerance of any diversity in neo-Cal world is a sign that they are in serious trouble. In a healthy Christian community there will be diversity AND respect for the perspectives of one another and hopefully the peace of Christ will be present among the members who find their unity in Him.
Ken and Brian, add in the statement from Paul in 2 Thess (not going to look up the number, sorry!) where he says that the Thessalonians should hold tight to what they have been taught, whether in the writings or by the oral teachings of Paul and the other apostles. Or in Acts, “those things you have learned from us, teach others who will be able to teach others also.” This one is not as explicit as the preceding one, but I can hardly believe that he meant that they had to write it all down.
mirele wrote:
I did not know that. Wow.
PaJo wrote:
If I understand correctly, the early church valued the written teachings of the apostles because they reflected the actual teachings of the apostles. It was their insistence on maintaining what was handed down that caused them to develop the “canon of scripture.” The NT has become valuable because it reflects the apostolic teachings. But sola scriptura flips that around. The apostolic teachings become valuable only because they are in the NT.
PaJo wrote:
In the very early Church, there was the ‘liturgy’ prior to the Bible, so that you will find in the Bible evidence of those prayers and hymns AND practices that were a part of those oral prayers,etc. that pre-dated the writing down of the NT. One example of the practice of Christian burial in the very early Church is found in St. John’s Revelation where the martyrs who are buried under the altar cry out to God for justice. The early Church often built edifices over the place where martyrs had shed their blood and their remains were placed within these Churches. That practice never ceased among those who followed the Great Tradition as many times an altar will hold within it or under it some relic of the remains of a saint or martyr.
http://biblehub.com/library/messenger/christian_hymns_of_the_first_three_centuries/iii_new_testament_hymns.htm
@Ken: Yes. And it is intersting to note that just because an apostle wrote a letter, and that letter was read aloud in the parishes, that did not mean the letter became canon. The bishops ruled on one letter written by St. Peter that it may not be read in parishes anymore, not because anything Peter said was incorrect, but because it *could* be interpreted (and was being interpreted) in a misleading way. So we have no III Peter. 🙂
@Christiane: Yes. To this day, relics of the martyrs are placed under every Orthodox altar during its consecration. It’s a beautiful occasion … but it doesn’t happen very often though. It is sobering to think that the martyrs died for Truth and love of Christ. I very often can’t be bothered to say my prayers. Ugh.
Heavenly Trinity conversation during creation:
Look at us! We created man. But, oy, he’s alone. This isn’t good. Yet. (Wait for it….)
Let’s fix this.
We’ll create a contrarian for him.
He’ll like that soooo much better than being alone.
Now it’s all good!
Remnant wrote:
There ya go! They are not Complementarians. They are Contrarians!
Remnant wrote:
LOL. Gramp3 noticeably silent… Seriously, he has been gently and servantly leading me to give him credit/blame for gently and servantly leading me to comment here, despite said commentary where males might be reading is clearly open rebellion toward God and his “good and beautiful design.” Mainly, I think, he gently and servantly did that so I would stop pestering him with my thoughts about what I read here. Naturally, I intelligently and joyfully submitted to his gentle servant-leadership.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the permanent text of the Lord shall endure!
@ nathan priddis:
In our contemporary English.
@ Gram3:
Gram3 – you regularly and consistently make me laugh aloud.
Remnant wrote:
LOL. Then disagreeing with men is completely appropriate and even ‘biblical’ for women. Because it makes them happy.
@ Gram3:
” suspect that Denny Burk and the other Female Subordinationists favor a more subtle approach.”
+++++++++++++++
my danger highbeams are on. at least blockheads and what they do are easy to see.
Has God changed his mind?
GSD wrote:
I once accepted the belief of Sola Scriptura, without thinking of its ramifications. Then I struggled with it as I considered all of the groups who claim such a belief yet differ with each other extensively. Fast forward to the present, I have relegated the teaching to theologoumena. So, at this point I would be considered a heretic in many evangelical churches that place this teaching in the category of essential doctrines that must be believed in order to be a Christian.
Gram3 wrote:
Just ignore that man behind the curtain, the man in this case being yet another glaring problem with the Neo-Calvinists at Crossway. God told them so? Where’s that? It’s been wiped cleaned from the Internet. Let’s move right along. Sadly for them, there’s the Wayback Machine that has recorded their words for “generations to come.” 😉
mirele wrote:
The Bible in many of these churches is placed on par with the Third Person of the Trinity. Sola Scriptura is an essential doctrine that must be believed in order to be a Christian. It seems to me that the scope of what classifies a Christian in these Neo-Cal churches is becoming narrower and narrower. Soon, one of their essential doctrines will be that Calvinism is the only True Interpretation of the Scriptures and all churches that do not teach the Doctrines of Grace and TULIP are HERETICS!
Darlene wrote:
I have already experienced this exact thing. As have at least two friends, one of whom lost his job over it, the other of whom had to call the police after personal attack. It can get very ugly.
@ Velour:
Taking Roger Olson’s concerns to heart, I’d like to see the tee shirt say “some souls matter.” At least it would move it a little distance from the current social concerns while still keeping it close enough for the joke to work. (I also think it would change the “out” he mentioned, that Calvinists say all lives matter because—and I paraphrase—God uses them to glorify himself during their earthly lives, even when he’s predestined them for hell.)
@ Burwell:
“One wonders if the sales numbers declined rather sharply.”
+++++++++++++
Surely their brand was damaged.
Crossway says, “Our desire, above all, is to do what is right before the Lord.”
What hopeful silk spinners they are. In theory perhaps it’s true; in practice…. gimme a break. Crossways and ESV Board, you know darn well you were trying to get away with something underhandedly.
It’s so transparent:
1. the power, reputation, & revenue streams of already powerful professional christians is being threatened w/current ESS / ERAS / EFS challenges.
2. highly controversial word changes bolstering the viability of ESS are slipped in to the ESV, soon thereafter followed by
3. Crossway’s heroic announcement that ESV has now become permanent, “unchanged throughout the life of the copyright, in perpetuity”, a decision that came about with “great care”.
4. 20-something days later…
5. Crossway makes another heroic announcement reversing their previous heroic announcement because it was so bad, making it nul and void, because they “want to do what is right before the Lord.”
At this point I don’t believe a word they say.
@ Remnant:
Thank you for that. It makes me smile. 🙂
Darlene wrote:
They are due congratulations for the ability to spout whoppers with a straight face. Denny Burk included. He was for ESS before it was not necessary for Danvers. Now he says he favors the Old and Busted ESV but teaches that the Old and Busted ESV really actually means what the ESVPV explicitly says. What is the material difference?
Here’s another thing. The announcement about the de-permanentized ESVPV came from the Crossway Board (presumably unanimous) and not from the Unanimous Translation Oversight Committee who also thought this was a swell idea. So, either the Unanimous Translation Oversight Committee disagrees with the current state of mind of the presumably unanimous Crossway Board, in which case the Crossway Board has made a decision for purely pragmatic reasons, as Burwell said. Or the Unanimous Translation Oversight Committee agrees with the current state of mind of the presumably unanimous Crossway Board, in which case the presumably unanimous Translation Oversight Committee has come to a different understanding of those verses in the ESPV from their understanding of the correct translation of those verses a few weeks ago.
My oh my, the pace of Biblical scholarship is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall logical and lexical buildings at a single bound. Or Burwell was right and they have a super-duper sales forecasting algorithm that yielded something ugly.
Darlene wrote:
…who bears an uncanny resemblance to Wayne Grudem.
@ elastigirl:
You said it first and better. It is transparent, but they have been getting away with transparently ridiculous things for so long that they must have thought this would be OK.
Max wrote:
The very words of God are whatever the Neo-Cals at Crossway say they are, *whenever* they choose to say them. So, it doesn’t matter if they reneged on their Permanent ESV Translation. In their minds, they are being led by God now, just as they believed they were being led by God then. Remember, God is Sovereign over every minute detail, and therefore He is Sovereign over what they said then, and what they say now. With Monergism, they needn’t really take any personal responsibility nor give any explanation for their rescinding their original statement about the 2016 ESV translation. In their paradigm, everything from beginning to end is of God.
Jbthebaptist wrote:
Yes, as a matter of fact He has and it can all be justified within their Monergistic system!
Darlene wrote:
You’re in good company Darlene although I prefer the word ‘dissident’ instead of heretic. Conscience and its dictates within has always been costly to those who exercise it…
PaJo wrote:
Pajo: The police? What? Did this Calvinist think defending his beliefs meant actually getting into a brawl over such beliefs? Or was it verbal threats of hell fire and intimidation tactics? When those who hold to a theological system consider themselves as the recipients of the Only True Interpreters of the Bible given to them from On High, they can pretty much justify what would be considered a *God Complex.* They, and they alone, are equipped to carry out God’s plans and intentions for all humanity.
Jbthebaptist wrote:
Affirmative, every time he spins the roulette wheel…
elastigirl
It’s so transparent:
1. the power, reputation, & revenue streams of already powerful professional christians is being threatened w/current ESS / ERAS / EFS challenges.
2. highly controversial word changes bolstering the viability of ESS are slipped in to the ESV, soon thereafter followed by
3. Crossway’s heroic announcement that ESV has now become permanent, “unchanged throughout the life of the copyright, in perpetuity”, a decision that came about with “great care”.
4. 20-something days later…
5. Crossway makes another heroic announcement reversing their previous heroic announcement because it was so bad, making it nul and void, because they “want to do what is right before the Lord.”
At this point I don’t believe a word they say.
Money Talks. So the Permanence of the 2016 ESV translation had to be rescinded. But it’s ok. It’s all to the glory of God and affirms His Sovereignty. 😉
Whoops…my comment didn’t come out correctly above. I said:
“Money Talks. So the Permanence of the 2016 ESV translation had to be rescinded. But it’s ok. It’s all to the glory of God and affirms His Sovereignty.
Darlene wrote:
It was physical attack and property damage. It’s not a good thing when people take on the role God reserves to Himself…that of judgment.
Additional story: my son was in a school that advertised “Christian Reformed” but accepted him (we are NOT Reformed) as a student. When push came to shove, however, at an all-school (parents, faculty), we, he (and one of his teachers who left the Reformed tradition and was fired) were called heretics (and they meant it…not “dissidents”) and executed judgment. While they insisted my son was welcome as a student in the school, after that meeting, mid year, he never went back. The school folded the next school year.
As I was leaving the meeting, one of the moms approached me and offered her friendship and support. She said, “I don’t judge you. We are still deciding about Calvinism and _____.” I pointed back at the meeting room, and said, “Well, there you have Calvinism in action. Let that be part of your decision.” I don’t know what that family ended up doing.
Oh, this is pretty much ancient history by now, and I don’t really have any anger about it…and the fired teacher was the image of Christ in his love for these who rejected and spat him out of their mouths. I learned so much from watching him.
But yeah…what a way to win friends and influence people.
Nancy2 wrote:
The problem is, the rescinding of the permanence of the 2016 ESV translation reveals a contrariness. Oh, the irony of it all. What? Did some woman sneak in unbeknownst to the Male Hierarchy?
@ Deb:
“The good news is that women can’t be blamed for this blunder. ”
+++++++++++++
ha! always good to find the silver lining!
but it makes me wonder…. who’s behind these shenanigans? All of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee and all of those on the Crossway Board of Directors? Only a few of them? Was it done in secret? What from outside these 2 groups put pressure eva political pressure on them? Was this a backroom deal?
Do they all stand behind this? J.I. Packer, does he stand behind these incidents and decisions? Would he have said, “Yes, it’s a good idea to sneak in these gender role word changes so no one can intervene, and then right away make the ESV permanent and reject all textual discoveries that may come to light in the future”?
Seems so corrupt & amazingly brash — “Long live ESS, the ticket to male privilege and female subjugation. See, we’ve got God, ancient languages and modern languages all sorted out. We’ll always be right. Always. In perpetuity we are the only ones who have it right.”
And then so duplicitous to say, “Oh, no, sorry, in these last 22 days we’ve just now discovered that we won’t always be right. Our mistake. But it’s all good because now we’re going to say that Our desire, above all, is to do what is right before the Lord. That, and all we said about the great care we’ve been taking.” (“but we’re not changing the contrary women thing — no one’s taking that one from us”)
Darlene wrote:
They are beyond deluded.
Deb wrote:
Ah, Deb….I wouldn’t be so sure. I betcha them there contrary females were involved somehow. Maybe the Male Hierarchy of the Oversight Committee were being side-tracked in having to deal with their UNSUBMISSIVE wives. The Role of Male Headship can be stressful and taxing at times what with all the contrariness they must deal with on a regular basis. 😉
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my, Gram3. I just read your comment now. You read my mind, or I read yours. Most definitely there is a woman to blame. The Collective Wisdom of the Male Hierarchy of the Oversite Committee would never make a blunder like this unless wommin folk manipulated them with their feminine wiles. But it’s all okay in the end. God’s Sovereignty and Monergistic thinking excuses them of any exculpatory evidence. Who said you can’t have your cake and eat it too? 😉
okrapod wrote:
Priceless, Okrapod! But we lowly wimmen are not supposed to look at these things rationally. No. We are just supposed to accept that we are always contrary to what is right. Do they not see how their system falls to pieces due to the reality that hubby IS NOT actually Jesus, and Wifey IS NOT the actual Church?
Wow. Gone for a week on family business and come back to all these posts. Both thrilling and intimidating.
On this post, two things. first, “Yay us!” (Us being all the people who pointed out how underhanded and wrong this Final Answer ESV move was).
And second, “Boo ESV guys! Your s*ck. Get over yourselves. Start actually worshiping and pursuing the God of the Bible rather than worshiping your agendas, your positions in the church, and your male parts.”
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Wow. Gone for a week on family business and come back to all these posts. Both thrilling and intimidating.
On this post, two things. first, “Yay us!” (Us being all the people who pointed out how underhanded and wrong this Final Answer ESV move was).
And second, “Boo ESV guys! Your s*ck. Get over yourselves. Start actually worshiping and pursuing the God of the Bible rather than worshiping your agendas, your positions in the church, and your male parts.”
And that’s all I have to say about that.
But at least I said it twice. Not sure how I double commented. But things happen.
I was never on board with the ESV. When it initially arrived and I was completely ignorant of its association with CBMW and the Complementarian agenda (is that even the correct sp?), I was looking forward to it as someone who appreciated the KJV/NKJV, as well as RSV/NRSV. I remember waaaaay back then that it was very disappointing and did NOT deliver on many of its promises. I felt it was very awkward to read, and I put it down.
I tried picking it back up when our Lutheran Church made the transition, and couldn't stand reading it. Then I tried picking it up several more times as more and more denominations seemed to move to it. I was still primarily reading and studying from the NASB and NIV, so it was very awkward.
As I began to learn more about its ties to CBMW and the reason it came into being, my concern grew. Honestly, this was the last straw for me to even consider trying to like it, whatever that means. I really love the NIV 2011, and I still refer to the NASB and sometimes the NRSV, all 3 of which I believe, after years of study, are to be preferred over and above the ESV, especially in lieu of its most current revisions to Gen. 3:16 and 4:7. I find the irony in stating that the ESV was created to offer an alternative to the "agenda" of the NIV 2011 curious.
@ Cassandra Hale:
“I tried picking it back up when our Lutheran Church made the transition, and couldn’t stand reading it. Then I tried picking it up several more times as more and more denominations seemed to move to it.”
+++++++++++
i have a hard time believing denominations aren’t run by evangelical politicians & impressionable weenies. in the end, it comes down to power, money and influence.
Robert wrote:
I agree.
Christiane wrote:
I just love Sojourner Truth! She was an amazing woman…
Crossway should stand by what they believe to be true and not compromise due to outside pressures. They obviously felt strongly about it, hence the aforementioned “Permenant Edition.” If anything, maybe a detailed explanation as to why the change was made could have been put forth. I don’t hear many people complaining about the NET, or NLT translations “desire to control your husband” rendering of the same passage.
zooey111 wrote:
If you haven’t already, look into the Gap theory of Genesis 1:1 & 1:2. Also the Nephilim of Gen. 6:4 could possibly explain the “non-human” skeletons that have been found and put in our natural history museums.
@ Joe Marcum:
Sorry Joe. Those ideas have pretty much been discredited in so many ways.
And do not address the age of the earth and universe. 4.5 billion and 13.8 billion years. Give a take a few.
@ NC Now:
Give or take a few.