calvinism & the ESV

[Tooktheredpill]

btw, here's the article where Denny Burk (and Russel Moore) proudly claim the "biblical patriarchy" label: http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian...in-a-name/

I'm not going to say how this makes me feel, because it would be a rather difficult read...

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 04:12 PM)Tooktheredpill Wrote:  There is definitely a complementarian bias in the ESV. Instead of just making claims, though, I 'll give some proof. Almost all scholars disagree with the ESV translation of Romans 16:7.

There is no good reason to say that Junia was only "well-known to the Apostles." The best translation is "prominent among the apostles."

http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender...d-the-esv/

I guess this was my point which I did not get across very well. I was afraid there was a complementarian bias because I was afraid there was a Calvinist bias and to me the two usually go hand in hand. I've always had a bad feeling about the ESV so I prefer to just use other versions. Ironically, all the people I know that are crazy over the ESV are both Calvinist and at a minimum complementarian and both say that's part of the reason they like the ESV better because it "brings it out" better which is why I had my suspicions. So for me it's all interrelated but I could see why my thoughts were confusing to everyone else.

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 04:06 PM)Naomi Wrote:  Paul, I read the Rachel Held Evans article and leaving's whole post makes a lot more sense if you've also read that. She was talking generally, not directed at you at all, I'm pretty sure. RHE really did have a great extended discussion on her blog about all these things this past week and I'd recommend it for much more depth.

I agree that complementarianism is benevolent sexism, and it has all the same recognized issues and downsides for women. Patriarchy may be hostile sexism, but the benevolent kind is damaging as well, in sometimes less obvious ways. Leaving's point makes sense, right? More conservative Christians (most 'Reformed' types fall on this side) tend to be women-submit Christians, in a variety of different flavors. That's not surprising, is it?

This has been my point. A benevolent sexist is still sexist, and complementarianism requires sexism in order to be complementarianism. It doesn't matter whether sexism is "benevolent" or otherwise, it still devalues women and still negatively affects us, so you can't expect those of us who are egalitarian or feminist to be excited about one's "freedom"to be a sexist of any variety.

[paul]

(Moved the Complimentarian/Egalitarin discussion so we don't hijack greg's thread anymore. http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum/sh...?tid=4884)

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 04:27 PM)Tooktheredpill Wrote:  btw, here's the article where Denny Burk (and Russel Moore) proudly claim the "biblical patriarchy" label: http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian...in-a-name/

I'm not going to say how this makes me feel, because it would be a rather difficult read...

Yep...and yet complementairans are still complaining that "the egalitarians misrepresented our beliefs". No, we didn't. These are complementarian leaders saying this about complementarianism. We didn't do it.

[Scorpio]

(06-12-2012 03:16 PM)Darrell Wrote:  Repeat after me: "I could be wrong and loving others is more important to me than being more right than they are."

OK.

"I could be wrong and loving others is more important to me than being more right than they are."

[Mommy2Kids]

I love the ESV. I have several different translations, but I usually carry my ESV to church. My kids have NKJVs, but that's mostly b/c I liked the covers.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

I believe a prerequisite for translators beyond knowledge of the original languages is to be fully literate in at least two modern languages. Most people who are bilingual realize that it is more effective to translate meaning rather than words.

[That'sWhatItSays]

I looked up another controversial passage and compared it with the three scriptures. It is my belief that the ESV reverts back into error in its translation when compared to the NIV.

I Timothy 3:13

KJV: For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NIV: Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

ESV: For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The word "deacon" is not really a translation, but a transliteration that has been used over the ages to add a strong element of ecclesiology to the text. We don't even know what a deacon really is, though some of our churches use the term. A literal translation of the verse reads much more closely to the NIV, because the NIV actually made an attempt to translate the words in the original. The ESV chooses the middle ground between the NIV and the KJV by using the term "serve" in the verse, but they keep the word "deacons" in. It's kind of a strange translation, because the word diaconos means "minister" or "servant". The ESV is kind of saying, "those who serve well as servants..."

Most translations of the Bible retain the word deacons. Standing with the NIV are the Geneva, Darby, and Phillips.

[captain_solo]

(06-13-2012 06:28 AM)Scorpio Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:16 PM)Darrell Wrote:  Repeat after me: "I could be wrong and loving others is more important to me than being more right than they are."

OK.

"I could be wrong and loving others is more important to me than being more right than they are."

I could be wrong too, and I love others even though I am more right then they are.