calvinism & the ESV

[Darrell]

Quote:looks like you want to argue, instead of discuss the ESV and its merits, or lack thereof, and/or why calvinists are falling all over themselves to get one

If you can show me exactly where the text of Bible has been translated to be friendlier to Calvinism then I may be a little more amenable to your position.

[paul]

I should have expected this thread. Well, I guess I did, in part. Let me clarify a few things...

Piper is NOT the pope of Calvinism. He might be the Pope of the "Young, Restless, Reformed" (who are Calvinistic, but neither Reformed nor Calvinists).

Reformed is not the same as Calvinist. Calvinists generally believe in 5 points often poorly explained with a TULIP acronym (that most people can only accurately remember 3-4 of anyway). Reformed is a much broader and deeper system of theology with a rich heritage.

I'm guessing most people know this one, but, just because one is Complimentarian does not mean one is Patriarchal. And just because a wife voluntarily defers to her husband doesn't make one Complimentarian.

Let's not lump all the labels together because we don't like what we imagine they stand for.

And so that I can actually contribute to the conversation, there is some great information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version

[greg]

(06-12-2012 02:05 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:looks like you want to argue, instead of discuss the ESV and its merits, or lack thereof, and/or why calvinists are falling all over themselves to get one

If you can show me exactly where the text of Bible has been translated to be friendlier to Calvinism then I may be a little more amenable to your position.

Stop, go back and read my initial comment. I'm not contending that this has been done, although, from what I can see from numerous websites, the ESV study bible definitely leans calvinistic. (that is, as far as it's notes, not the translation itself!)

I go so far as to say that I would hope that the oversight committee wouldn't "have written their eisegesis of the Greek into the text of the ESV" I'm not contending that they did. I'm "hoping" they did not, and even call them "fine" men.

With friends like you who needs enemies?

[Darrell]

Quote:I go so far as to say that I would hope that the oversight committee wouldn't "have written their eisegesis of the Greek into the text of the ESV" I'm not contending that they did. I'm "hoping" they did not, and even call them "fine" men.

Oh, ok. So for you personally if it's an ESV without the study notes would you still distrust it just on general principle?

ETA: Because if not then it would seem that the great issue here is that study notes written by Calvinists lean towards Calvinism and are appreciated by their fellow Calvinists....which should not should shock and amaze anybody.

[greg]

(06-12-2012 02:27 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:I go so far as to say that I would hope that the oversight committee wouldn't "have written their eisegesis of the Greek into the text of the ESV" I'm not contending that they did. I'm "hoping" they did not, and even call them "fine" men.

Oh, ok. So for you personally if it's an ESV without the study notes would you still distrust it just on general principle?

I would read with my eyes wide open, for sure.

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 02:22 PM)paul Wrote:  I'm guessing most people know this one, but, just because one is Complimentarian does not mean one is Patriarchal. And just because a wife voluntarily defers to her husband doesn't make one Complimentarian.

Rachel Held Evan's just last week quoted some main Complementarian leaders who admitted that Complementarianism is the same as patriarchy. The leaders themselves are admitting it. At any rate, to be Complementarian one does have to believe in male hierarchy, so I guess you make it sound as pretty as you like but when brought down to the lowest common denominator it's belief in male hierarchy. Why would a wife "voluntarily" defer to her husband if she wasn't Complementarian? I know that an egalitarian or feminist wife wouldn't do that, not as a habit all the time just because he's the man, because it's against the very beliefs of egalitarianism and feminism.

I'm really tired of Complementarians trying to pretend they don't believe in male hierarchy, even after they've made comments like "but I ALLOW my wife to work" (you don't have to allow her to work, she's an adult and can do what she wants). Or they say "I love my wife and let her use her gifts". She can use her gifts whether you "let" her or not. All that shows you believe that you are the top dog. Or "I listen to my wife but if we cannot agree, I make the final decision". That is a belief in hierarchy too. It really gets old the amount of dodging Complementarians do to try to make their beliefs in male hierarchy more palatable when deep down, it's all the same old crap.

[leaving]

(06-12-2012 02:27 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:I go so far as to say that I would hope that the oversight committee wouldn't "have written their eisegesis of the Greek into the text of the ESV" I'm not contending that they did. I'm "hoping" they did not, and even call them "fine" men.

Oh, ok. So for you personally if it's an ESV without the study notes would you still distrust it just on general principle?

ETA: Because if not then it would seem that the great issue here is that study notes written by Calvinists lean towards Calvinism and are appreciated by their fellow Calvinists....which should not should shock and amaze anybody.

I think that if a mostly or all Calvinist committee did the translation that it will be obviously biased towards Calvinism even in the Biblical text, even if it wasn't intentional, which is why I rather use the NIV who had much more of a variety of translators, as far as I know anyway. And everyone I know who is Calvinist raves about it, which yes gives me pause.

[Darrell]

(06-12-2012 02:35 PM)greg Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 02:27 PM)Darrell Wrote:  Oh, ok. So for you personally if it's an ESV without the study notes would you still distrust it just on general principle?

I would read with my eyes wide open, for sure.

I would recommend this in general as a good practice.

Translators are human beings. No matter what their background they are prone to bias and error.

[redbeardiam]

I'ma try and stay out of all the YRR bashing stuff cause it's a no-win.

On the translation issue:

While the NIV and ESV are both essentially middle of the road translations as far as I'm concerned, the ESV is more on the 'literal' side of the middle and the NIV is more to the 'dynamic equivalence' side. I think the ESV translates into English grammar better than the NASB, which keeps a lot of the Greek grammatical constructions making harder to read IMO.

OTOH, the ESV seems to strive for a 'literary' feel rather than a conversational style, so it still comes across stilted sometimes. The ESV has been my go-to for study and preaching for years now, but lately I've been cheating on it with the HCSB for personal reading. (And yes, I have my ESV Study Bible complete with reformed leaning study notes - they issued it to me directly from YRR headquarters in Seattle.)

IMO, the reason the ESV is so popular with Calvinists is because the ESV Study Bible is a quality piece of work from a reformed/calvinist perspective... and there are years of a sustained and strong marketing campaign behind it featuring the aforementioned heavyweights in those circles.

[Darrell]

Quote:and there are years of a sustained and strong marketing campaign behind

I wasn't going to bring this up but it is definitely a factor.