Why I'm Not Using the ESV Anymore (the Good, The Sketchy, and The Gnarly)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 гру 2021
- Since I started Bible content on this channel I talked about why I used the ESV a bunch, but really wasn’t that wild about it. And I promised a video explaining my viewpoint a bunch. Well, if you follow me on the socials, you know I’ve been talking about moving off the ESV (and having to replace the amazing #TurkeyBuzzard). So I felt that instead of just making my “I think the ESV is a little sketchy but I still use it” video…I’ll make a video about why I’m not using the ESV anymore.
Richard Foster | Streams of Living Water amzn.to/3sim1Pi
Related Links and Articles (where I really learned about things for this video)
The New Stealth Translation by Scot McKnight bit.ly/3p6Mqh2
What Today’s Christian Needs to Know about the English Standard Version bit.ly/3mgBqvA
Three Unmistakable Examples of Gender Politics in the New ESV Translation by Carolyn Curtis James bit.ly/3E8hLEr
Deconstructing the ESV by Beth Allison Barr bit.ly/3qadlaZ
Manhood and Masculinity in the ESV (there are some SOLID links in here) bit.ly/3G9pRPB
My Writing | bit.ly/RevChadBrooks
Productive Pastor on iTunes | bit.ly/ProductivePastor
Productive Pastor on Spotify | spoti.fi/3oIT5gf
the Bible is Metal on iTunes | apple.co/2YxGYJN
the Bible is Metal on Spotify | spoti.fi/3D1x1D7
My Bible Study Tools | amzn.to/3rqx34y
Pen Case | amzn.to/3pmaDie
Zebra Mildliners | amzn.to/3oe6WvH
Staedler Fineliner | amzn.to/3dbOoGk
Sharpie Pens | amzn.to/3EmjHKA
are you makings your beliefs fit the Bible or the Bible to fit your beliefs?
The latter, clearly.
No complementarian has ever said that 'men are above women'. That would be contrary to the concept of complementarianism.
He’s intentionally misinterpreting complementarianism to fit his ideology. It’s so obvious. Liberal bias
Yeah, he's just lying to cope, to DENY the truth and defame this version and (biblically accurate) perspective. He even accuses it in other comments of being non-biblical. LOL
As a bible translation nerd, this is my time to shine a little. Most often, I find folks who approach the ESV from a modernist/non-Calvinist/egalitarian perspective, complain about the ESV seemingly Calvinistic language as well as it’s complementarian language without realizing that the ESV doesn’t just come from the line of the RSV but it comes from the line of the KJV as stated in the preface. For a long time, the RSV was seen as a divergence away from the KJV and in many ways it was as it was somewhat of a more liberal bent on various messianic passages in the OT. The ESV brings that divide together and reunites the scholastic prowess of the RSV as well as the theological verbiage and tradition of the KJV. You can see this very clearly when examining all three in Logos. Where the ESV diverges from the KJV, it follows the RSV, where the ESV diverges from the RSV, it follows the KJV. This isn’t 100% perfect, but it’s pretty close. I get that not everyone wants to read a translation that has the word election in it too much, but it’s just good to know that the ESV was not created in a vacuum of just raw conservative, Calvinistic complementarian thought, but it comes from a long standing tradition that has a lot of value to it. Blessings
@@grit1679 That’s actually the opposite of what I said. 🙃
@@grit1679 Thank you for that. 🫠 I feel Christ’s love just emanating from you. 😐
@@grit1679 Okay, friend. The Lord will judge between us. May God bless you and keep you. I’m out of this conversation. 🙂
This comment ignores the many decisions made in the ESV by mainly a single person to support patriarchy rather than looking at the Greek. The commentary reinforces narrow complementaries viewpoint rather than being open to the Greek's actual meaning.
@@karenallen7064 the Greek is absolutely clear about male/female roles whether you like it or not.
Thanks for sharing and the interesting reads on the links you provided. I have the ESV study bible but its kind of been sat on my shelf for a while. I will take a deeper look and do for the most part agree with much of what you are saying - even though I have not read a great deal of the ESV. Its hard these day with so many translations and so many different "study bibles" which on the surface can seem fab - but then you get the sense of mass production and very similar content. It can be very confusing especially for those just coming to Christ. Thanks for this upload and stay safe your end of the world. )
Thanks DinoDino - I am a big fan of resourcing other folks. It's a big passion of mine.
Hi, thank you for your channel. I really enjoy your thoughts and opinions on bible translations and your experience. I was wondering your thoughts on using an nkjv? I have recently bought one because I really like the layout of the bible and was hoping to try using one bible translation next year to study. When I first became a Christian I used a NLT but found after a while people around me seemed to look down upon it sonI switched to ESV and used it until this year when I found myself using CSB. My old church would have used ESV and my current church uses NIV. I don’t feel particularly loyal to these translations but I am keen this year to try and stick with one when I’m personally studying.
Personally, I think the NLT is one of the absolute best translations available today. Now that is because of some personal values that I have regarding translation philosophy and having a diverse translation team. I’m jumping next year into a translation I haven’t spent much time with in my adult life. I’ll have a video out about that next week.
@@revchadbrooks thank you so much for your reply. Will look forward to your next video.
The NLT is a GREAT translation!!
@@vickih5405 Say it LOUDER!!!
I think you may have convinced me to switch TO the ESV.
If you like the idea of a faux-accurate translation bent towards non-biblical modern ideology, have at it.
@@revchadbrooks Less so than your reasons in the video. I was being facetious.
@@revchadbrooks gender inclusive language is also a modern ideology.
@@revchadbrooksI think it's your charismatic background bias that's facilitating this video.
Pot calling the kettle black, your entire argument is a post modern ideological bias that agrees with the modern world and not bibilical tradition. The irony is palpable lolol
hey chad would you recommend the NKJV. that is the one I use. thanks for your help. Merry Christmas
I don't have much experience with the NKJV. I think the biggest decision with using it is do you want a Bible translated from the critical text or the received text. The KJV and NKJV both come from the received text tradition; ie don't use the last 500 years of manuscript study in their translation philosophy.
What are some of the translations you like/will be using in the future Chad?
The problem is you start with “women in ministry” as your starting point and want to make sure your Bible agrees with your ideology instead of just agreeing with what the Bible says about women’s roles in ministry.
Amen.
Bingo
I pastor a church of God (Cleveland, Tn) in Kentucky. Prays for ya pastor. Thanks for the video. I normally use the nkjv but I’ve been reading the esv some as well. Appreciate the insight.
Thanks for hanging out!!!
Kjv is way better. I was excited to go to nkjv, but I couldn't once I tried
Could you please give an example of where the ESV takes a strange approach with the translation of the original Greek or Hebrew?
I would check out the links in the description. Those folks are a lot smarter than me. Many of the issues fall into 2 camps. The first is the translation of neutered or "global" gender issues. The second is around a specific eschatological bent.
@@revchadbrooks thanks appreciate it, I’ll check it out
Bro, this was great! Thanks for sharing. I feel a similar way about the translation. I wish that more Christians that the most accurate way to read scripture is in the original languages. That way people would value the translations for what they are, translations. Great work man!
Thanks!
Wow. This video (and most commenters) acts like the ESV is the only translation with a theological bent in places. And the description of complementarianism was an utter caricature, so bad it was borderline dishonest. EVERY translation makes theological choices. We should seek to know what the scripture says, not choose the translation that fits what we think already.
I have a similar opinion about the ESV, even though I was one of the first on board in the early 2000s. I'm also turned off by the gender neutral language that the CSB and NIV push on the reader. Now my top three are: NASB, NKJV, and my new daily reader the Berean Study Bible translation.
I think it is important to look at the gender neutral language in translations because they are actually accurate to the original text. English doesn't have a neutered gender, but many other modern (and ancient) languages do.
If we are dealing with something that isn't designed to necessarily have a gender applied to it, but we want to assign it one in English...we have to ask ourselves why we are putting that boundary on our translation...especially if we are desiring a high level of word for word accuracy.
@@revchadbrooks I do not agree that it is always more accurate, though I will concede sometimes it is. I just find it interesting that all of a sudden translators think it is necessary to revise and update.
@@tjmaverick1765 I recommend checking out the links in the description. The Galatians 4:7 example really drove it home to me how so-called "gender neutral" language can actually be the accurate way of translating sometimes.
I read several papers and watched some videos about this same issue. I'm so mad at my ESV's now. And I have 9 of em! They are being put in "time out".
I'm not sure what videos you've watched, but (contrary to what this video suggests) there are legitimate, scholarly reasons for the translation choices they make. I can nitpick their rendering of a few verses, but most people seem to object to their translations of a few key verses involving women (and I assume those are the verses that were cited in the videos you saw). From my reading and knowledge of the biblical languages, I believe the ESV's translations of these "controversial" verses are generally correct. I will quote below something I wrote in response to someone who strongly disagreed with the ESV's rendering of Genesis 3:16 to give you an idea:
While many translations render Genesis 3:16 as "your desire shall be fore your husband" the ESV render it as "your desire shall be contrary to your husband". Nonetheless, I would argue the ESV's rendering is more faithful to the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "desire" here (תְּשׁוּקָה - teshuqah) is a very rare word that appears in the Old Testament only three times (Gen. 3.16, 4.7, Song 7.10). However, the use of the word in Genesis 3:16 is closely paralleled to its use one chapter later in Genesis 4:7, and that is the best place to look to figure out what it means here.
In Genesis 3:16 Eve is told her desire will be for/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) her husband and he will rule over (מָשַׁל)her. In Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and that sin's "desire is for you/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) you, but you must rule over (מָשַׁל) it." Note the identical pairing of "desire" and "rule" in both passages. Whatever "desire" means in one it probably means in the other.
Some would read the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as sexual desire, but that is impossible in Genesis 4:7 (not to mention that would make a woman's sexual desire for her husband a curse, which contradicts the rest of scripture). Instead, "desire for" in both passages seem to be the desire to overcome/control. This is certainly the best interpretation of Genesis 4:7 and makes the most sense in Genesis 3:16. Indeed, it has been argued that even the usage of the word (תְּשׁוּקָה) in Song of Solomon 7:10 conveys the desire to control/dominate in the man's desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman. Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
In sum, I actually think the NET's rendering of "you will want to control your husband" is the most accurate, but the ESV's "your desire will be contrary to your husband" is still much better than the traditional "your desire shall be for."
Whats your take on the NRVSUE?
Just read the kjv
So if you believe all these things about the ESV translation, what Translation did you choose instead and why?
The newly-released NRSVue that he heavily promotes (and swings far to the other side).
Just stumbled on your channel. Really liking the content so far. As a Pentecostal I have been using the ESV for close to 10 yrs now. Read through it countless number of times. I have never picked up on the “vibe” you are talking about concerning women. In fact, one my Reformed friends has recently made a big shift away from that viewpoint all while using the ESV exclusively. My wife and I still co-pastor our little church and never felt our theological convictions were stepped on.
I appreciate the ESV's transparency in their bent. I don't vibe with it in similar ways to you Chad, but it is still a really good version if you read it with an understanding of their theological underpinnings. I was hoping the CSB would find a better balance and be the solution, but I just don't like their wording in too many places where they seem to taken more creative liberty. So I'm kinda "homeless" currently on a preferred translation, with about $1000 of ESV's on the shelf...
Thanks Chris. And the CSB isn't very high up in my mind. I was selling Bibles when it came out as the HCSB and it pretty much was created as a work around to not paying tons of money in licensing rights to the NIV for Sunday School Curriculum. I think the last 20 years or so have suffered because most newer translations have become sectarian or economic decisions as a basis for making them.
@@revchadbrooks Yeah, I was really surprised at how little was changed, but worse what was changed in the HCSB/CSB. Frankly, I just won't use it.
Chad... this reflects a LOT of my concerns with the ESV. There are also some obvious word choices to nudge predestination-esk texts in the direction of Calvinism. They aren't crazy changes, but it's almost like they said "let's use a word we would use in our movement."
But... the product line is... amazing!
The word "nudge" is absolutely perfect to use. The texts that seem to eek towards predestination are totally part of it all. That's probably the thing I could still deal with, because it doesn't make me pull in some core convictions in the decision making process.
Guys we have to remember… That even as Arminians and Wesleyans we even adhere to predestination and election. So even then I have not seen any areas that makes the English standard version a translation contrary to our beliefs.
I would recommend the YT video Theodore P. Letis: The Quest for the Historical Text, The ESV, and The Jesus Seminar
Narrow is the way
That's funny! Yeah, there's a thin line of distinction between "wide" Christianity and "woke" Christianity... 😂
I have been using ESV because it has been our church's standard (Calvinist church). I now use a literal interlinear bible of Hebrew-English and Greek-English versions, particularly because I have taken to studying the original languages.
I have been using one for years. I live in the south, so people roll their head when I explain to them what the Hebrew means (context) versus how their mind views the English words. You will be more knowledgeable but other Christians will be angered by it. Us Americans don’t want to learn anything they didn’t “hear in their church.”
@davidhiggins3012 on one hand, yeah, i get that.
Just yesterday after sermon, i was talking about why the pastor would use the latin translation for the passage used when 1. He never used latin before and 2. Why he needed to use latin to get His point across when the original greek and aramaic texts used give an entirely different meaning. I then proceeded to talk through a few points as to why he would be wrong in this point since the word needed was found in latin and not the originals, and the only reason he went or had to go to latin was to support his presuppostional biases to make the text conform to said biases.
It was like talking with a brick wall. As if he didn't understand the language or the exegesis of an additional point, when he has normally gone to the greek regularly. One would assume a familiarity at this point after 11 years of pastoring using this method, and a masters from his seminary where he says he studied greek as well.
At least some of the members can discuss point/counterpoint when we talk and reason through the text together and we can admit when we see another viewpoint.
I see becoming a pastor now as having to defend everything and never admit errors when made, or even acknowledge alternate interpretations with a solid historicity within the church as an orthodox view.
"Is something truly accurate if it's translated to fit a modern issue?"
Very well said. True and fair with love. Thanks for your video.
Thanks Travis
@@revchadbrooks I honestly don't know if you truly believe this considering NRSVue is now your go-to Bible. Some of the verses there were passed off as "having an unclear meaning" despite the Greek being clear to fit a modern issue.
You mention being a part of the UMC. Would you care to Comment on your thought of the split?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am curious about your thoughts (in any translation) of 1 Timothy 2:11-15? What is it saying?
Also, I have been looking over all the different translations and noticed that KJV of Rev 13:16 reads “to receive a mark IN their right hand” when all other translations say “ON”. Why would that one word be changed throughout all these translations? After finding this I have stopped using ALL other translations except for KJV.
Because the Greek word “επι (epi)” literally means “on”. That’s all. It’s not a conspiracy or anything.
This is a great video, and you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks Joe!
Thanks Pr. Chad. I use the NRSV, ESV, and KJV as they represent three versions sharing a common heritage and translation approach. In my reading and studying I find it helpful to use a variety of translations to keep my mind focused on Biblical teachings as opposed familiarity. When I quote scripture, I tend to use KJV as its magnificent English lends itself to memory. The other translations I use are the NIV and …. Tyndale’s New Testament published by Yale.
About 85% of Tyndale shows up in the KJV. The rest was mostly changed by the committee of KJV translators responded to pressure from the King to translate the KJV using more authoritarian high church terms to support both clerical and monarchical hierarchies. A great read is Adam Nicolson’s “God’s Secretaries” that reports the commission, translation process, disagreements, and politics behind the KJV. IMO, that book should be required reading for KJV-only crowd. Mike , aka Siegfried.
Bro. Great comment. And I will check out that book. I’m going to award you with “best comment to ever talk about the KJV in the history of UA-cam” award. (This isn’ t a real award.)
Even with my anti-Calvinism view I can disprove Calvinism with the esv
I wish the book by book journals were available in NIV or NRSV.
I’ve tried the CSB version, but I’m really not wild about the translation.
Their is supposed to be a NLT version and I have the whole NT ordered, but they keep on moving the release date further and further.
They have them in nkjv
There are individual journals for the NIV!
What does the Bible say about women being pastors ?
Thank you for making this video. I purchased a really nice premium ESV a few years ago, not fully realizing the gender decisions of this text. The more I read it the more I was embarrassed to preach from the ESV as a pastor. It’s a small detail but saying brothers vs “bothers and sisters” makes a big difference in our times. Too often I felt like it was a translation for men rather than for all people. By and large the ESV is fine but this is a deal breaker for me. I cannot continue to preach from it just because I have an expensive copy. Back to the NIV2011 (yes I just picked up a textbook turkeybuzzard). QUESTION: what’s your recommendation on word for word translations nowadays, NRSV, NASB, other?
Hey Joshua. Thanks for your comment.
#turkeybuzzard!!!
I’m actually not that concerned with the whole word for word thing (guess I’ll add that to the video list), but I’m a big fan of the NRSV. It’s a great translation and the primary academic one for a big part of the Protestant world.
Big fan of NRSV and NLT too👍
I didn’t mean to end the comment there… but what I was saying. I didn’t know that when I was thinking those thoughts that the new LSB translation.it’s Actually a new NASB. Put Yahweh in instead of LORD. Among other literal words… I was pleased with that. So I got one. I also have have the ESV and NKJV..to supplement my reading…
Hello pastor Chad! Great video and topic as usual. I have a video request please. For most of my christian life I've been part of the charismatic branch of it and about 2 years I've started getting more into the Reformed and Conservative side of it. I'm starting to attend a presbyterian church. But one of the things that have kept me confused for a while is exactly this complementarianism thing. Could you make a video on that and on why you don't believe in it? I'd really like to learn about it and have a say on where i stand on it 🙏🏻 God bless!
Hey Marcella - Thanks for your question. I'll give that one a thought. It isn't something I would say would be in my wheelhouse. What I would check out is this video and series.
seedbed.com/women-and-ministry-from-scripture-and-history/
Reformed Theology borders on heresy. Read about it, especially its limited atonement doctrine.
We need to ask ourselves, which should we believe, tradition of a church or what God says.
Interesting chat, you've got a new sub!
I think Bible translation CAN have a specific slant depeding on the committee, thats why I think it's good to use multiple translations. I also appreciate your 'wide Christian' view, but I would caution a little bit brother, don't get so wide that you fall head long into the Liberal Christian fold on the left and the extreme fundy right.
In the interest of conversation, where would you draw the line?
I agree!
Hey Dwayne -
Thanks for the comment. And I agree about multiple translations. If slants are there...it is sometimes really helpful to understand how the interpretation might differ.
For the second questions, I think we have to separate the understanding between practice and belief. To me, wideness is about respecting the understanding of praxis, and knowing where there is overlap that you can appreciate. And I really appreciate how you recognize that there is a healthy understanding of middle, with extremes on both side.
I appreciate this video and I feel it is a topic we should discuss more. I don't think there is enough alarm in the Church today about Bible translations that are controlled by one publisher or denomination. LIkely because it is so common today. That is not to say they should be ignored offhand, but that they should be subjected to scrutiny. And I don't hear enough of that scrutiny. Perhaps the fear is if you scrutinize a translation you're labeled a fundie? I'm not sure. Anyway, I enjoy your videos.
Thank You!
NLT for me. Just makes sense.
I'm all over the NLT. I just wish I could find a solid version that works for the way I like to read the Bible.
@@revchadbrooks I just got the 1996 Slimline and I’m loving it. Used the ESV for The last 10 years and the 96 NLT is what I needed. It just pierces me and brings me to The heart of the Father.
@@revchadbrooks Dr. Lynn Cohicks [Gospels and Acts] and Dr. Nijay Gupta [Letter and Revelation] were put on the NLT Translation Committee in June of 2022, both believe very publicly the Bible allows for female pastors. Dr. Jeannine Brown is on the NIV translation committee [ NT ] starting in 2009, and she is pro-female pastors. I have a hunch the NLT will be what you want in the next revision. It will correct Paul.
Same for me Lucas. Not to mention I struggle a bit with focusing when reading due to years on depression meds. The NLT works so well for me.
ESV my fav but cross check with KJV.
And how is Gen 3:16 hold up under crosscheck? (assuming you use the ESV2016)
Wow! I know I'm late to the party, but I'm fascinated by your motivation here. First, I think you're confusing differing roles for men and women within the church for differing value or importance in ministry. While Jesus clearly broke the norms of his day by including women in worship and in service he also never appointed a woman to a role of authority or leadership within his congregation. But I'm more interested to know what translation DOESN'T clearly draw a distinction between the roles of men and women in ministry?
Good Video. You can see this strong bias in the Esv study bible as well. they take a pretty generous approach with most 2nd hand issues (even predestination passages) but are dogmatic when you get into the typical controversial texts surrounding gender. Wayne Grudem is very involved and it is a major issue for him.
Yeah. I have an original ESV study bible on my shelf and I really haven't cracked it. I'd imagine it is exactly like you say.
The background music is incredibly distracting
What's "unhealthy" is trying to push anything outside the natural roles.
Ok so…. He seemed to equate translations to bibles with different beliefs… conservative types and more liberal types . I.e wide Christian or narrow one. I have always sought a translation that would say it like it was written not what I want it to say. The good, bad and ugly so to speak.. for instance… I read the Nasb because it’s considered a more literal word for word. And I remember asking myself. If it was a true word for word why does the Old Testament use LORD and not Yahweh ? If it was written Yahweh then copy it so…
It was never written Yahweh. Yahweh is God's name in first person. Writing it was forbidden which is where we get the tetragrammaton. So, using LORD is perfectly fine.
Today, we want to change God to accept our way of thinking. It helps bring in more people so they feel comfortable in their sins.
The problem is: God does not change, we do. Name one woman that had a ministry in the bible. I am in no way downplaying women's ability to be used by God, but God laid out the roles of a woman in his text as he did a man's. To change it up to fit our needs and desires is breaking the first commandment and placing ourselves above God and playing like God.
The bible says what it says, and we either believe in it or we don't. Believe in Jesus Christ or we don't.
ESV has always not sat well with me, well honestly it outright creeps me out. I've typically stuck with NLT because I'm a Gideon and thats the translation we use here in Canada. Recently I've been jamming on the Good News for my own reading. Just stumble on NABRE which is curious. Can't wait to see the journey and where you land.
I am a HUGE fan of the NLT. Just wish there was access to hard copies that fit my reading style/strategy. I've got another video talking about next year coming out next week.
also...Paul. It's been super cool connecting with you across multiple platforms. Loving your content.
@@revchadbrooks I also love the NLT with one big problem. The NLT omits Acts 8:37 (and 38, but that's not such a big deal). For that matter, a lot of translations including the ESV do. I understand why, but the fact is Irenaeus quotes in Against Heresies and that was written in the year 180. I don't care what the majority of other, later, manuscripts say, if we can find a reference to it that far back and by a major figure like that it should be included.
He says if you want high accuracy and word for word translation then ESV is great…. Sounds good enough for me.
of course, for nearly 2000 years of Church history, men were ordained, not women. That still continues in the historic Churches. You're taking your 'modern' view of women in ordained ministry as a lens to judge a translation, which is your right, but I think it falls short.
Dude the ESV doesn't put women below men. Total misunderstanding of scriptures, and we have to let Scripture speak for itself not come with presupposition into our reading.
Your going to have to start looking for a larger print rather than woke liberal itching ear" versions.
I have found that I as well do Not agree with how the ESV places the role of women in society... But... I want to state I am a Complimentarian... I believe that God has a design and an order for things.. including the roles that men and women have in society...
the fault of the ESV.. is that it seems to want to almost go to the point where women are inconsequential.. in regards to what they do. .with the exception of the famous women mentioned in the bible... but.. when it comes to minor roles such as that of Junia from Romans 16:7.. the ESV takes too many liberties....
first off according to the ESV... part of the women's curse in Genesis 3:16.. was that her desire would be "contrary".. to her husband... I disagree..
I believe the woman should wish to please her husband.. and allow him to lead. ..her desire should be "for".. her husband.. or in other words.. to want what he wants..
this word "contrary used by the ESV.. makes it sound as if the women will by nature be strong willed and oppose her husband at every turn.. and have to live that way... It is Not God's desire for the woman to be opposed to her husband at every turn..
But Nor is it the role of the woman.. to be the leader over men.... looking at Romans 16:7... there are several different takes on this...
some bibles have changed Junia to Junias.. making this person a male. .others such as the ESV.. have written the verse to state Junia was "known to the brethren"
where as I believe this Junia.. was Not over the brethren.. or simply just known by them but that she was counted among them as one of them..
I believe it is possible to accept Complimentarianism.. in it's proper form.. to mean.. the woman though NOT a leader.. is a part.. of the body....
I do Not believe God's design was for a woman to lead the flocks.. yet I believe the woman can be superbly gifted to aid the husband.. whether it be through the ministry of music.. teaching... moral support.. visiting the needy.. etc.... all the wives of Pastors I have known have filled roles in churches and have kept busy and and have been happy NOT being "the boss".. but desiring what their husband desires..
Mike Winger has started a series about the the theology to do with women in the bible... if you're interested- he's pretty fair in his assessments usually. At this point, I think only the second one is out. I believe he's gonna do six? I'm interested as to what he thinks.
I, personally, lean towards complementarianism myself. I think the husband should be the leader of the household. My husband and I have been married five years. He respects and loves me. He lays his life down for me all the time- making sacrifices and all that. He loves very well. Submission isn't always easy... but it's not an ugly thing. I think submission is a beautiful thing.
I use the NIV (moving onto the infinitely more challenging - for me- NASB, I have the bible, I haven't committed to the move yet, lol) and I still think that the text suggests that men should lead- at least when it comes to marriage. I feel like it's at least fairly clear on that. As regards to ministry? There's obviously that 1 Corinthians passage- but at the very least women prophesying seems to be ok. I haven't actually made up my mind on the in leadership thing. But either way, it'll be for the scriptures and the Lord to lead me on that one. I don't currently feel called to any of those things anyway, which explains my laziness in attending to that issue.
I think to say that complementarianism devalues women is an unfair representation of the view. I think there is always going to be some people who take it too far and use it for literal abuse, which I think any Christian that has his/ her heart open to correction on that issue would know that that the Lord isn't a fan of it. Obviously. A loving God. Discipline is loving. Abuse isn't.
All this to say... I haven't read hardly any of the ESV. I can't say either way whether it has a toxic view of women. Pushing a view on a translation isn't great, if that's happening. But women in submission to their husbands, in the very least, is a lovely, beautiful thing. I've seen a lot of offense (especially from women) regarding this issue. It's all quite challenging..
ps. I enjoyed the video!!!
I like Chad’s bible videos, but could you come up with a worse/less honest definition of complimentarian?
I would really watch mike wingers series in this… there has to be a hierarchy.. that’s the way EVERYTHING on earth works.. I understand this strikes a cord with your human morality… but you have to realize who the morality cop is…. GOD not us for our desires are almost always sinful! I hope you have a blessed day! Still a brother in Christ! Love your content man keep it up!!
Well the Scriptures are very clear in regards to men and women’s roles in the church. Please read 1 Cor. 14:34-38 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. This is pretty clear in most translations. Let’s not twist God’s words.
You mentioned having female pastor friends which is not allowed according to 1 Timothy 2. Repent and tell your friends to repent.
Save yourself some time: 4:45
I’m finding it really common Among Methodist Wesleyan Nazarene people to make huge jumps and reaches for women on leadership. Calling things Old and outdated. That’s just not sitting well with me.
All this.
Get you a 1599 GENEVA BIBLE and fall in love with it!
Complementarianism is not in Scripture. Biblical patriarchy is taught
For thousands of years, the biblical understanding of this verse has been clear. Women are to keep quite in church. You have a liberal modern bias and want your Bible to agree with your earthly ideology. It’s not biblical, that’s your problem.
That moment you realize scripture isn't compatible with your religion is the moment you need to reflect on how your religion defines God in your eyes. With that being said, after years of looking at multiple translations for studying, and reading multiple translations as a whole, my opinion is that there are probably issues with all of them. And that is my opinion based on discernment. If anything, the result has been to lead me away from established religion and the opinions of men. God's truth is above how we define Him and His word. The moment we start reading and studying to validate our beliefs and religion, rather than discerning what he's saying to us in completeness rather than one verse against another verse, or one translation against another translation, or our feelings versus knowledge, is the moment we really start disregarding His truth versus our perception of it. When you read to defend how you feel, rather than spiritual discernment and wisdom, is the moment the enemy snickers a bit at your flesh.
Complementarianism does NOT teach that men are "above" women as if men are inherently worth more... that is a strawman and a blatant misrepresentation! Complementarianism does teach that while men and women are of the same inherent human worth, as all are created in the image of God, God has placed men and women to play different roles in church and family. This is not anything special - everyone from the university professor to the construction worker has different roles to play in society, but no Christian claims that one is inherently more worth than the other just for the roles they play.
So far you have explained your beliefs about the ESV, but you have failed to show scriptures where the ESV is biased. Saying brothers instead of brothers and sisters is not proof since the culture of the old and new covenants always put men first yet it did not discard women as less than them. I am disappointed although my preferred bible is the NASB 1995, not the ESV.
I was hoping for some real reasons. He basically said I should read an article and I read it. She’s not even a theologian or Bible scholar at all she’s a feminist historian. And it sounds like you only agree with her because it fits in your theology better. Your reasons are weak.
In all honesty I am not sure what you said. Your only complaint is that the ESV is not overtly gender "neutral" Then you won't like most bible variants. Maybe you should try the Common English bible? It is so gender overboard that you might develop an appreciation for your ESV.
Thank you for this video! I agree and find the ESV is not a good translation as it is written with “bias” and from what I have heard from those who know the original languages, ESV is not true to the original languages.
I am still waiting for your "theological " proof using Hebrew, Greek etc...you talk but without proof.
Your theology should inform your ideology, not the other way around. United Methodist churches have become apostate for this reason.
Don't use translations that translate from Critical Text compilations.
If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text.
Why are there such ludicrous changes? Because modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex’s which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex’s to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which was created in the 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV.
Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start.
ya , 7 minutes in, we r done!
Conservatives think that inclusive language moves away from the original text into "woke", but in truth it moves closer to the original text. Hundreds of chauvinisms were _added_ to English translations that the Greek and Hebrew never had.
In Romans 1:15-21 there is a long chain of "for" clauses that are very important, and I don't want a translation that doesn't make the connections clear. The _only_ translation i found that gets that right without being a patriarchal cesspool is the NRSV, which came out with a major update in 2022. So now I'm stuck waiting an indeterminate time for bibles to be produced in that translation that are more than bare bones text
Literalness and accuracy aren't high in your "value set"? I can see why you wouldn't like it.
Have to be more specific. Paul didn’t teach that women couldn’t be in ministry. They just can’t hold the church offices of elder or deacon. The feel of this video is very weird. The ESV puts forth a particular theology? Doesn’t scripture teach a particular theology? Want to be a wide Christian and not a narrow one? Huh? Aren’t we supposed to stay on the narrow path? Surely I’m not the only one who immediately thought of that passage when that comment was made. Jesus said if you’re not with me, you’re against me. That sounds pretty narrow to me. Interesting and ironic fact, one of the most famous and influential Calvinist preachers of all time was converted in a Methodist church. My, how the Methodist church has fallen. It started with women pastors and is moving into lgbt pastors. Go soft on the gospel and you’ll go soft on who can mount the pulpit and preach it.
He needed a wide, not narrow path, considering his size.
it's not up to you Sir, where women stand in the church, it's up to the Word of God, if this is your reason for your translation choice, you are seriously in Error and a False Prophet
Chad you should not be using any Bible book they're all tainted. Why don't you go by the Holy Spirit . the Holy Spirit does not lie. The holy spirit will tell you the truth history of God's people. Not the tainted corrupted version of the Bible books all of them are like that.
You do realize under that logic we shouldn’t pay attention to the New Testament?
@@revchadbrooks Chad I didn't pay attention period and the New Covenant the Holy Spirit speaks through you. But the Bible speaks through you Chad. The apostles never had a Bible book Chad they had the holy spirit in them. So however not paying attention Chad. Chad I already know you don't have the Holy Spirit. The Bible book is your god it's your duty it's your idol it's for golden calf. Holy Spirit children Don't Preach from the Bible book.
So the Holy Spirit can speak to an individual that writes a book?
@@CaseyFleetMedia . The Holy Spirit spoke to his children and the apostles and written everything down in their tablets of the heart. Everything came from the Holy Spirit spoke through the Holy Spirit children or the apostles and then later on it got written down on two Scrolls. That's calfskin or sheepskin. Then around the 12th century it got written down onto a Bible book. On the day of Pentecost God poured out the Holy Spirit on 120 people. It was never to be written down on a Bible book. When an apostle would preach to the other children of God. The other children would know that the Apostle Paul was speaking the truth by their hearts. The Holy Spirit was in them. The devil cannot fight the Holy Spirit. So the devil his first Beast written the Bible but it was written on Scrolls and said it was the word of God and that's a lie. The devil changed the words in the Bible Scrolls. To put you under his control and then around the 12th century they got up the first Bible book said it was the word of God but it's not. God never intended his words in the New Covenant to be put in a Bible book or Scrolls. The Holy Spirit was teaching all the new Holy Spirit children that had God in them. But the devil trick the people and said the Bible was God's word and that's a lie from hell. God's word is the holy spirit in the New Covenant. The Jesus is God's word when he speaks his words are living. And truth . when Jesus speaks to you then you get a word from God. You do not get a word from God from a Bible book that's corrupted and has thousands of lies in it . when you have the Holy Spirit In You. The holy spirit will tell you the true history of God's people not the tainted version in the Bible book
@@jameszapata8290 without the Bible you wouldn’t know what God’s word is… lol
hmmm... so it doesn't matter what the Bible says about women's roles in the church, only your denominational beliefs matter on the subject? Oh well, your credibility is shot, no need to watch anymore of your content.
Women in leadership? Buhbye. Go with God but go.
Why single out the ESV over your gender feelings? Any Bible attempting to translate Paul’s writing about the roles of women in the church are going to say virtually the same thing? Women live longer and thus are more numerous and with age grow in influence and power disproportionately to men. They become a super majority in the church displacing God’s design for men to be the spiritual heads.
The King James Bible is The Holy Bible for all English speakers.