3 Problems with the ESV 

There is no denying that many of its translators are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so there is legitimate bias present, even if that bias is supported by genuine scholarship. It's just as biased in one direction as the NRSV is biased in the opposite direction, which is why I'd recommend using them together rather than apart. (Granted, what translation isn't biased somehow?)

Hi Jared, thanks for watching and for your comment. :) I am actually a Greek professor, I have been reading Greek for over a decade, and I have an intimate knowledge of two different basic grammars that I have taught through multiple times. Neither grammar teaches that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. I wonder what basic grammar you learned that in. I also wonder what gave you that impression. Here are some thoughts. A word can be possessive if it is genitive and an English translator may add a possessive pronoun there sometimes (a possessive “s” or “of” also works), but that’s not an implied possessive pronoun, that’s a possessive genitive, and that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. Or maybe you have seen translators supply pronouns to verbs to communicate first or second or third person, that’s acceptable, but again, that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. So, when a pronoun is supplied in English, it has a syntactical or grammatical explanation. This one in 1 Tim 3:11 doesn’t. It’s not a possessive genitive or something else. Let’s also talk about my “Illegitimate totality transference.” That is when you import all potential meanings of a word into a single context. For me to have done this, I would have had to argue that the word should be translated “deacon AND servant” in each usage. I argued that it is understood as “deacon,” that’s only one gloss, and thus I have not fallen prey to an illegitimate totality transference. :) I am glad you know Greek. Seriously, keep up the great work. I only critique the ESV because it has multiple problems recognized by numerous scholars and I care that the Bible is faithfully translated and interpreted. I am by no means the first one to point this out. You’re welcome to check out the notable resources section in the video description.

@@biblegeek7 Thanks for the reply, but I'm surprised that you don't know what I am talking about when I say that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. Here are just a few examples: Ephesians 5:25, 1 Corinthians 7:13, Acts 10:34. In each of these examples, there is no possessive pronoun before wives, husband or mouth. However, if we don't add the possessive pronoun in English, the sentence becomes unintelligible. Also, thanks for the clarification on the ITT. That's probably not the right name for the fallacy you committed, but it is still fallacious to say that if a word frequently is glossed one way, it should always be glossed that way. Διακονος can and does mean servant and αποστολος can and does mean messanger. The challenge of translation is you have to make choices. In both these cases, the ESV made justifiable choices. It seems like you have a particular doctrinal perspective that you want to push, and you seem willing to damage Christians' trust in their ability to understand the Bible rightly for themselves in order to push your perspective. Please be very careful about that. God's Word is clear. No translation is perfect, but you don't have to know Greek and Hebrew in order to read God's Word.

Thanks for your comment. I also do not like when people debate the “best” versions. I agree that God can be known through any version. I made this video specifically because the ESV has made intentionally misleading translation choices to support a theology that is not present in the text. In other words, they are “false and intentionally wrong” translations, to use your wording. I want people to be aware of these problems so that when they do read the ESV, they realize that the translation may not be representing the text accurately. Thanks for watching and commenting. And your English is great and understandable! :)

Your English is pretty good and this post is very well written. I agree 100% with you, people should read whatever they're comfortable with. It's also nice to read different translations to see the difference. So far, I have the KJV(my first), ESV, and currently I'm on the NKJV, I plan on reading all and maybe I might read the Catholic bible for fun to see what's different. God bless you friend, your English is great.

May God bless you for your faithfulness!

I have the original French version of the Jerusalem Bible. My French is reasonably good and I quite enjoy reading it. If I read a passage which I know well, it improves my French!

@@777Bible The Catholic Church (in England and Wales and many other English speaking countries) currently uses the RSV and will shortly adopt the ESV - so a “Catholic” Bible is no different to the Bible used by most Protestant Churches.

Thanks for watching and commenting

Hello, thank you so much for your comment. I was not specifically talking about the NRSV, and so discussing the NRSV’s departures from the Greek text was not the focus of this video. The NRSV was actually just an stand in English version. That said, leading Greek scholarship argues that this reference is not actually gender specific. So, the NRSV’s choice is rooted in that information. This phrase is actually how one talks about someone being faithful to their spouse, and there are multiple inscriptions they cite as evidence. Note that below it says, “he or she was married only once.” In other words, this is not specifically a “male” reference (There is a reason in my video I say that these deacons are “seemingly” men. The ESV has interpreted this phrase as a male referent, and chosen to translate it deacon when in reality this phrase too suggest that the passage is not male specific). I would have liked to discuss this in the video, but I was trying to keep it short and not overly technical. “μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16-29. For the use of μία in ref. to a woman: Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 346 ” (BDAG, εἷς,μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός) Thanks for your comment and for watching the video. :)

@@biblegeek7 I appreciate your response but I feel like saying “Greek scholarship” does not agree that the deacon is male is an overstatement. The NRSV is in a very small minority of translations (in both number and use) that do not explicitly identify the Decon as male. If you fault the ESV for it you also have to condemn the host of witnesses in nearly every other major translation. The RSV, NIV84, NIV2011, CSB 2017, CSB 2020, KJV, NKJV, NASB 95, NASB2020, LEB, BSB, ASV, NET and NLT So this “problem” exists in nearly EVERY major modern translation. I can’t see anyone accepting that so many widely used translations all conspired together and got this wrong.

@@gregmahler9506 Maybe not at your church ... we have a board of deacons and a board of elders ... just like the early church did.

Correct. It's not translation bias if it fits Bible Geek's woke agenda.

I agree. I have been learning a lot about the various translations lately and I have seen many videos against the ESV, like this one……. AND also some very convincing videos talking about similar translation problems/biases in the NRSV (“men who engage in illicit sex”…). It feels like political infighting unfortunately and becomes hard to know who to trust. I just want an accurate Bible, but all the “experts” point me in confusing directions. I guess I just need to learn Greek myself???

Thanks for watching and for the thorough comment. To put it bluntly, the ESV team has openly admitted to their prejudice. You can find these details in my sources in the video description. Your appeal to scholarship and legitimate debates are always welcome, as I am a Bible scholar and that’s what we do often. That said, the choices the ESV makes are the minority position among scholars and when vetted are found wanting. And, the NET notes and translation that the ESV usually follows are also found wanting. The Gen 3:16 translation is certainly more complex than my video had time to address, but the scholarship that the NET uses to justify their change, which the ESV only followed in 2016, is not convincing. The NET and some commentators draw on an article that is significantly flawed and they ignore a much better article from the JBL in 2011 (which is one of the leading peer reviewed journals in the world). I will probably make a video on this, because I have gotten so many comments about this. So, in the next year, may make the video. Similarly, your mention of the Burer and Wallace article is straight from the NET notes as well. These notes, like the notes on Gen 3:16, when vetted also are found wanting. What is missing from that discussion is the follow up articles and books from other scholars debunking Wallace and Burer’s claims. Their arguments are also found to be significantly flawed. You can see that scholarship mentioned in my videos on women in ministry. At the end of the day, in the 1990’s people made a big deal about gender neutral language in the Bible, and feminism corrupting the Bible translation teams, and such, and so now we are left with translations teams and scholars trying to backwardly write women out of the text and argue the language supports their bad translations, when for centuries no one made these arguments (see my women in ministry videos). In fact, people who read and spoke Greek in the centuries after the NT understood Junia as an apostle. But, the NET notes won’t tell you that because they are seemingly just as slanted at the ESV, but a bit more honest because they at least give you their own one-sided argument. I may also make a video on the NET, but it will take more time and research, so I will have to wait on that until I finish writing my dissertation, haha. When I get time, I may come back to this comment and cite the articles that conflict with the NET and ESV position, but at the moment I have to get ready for church. Grace and peace! And thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching.

For those who have ears, let them hear.

​@@biblegeek7bro, look at Gen 4:7 and have ears to hear. Is God telling Cain that sins desire is going to be desiring Cain in a good way? Well the language is identical to 3:16

There are many reasons that Gen 4:7 can simply be “desire for you.” If you look basically every translation before the NET and ESV, you will find they agree with me. That said, I will elaborate a little. First, in Gen 4:7 the desire is “for” you in the sense that a beast desires to eat (BDB lexicon). It is “good” for the beast but “bad” for the prey. Second, narratives read beginning to end, not the other way around. The reading you propose is one that reads Gen 4 into Gen 3, but it should be the other way around. Gen 3 happens, the woman desires her husband, but tragically in the fallenness of sin, he rules over her. Amid this tragedy, then in chapter 4, her own child does not “rule over” sin, but instead sin consumes him, and he kills his own brother. He disobeys God, and he does not rule over sin, but his own family … just like a husband ruling over his wife, Cain rules over Abel. The language is similar between these two passages, but chapter 3 influences 4. This is why for centuries English Bible have translated this as a simple “for.”

@@biblegeek7 thanks for the thoughts. Now please consider the following: 1. Actually for centuries, the reading was "to your husband" not "for your husband" (see KJV). 2. You don't always interpret ancient narrative for left to right. You sometimes interpret the unclear from the clear. This is an example. The language is IDENTICAL and in Gen 4, it's clear that the sin's "desire for (or to) Cain" is a desire to destroy, not a desire to love or connect with or something. Notice how when you refer to Gen 4, you have to change the wording to fit your interpretation, but it doesn't need to be changed. There are plenty of examples of interpreting something from the earlier part of a story by what comes after because of the clarity. For example, Numbers 13 and the nephilim add clarity to the strange sentence of Gen 6 ("in those days and afterward")

This is why in he video I say something like “other translations have this problem as well.” Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 I don't know man sounds like a "the vast majority of scholars and theologians throughout all of Christian history including today are wrong and I'm right" sorta vibe

Yeah, many older bible expositors knew Greek and Hebrew very well. Martin Luther used the Latin and German because of his background, but John Calvin exclusively, from many sources, used only the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament and you would assume he would have picked up on these “gender biases”, if not him than certainly his detractors. It seems more reasonable to conclude that this is a modern bias within the last few decades.

The Greek word can be translated as either woman or wife. The choice of the NRSV and similar translations to make 3:11 general about “women” is justifiable. Essentially, v. 11 is switching from talking about men Deacons, to now “in the same way, women must be dignified …” So, scholars have translated it that way because of linguistic and contextual reasons. You’re welcome to disagree, but there are legitimate reasons for the translation. Also, while the NRSV is not perfect, it is actually the translation used in academic circles, those who study the Bible professionally. For example, the Society of Biblical Literature Study Bible is a NRSVue. The study notes are all done by world class Bible scholars. Moreover the Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also NRSV. I should add, many of the scholars who work on these study bibles are “serious believers,” and many are even clergy. So, many serious believers actually use the NRSV for serious Bible study. While I am not some NRSV advocate, it is a fine translation, just like many others. Thanks for watching.

exactly

You’re welcome, glad you are reading the Bible. :)

What you have been told is incorrect. Perhaps you should consider reading some history. I have, and there were women in leadership. This book is free because of research grants, but it is new scholarship that demonstrates there were women in leadership in the first 500-700 years of the church. Specifically see chapter 7 for women elders and bishops. www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3 There is also this book, that chronicles a lot of history and also frames it in our modern context. www.amazon.com/Making-Biblical-Womanhood-Subjugation-Became/dp/1587434709/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=24M5X7FHUQDDN&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1DE5caQqGmkiGeAJaNnR4yejgLt8lsFCB01q7h8F-bKrTIu-mIRE1kiigZr5RB8E6_Kx7TGPC6gbNoycM2ZLImetFxWa_QAtiXcymH8K8Tywx5HAgQUKi72sRQ-QYoXJZqfDuKIoHBy1LmXOBjMHQo4GBCcFmIk0crVKIOHLtXMPonPq9zLknSxSRNT_B04saafCAtYWk4nV9MxXZj0zVA.NolQjg5IPOh1Zw7l2XJ6pLSQ3NUbVkUXyCQcTpitRxw&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+making+of+biblical+womanhood&qid=1725490424&sprefix=the+making+of+bi%2Caps%2C101&sr=8-1

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12) The Bible is simple. The teaching of the Church since the first century is also simple. No need for modern theology. We stay with the Church and the teachings of the apostles and the apostolic fathers. No women in Church hierarchy . These who did were not of the church but of heretical sects. Simple.

In my women in ministry videos, I actually cite passages in the NT that demonstrate there were women in leadership, and I cite early church fathers who interpret them the same way I do. I think you may be surprised to find that it is not as simple as, women can’t lead.

@@biblegeek7 look, I'm a Greek scholar, teaching the language at school and also Greek man myself. I have never EVER met a passage in the apostolic Fathers and the church fathers in which female church leadership is supported. This is why the Greek and Roman Catholic churches are so opposed to this thought, because they KNOW what the texts say I heard you here twisting the text about Junia. What's the point of listening of other things like this? I quoted Paul. He speaks clear enough. And it is a great shame for a Christian man to support female leadership in the church. Women are to wear their head covering for respecting the elders and deacons of the congregation. Even in silence.

When I begin discussing deacon/servant, I flat out state that other translations have the same problems that the ESV does. That said, when you look at Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:17, you will find that most translations translate the prepositions consistently and differently than the ESV does. As I said, virtually every translation has “for” instead of “contrary to” and many have “among” instead of “notable to.” Rom 16:7 NASB95 Greet Andronicus and 1Junias, my kinsmen and my bellow prisoners, who are outstanding *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me” NKJV Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Gen 3:16 NASB Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And bhe will rule over you. NKJV Your desire shall be *for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” I do not deny my agenda, which is stated in the title and throughout the video, pointing out the problems with the ESV and how those problems negatively affect women and men. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

@@biblegeek7 Thanks for your response. I do hold an egalitarian view because I believe the Bible as a whole supports that view. I don’t think you need the verses you mention to have an egalitarian view. It is also wrong to tweak translations to fit a viewpoint. I tend to agree with the translation choices of the more literal translations like the ESV, NASB 2020, LSB, CSB and the below quoted NET Bible. You mention Genesis 3:16 and how the ESV used contrary. I tend to agree with the ESV view which is also in line with the NET Bible. I think two things happened as a result of the fall. The woman will want to control her husband and the husband will dominate over her. Control and dominate were not mentioned before the fall. Romans 16:1 Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:1. tn Or “deaconess.” It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:7. tn Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (episēmos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). 1 Tim 3:11-12 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 1 Ti 3:11. tn Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaikas) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives”-referring to the wives of the deacons-is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ge 3:16. tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (téshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).

@@donmoe3083 thank you for this - it was very helpful and great for further study.

​@@donmoe3083Thanks for the NET Bible quotes. Very insightful. I mostly appreciate your balanced, reasonable view of translations and theology. If we need a few particular renderings to support our theology, we're likely not developing our theology properly. God bless.

yeah, this brother seems to be speaking in truth

Thanks for watching.

Susan Foh’s article is very dated and has numerous flaws. I imagine you have seen it cited in the NET. It is unfortunate because it’s not good scholarship. Maybe in the future I will make a video on the verse and dive deeper into the Hebrew. There is a much better article from 2011 that was published in the JBL, one the the best academic Bible journals, that is much better. Thanks for watching.

@@biblegeek7 I've actually read Foh's article. I strongly disagree with its conclusions based on the parallel passage in Song 7.10, but it's not fair to dismiss an article from the Westminster Theological Journal out of hand simply because it isn't produced by the SBL.

I have also read the article. I actually considered going to Westminster at one point, even visited campus, so I am not adverse to Westminster. Foh’s argument is limited in scope and makes sweeping conclusions about the language with a very small data set. Meanwhile, the JBL article actually studies the same word with a much larger data set. If you want to read that article, I can get you the info when I get back to my computer.

@@biblegeek7 I assume you're talking about the article "Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תשןקה." While I don't agree with the decision to follow Foh in translating Genesis 3.16, it's worth noting that no major translation has followed Lohr thus far, unless you count translations of the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate as "following Lohr," as his whole argument is based on an ancient Greek gloss and the other ancient versions that mimicked it. The CSB, RNJB, NASB 2020, LSB, and NRSVue all postdate the article, but they completely ignore it, even in the margin. So too the 2015 edition of the NLT and (obviously) the 2016 edition of the ESV. Admittedly, there is the also-ran ISV that agrees with Lohr: "I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.” Time will tell if others eventually follow. (After all, it took Foh a long time to make it to the margin of the 1996 NLT, and it was even longer before the NET put it in the main text.)

Yeah, scholarship influencing the translations of Bibles is very very slow.

Spot on! Thanks for watching and commenting! :)

Thanks for watching and commenting. Indeed the NRSV also has its own problems. I only used the NRSV in parallel because they are both updates to the RSV. Glad you use multiple translations. :)

I also find the debating of Bible translations to be a serious distraction used to divide. You won’t find me debating which translation is better of something like that. The reason I chose to make this video is because these issues have real consequences and demonstrate a consistent goal: obscuring texts that could be used to support women in leadership and other related topics. The verses surveyed in this video demonstrate that the ESV’s aim was not only to translate the Bible, it was to also support a predetermined theology. That is not how translation is supposed to work. Imagine with me you grew up your whole life believing that Gen 3:16 shows that women disobeying their husbands was a consequence of the fall “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall krule over you.” This verse comes as one of the curses that is presented after the fall, and the woman is depicted as being obstinate and contrary to her husband. Thus, women’s rightful place is not being contrary to her husband. And yet, virtually every other translation actually depicts the woman in a positive light.” Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And he will rule over you.” (NASB) here the woman desires her husband, and tragically, instead of desiring her back, he dominates and rules her. This reveals the patriarchy and male domination is a result of the fall, not women’s contrariness. The ESV has changed one small word, and it results in a completely different outcome, and one that harms women and men. I, for one, think this kind of thing matters a lot, and people should be aware of it. If you watched to the end of the video, I lift up reading multiple translations, and indicate that no translation is perfect. I stand by that. The ESV is one voice in the choir of voices. If the ESV is singing a song, some of its notes change the tune, in subtle ways, but those subtitles change the song, and it detracts from the completed result. Anyway, thanks for watching and commenting.

great reply. as a "newer" christian looking to find the best bible for me, i can't help but wonder maybe all these KJV fanatics are on to something. why would God make it so difficult to pick a bible? that just seems odd to me and not fair. how can every bible be flawed? why would He do that? @@biblegeek7

@@_clownworld it's not that hard. ANY of the mainstream translations are God's word, none are perfect, including the KJV, but all are trustworthy.

Thank you for watching and leaving a comment. I am glad you brought up the culture of the biblical time, because it is when one understands the culture of the first century that you begin to see when and how women were in leadership. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text. Thanks again for watching.

I used the NRSV because both the ESV and NRSV are revisions to the RSV. Feel free to look at the resources in the video description. What I have presented in this video has been noticed by many scholars. Thanks for watching.

Yep. I stopped watching this guy after less than a minute. He's just an apologist for the NRSV--which I foolishly bought and, realizing the mistake, donated it to Goodwill several months later.

@@charlesurban3230 Thanks for the minute of watch time, and the comments, both help me greatly. PS, at the end of the video I explain that no translation is perfect. There are actually numerous problems with the NRSV as well, but I compare the NRSV to the ESV because they are both revisions of the RSV.

Correct. Benjamin Franklin was known among the presidents, but that did not make him a president.

I didn’t have time to delve into that intricacies of the term, but I would agree that minister is another great way of translating the term. :) In my next video, I will be talking more about 1 Rom 16:1 and I will also talk about other patristic writers. So be sure to check that video out. Thanks for watching and commenting.

likewise in the Darby translation.

Thanks for watching and your extensive comment. :)

I had no issue with the ESV for many years. As I state in the video, no translation is perfect, and there are many great translations. That said, when you start noting their inconsistencies and odd changes, a picture emerges that reveals they had an agenda (and then if you look at the history of the origins of the translation, they also reveal they had an agenda. The ESV was born in the gender controversy with the NIV and editors openly denigrate other translations as being corrupted by feminism and gender issues, which the ESV actively is reversing, in other words, it is not surprising their choices affect the way women are representing in the text, as they were very open about it). That said, their choice in Rom 16:7 is inconsistent with their own choices elsewhere and breaks translation norms. No one had considered that choice until 2001, and even basic Greek speakers in the centuries following did not understand the phrase in that way (There is a bunch of scholarship on this topic). I am well aware of the LXX, and an area of my expertise as a scholar is actually Paul’s use of Scripture. And I am a Greek professor at a seminary, so my intent is not to make Greek a hindrance to receiving the word of God. Rather, I am showing that the ESV’s choices are a hindrance, as they are not accurate and they can result in harm against women.

@@biblegeek7 I think you may be have a politically correct view of women in the church. And that has tainted your view of the passages requiring the Greek to say things that are not within the purview of the text. Even the Greek can be twisted. And please don’t start the credentials game. I didn’t bring it up but I do not think that your credentials are near mine. So I don’t think it’s a big deal and I didn’t disrespect you with bringing out that first. A bit of an argument by appeal to authority, which is an informal fallacy .

Haha. No wait a second, the ESV (informed by the NET and the scholars they appeal to) have twisted the Greek. No translations prior to the ESV and NET had ever translated the Greek in this way. People over a 1000 years ago understood the Greek to mean “well known among.” I am not arguing for some “politically correct” modern assertion, I am arguing for the basic understanding of the Greek that has been accepted for millennia. Pick the KJV, you will find they agree with me on Rom 16:7. That’s a 400 year old translation. I am not arguing for some modern political correctness. Haha.

@@biblegeek7 ipse dixit. It would be a blessing to have a direct conversation with you about this. I’m talking about women’s role. I have met this issue in Scholiastic debate years ago, almost a half century, . But I would be interested in seeing someday what you think you have found that allows for women to have a different role than we see Historically in the early church of the apostles and the anti-nisi and fathers and the apostolic fathers.

Indeed, it would be nice to chat about this face to face. You can see more of my thoughts on this by watching my two videos on women in ministry. I focus specifically on the NT is those videos. In those videos, my “unproven statements” (ipse dixit) are demonstrated with multiple sources. There is a third video I want to make, detailing the information in this book: Mary and Early Christian Women. (Free kindle is available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3 In that book the author actually shows numerous churches in the early church that had women doing things only ordained church leaders did: offering the sacraments, wearing clerical garb, and so on. So, there were ordained female clergy early on in church history. Some of the research in this book involves paintings in church walls that were essentially hidden from the public because it was obviously a women offering the Eucharist meal. Also, this research is funded by Catholic grants, so this research is not some anti-establishment rewriting of history. The author is studying closely the early church, which Catholics care about because they are, of course, all about church tradition and precedent. Furthermore, in this book you can even seen how multiple African American women were in ministry in the 17 and 1800’s (www.amazon.com/African-American-Readings-Paul-Transformation/dp/0802876765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=11ZX5UU4UGNI6&keywords=african+american+readings+of+paul&qid=1707421586&sprefix=african+american+readings+%2Caps%2C113&sr=8-1 ). So there were even women in ministry in the US before the rise of women’s suffrage in the early 1900’s and feminism in the 60’s-70’s. So, the myth that women’s roles in ministry is some modern invention concocted by feminism, or whatever else, is not actually true. Women were doing ministry in the NT era, and after that. And there is a bunch of history to back it all up that people have been overlooking and ignoring.

Hi, thanks for watching and commenting. Glad you took Greek in seminary. I hope you’re able to use your Greek knowledge to dig deeper into your understanding of the Bible and God. I am actually a Koine Greek professor at a seminary. I have been reading the Bible in Greek for over a decade. So, my comments are coming from a place of expertise, not ignorance. While scholars can certainly debate how to translate διακονος (see my women in ministry videos for more discussion), the ESV’s translation choices, especially in regards to ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, have been criticized and debunked by many scholars. Feel free to look at the many sources I reference in my video description. These problems with the ESV are well documented.

I'll grab my popcorn while y'all flex

@@biblegeek7 I'm Sure every translation can be Nitpicked in such a manner. The real issues is what is said about Jesus and Eternal Life. Whether someone was know among or to the Apostles in the big picture has nothing to do with Ones Salvation.

@@Keitenrenbu so, I get where your coming from. And, I actually think many debates about the Bible and translation are ridiculous. That said, the reason I made this video is because they ESV is breaking basic norms on translation to support their gender roles theology. The ESV editors were not quiet about this. One editor championed that the ESV was going to erase any hint of feminism from the translation. While someone is certainly allowed to critique feminism or believe in traditional gender roles or whatever, translators should not begin translation with a theological conclusions and then break translation norms to fit those conclusions. The reasons all this matter is two fold. 1) the ESV is actually representing the text they are claiming to represent. 2) these poor translations result in unhealthy and harmful theologies that hurt all people, women, men, and everyone else. So, to you point about nitpicking. I agree, it often doesn’t matter is a preposition is “in/on/at” whatever, but the consistent mistranslations of the ESV are a problem worth talking about because of what they lead to and support.

@@biblegeek7 one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier one who gets someth. done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone. Two usages of διάκονος as per the BDAG Personally the term servant fits better than Deacon. Deacon implies the assembly or ekekklesia where are the former implies getting something done like lets say the women who were the first to share the Good News, before the Apostles were given the Commission. women in leadership roles in that time and culture compared to our time and culture are completely different. People should be able to see that.

Just to clarify, when a lexicon or interlinear gives a definition, it is just a gloss. It could be servant or attendant or minister or something else, we have to use context to determine what the best translation is. A consistent translator will translate word consistently in similar contexts. In this video I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the ESV. If in one context they choose servant or deacon, they should choose that in other similar contexts, but they don’t. That is the problem. Essentially, the use the term one way for women, and another way for men, but the contexts are similar, and thus they should be translated similarly. Also, the idea that there can be a literal word for word translation isn’t accurate to translation. Language is not like a simple math problem, and the translation choices will always have variation and difference. One word in Greek may take 3 words in English, and vis verse. So, saying a word literally means one thing is not really how translation works. It’s more like, these words work to gather to communicate this or that idea and we have to choose the words that best communicate that idea in a new language.

The problem is not the difference in English, it is the difference in Greek. Their choice does not represent the Greek, and this is demonstrated by the over 100 times the translate the Greek phrase correctly. Thanks for watching.

Hi, thanks for your comment and for watching. To point 1, if you weren’t aware, the language displayed in the video is from the ESV/crossway website. So I am specifically using their language. Point 2, as a Greek professor, I actually don’t think any translation can ever be “literal” or “word-for-word.” I do think a translation can accurately represent the text, but that won’t be word for word, and there is a lot of variability in that representation. I think the ESV overstates it’s aims, and then doesn’t live up to them. Further, in the places I point out, they are not accurately representing the text. Point 3, the ESV is not the only English translation that incorporates that kind of text critical information. Most modern English Bibles will pull from that info. To point 4, yes, a Bible software is helpful. I prefer Accordance, but Logos has many strengths. If I was more tech savvy, I would use Logos, but I find accordance so much more user friendly. Thanks for you comment :)

​@@biblegeek7 I knew you were a man of letters from your loquacious comment replies. A professor of Greek makes perfect sense👍

Thanks for watching and for leaving a comment. The ESV is actually supposed to be an update of the RSV, so it’s not really in “the tradition of the KJV.” You can see this story detailed in Perry’s article in the video description. I am well aware of the arguments about 1 Tim, authorship, and ecclesial structure. I didn’t have space to discuss any of that. The goal was simply to point out the inconsistencies in translation choices. I would argue that Rom 16 is presenting people in similar positions to what is described in 1 Tim. I do plan on making a video series about women in the Bible and women in ministry, so look out for those. The best argument for Junia being a woman is that every manuscript has Junia, so there are none with a man’s name. There was a theory concocted in the 1800’s that argued that this name was a contraction of the masculine Junias … but there isn’t good evidence for this. So, church history and manuscript evidence support Junia being a woman. I would suggest reading the book mentioned in the video by Epp on the subject. Or if you want an overview, see the article by Belleville in the video description. Additionally, Belleville explains why the εν prepositional phrase should not be translated “to.” I find your mention of Gal 1:16 interesting because the ESV there translates it “among.” Anyway, thanks for your comment and watching. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text.

@@biblegeek7 I'm sure you agree the RSV is a revision of the KJV. Just a note, yes the ESV translates Gal; 1:16 as "among" by nuance of language, but not exclusive to the meaning of "to the".

Well, the RSV was actually a revision of the ASV. I mean, basically all modern English Bible are standing on the shoulders of the KJV. So, associating the ESV with the KJV isn’t that significant. That said, the KJV translates Rom 16:7 and also Gal 1:16 great. The ESV’s choices I highlight in the video, not so much. Thanks for commenting and chatting. :)

@@biblegeek7 Gupta is an excellent scholar and a true boon to the church at large - great job pointing out his work 🙂

@@dustinburlet7249 indeed, I plan on drawing from his work in a future video series on women and the Bible.

you'll find errors in the kjv and nkjv about peoples ages search up for them its not that good of a bible. also the name king James just gives it that bias king vibe. so tred carefully

I have found the Amplified Bible is, unfortunately, misguided (missing the mark, confused, probably missing something). See what I did there, haha. Ok, joking aside. As someone who knows the original languages, the amplified often adds things in parentheses that are completely not in the original language. So, many times people see (this as a clarification on a word) but in reality it is pushing an idea that is not at all in the word or sometimes not even in the text. So, if you like that Bible, keep reading it, but know that the parentheses are often times theological commentary, not explaining the words in the text. Thanks for watching and commenting.

If only everyone knew Greek and Hebrew.

yeah, their article is noted in the NET. I have read it. However, what the ESV and NET blatantly ignore is the whole host of articles and even books that refute Burer and Wallace’s claims, grammatically and historically. Burer and Wallace (B&W) make some claims that are novel and cannot be sustained when you look beyond their selective evidence. In other words, the reason grammarians before B&W hadn't proposed what they propose in 2001 is because their position cannot be sustained. Here is what Belleville wrote in a response article: "Although Burer and Wallace argue for an exclusive rendering of ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘well-known to the apostles’), all patristic commentators attest to an inclusive understanding (‘prominent among the apostles’). The simple fact is that if native, educated speakers of Greek understood the phrase to be inclusive and Ἰουνίαν [Junia] to be feminine, the burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. Indeed, the burden of proof has not been met. Not even reasonable doubt has been established, for all the extra-biblical parallels adduced support an inclusive understanding. The sole basis is a theological and functional predisposition against the naming of a woman among the first-century cadre of apostles. Much work has been done by socio-historians in the last two decades that shows the wide-ranging roles of women in first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. First-century Greco-Roman inscriptions, papyri, and statuary show that women under Roman law enjoyed far more freedoms and privileges than has tra- ditionally been supposed. These privileges ranged from equal ownership and dis- posal of property, the right to terminate a marriage, and sue for child support and custody, to make a will, hold office (both political and religious), swear an oath, and give testimony." (Ἰουνίαν ... ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials NTS 51 [2005] 231-249). And more articles and books have come out after Bellville confirming the flaws of B&W's arguments. It's unfortunate that the NET and ESV accepted their proposal, as it doesn't actually stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Moreover, it is even more unfortunate that the NET incorporates it into their notes, as their notes claim to be rigorous scholarly support, but in the case of Rom 16:7, it is sadly very selective scholarship that merely confirms their choice and ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their choice.

⁠@@biblegeek7Except it does stand the scrutiny. Michael Burer published his answer to these critiques, backed by further research, where he demonstrates: (1) The argument and evidence from our original article withstands critique. (2) Seventy-one new texts demonstrate that Paul could have readily used … the genitive [rather than the dative] to show that Andronicus and Junia were “notable among the apostles.” (3) Thirty-six new texts, all but one of which parallel Rom 16:7 exactly in grammatical structure, provide further evidence that Paul intended … to mean that Andronicus and Junia were “well known to the apostles.” (Michael Burer, ἘΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ ἘΝ ΤΟΙΣ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΙΣ In Rom 16:7 As “Well Known To The Apostles”: Further Defense And New Evidence. JETS 58 (2015).

Yeah, I have also read that article. It also doesn’t stand up to critique. The article I cite in my “can women lead churches” video is another response from 2020. The fact of the matter is, Wallace and Burer are in the minority here. Their proposal is unique and they are using grammar to justify a reading that native Greek speakers wouldn’t even accept. Not to mention that no one had ever considered this for 2000 years. You’re welcome to accept their conclusions, but there is an overwhelming body of evidence stacked against them.

Thanks for watching.

I do not compare the ESV to the NRSV. The NRSV is used in this video as a reference translation for those who don’t know the original languages. I chose to use the NRSV because both the NRSV and ESV are updates to the RSV. All my comments are based on the ESV not accurately representing the Greek or Hebrew.

You should watch my video on women in ministry: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-62zxwzazYYE.htmlsi=qjujlIe0XOjofqtT Throughout history many have interpreted her as an apostle, and even people who spoke Greek as their first language. And, the claiming she is a man is a huge error of biblical scholarship. That name in the masculine form doesn’t appear until centuries after the NT.

Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching and commenting! :)

Thanks for watching.

FYI the KJV was not based on the Latin. There is a portion of Revelation, I believe, that the Greek was reconstructed from a Latin manuscript because they didn’t have a Greek MSS for that portion, but that’s it. And, at the end of my video I explain that no translation is perfect. The problem with the ESV is that it breaks long standing translation norms to fit particular theology, and that is not how translations are supposed to be done.

Bibles that destroy and tear to shreds … those are some pretty harsh verbs for the word of God, the one who is know as a God of love. You’re welcome to read any Bible you like, but none of the Bibles I know destroy and tear to shreds, that’s seem like something that people do with Bibles, sadly. I hope my video helped you see some of the ways the ESV doesn’t live up to its own aims and some of its imperfections. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 Well, if you want to hear the positive, I would say that the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV is the best. It is the one BIBLE that is accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants. Many people don't like the NRSV because of its excessive use of gender neutral language. My grudge against the NIV is that its purpose was to make a BIBLE that didn't sound Catholic or Anglican.

Then you haven't read NASB 2020. So much of what the RSV and NRSV were burned for by many are included there. Understanding changes, just like the times.

I seriously laughed out loud at you calling Ben Witherington, “that Ben guy.” Hahaha Next time I see him, I will have to call him “that Ben guy.” He is one of the most published NT scholars of our current moment, soooo, calling him that Ben guy is pretty hilarious. That said, his interpretation of Gen 3 is pretty standard. You are free to disagree with him.

@@biblegeek7 oh thanks

Woman was made from Adam's rib to be his suitable partner, not the other way around. This was before the fall.

@@AmericanSentinelK9Productions it was not Adams rib, that is a mistranslation in Gen 2:20-21 noted by many scholars. No where else in Scripture is this Hebrew term (tzela) translated "rib," it usually means "side." This is why early Rabbis argued that man and women were created by splitting the Adam (the first human) into two halves (Bereshit Rabat 8:1). This interpretation is consistent with Gen 1, where man and women were both created at the same time, and both were the image of God. There is a lot more that we could unpack here, but I will just tell you to go check out Wilda Gafney's book Womanist Midrash.

@@biblegeek7 You are throwing out a red herring. Regardless of if she was made from Adam's rib or his side, either way, she was still made from Adam for Adam, not the other way around. Let's not overlook that.

Hi John, thank you for your comment. Yes, I would agree with you that the Bible reflects the world it comes from, and the ancient world was very patriarchal. That said, I would agree with Witherington (cited in the video) that patriarchy comes as a result of the Fall of Humanity. And thus, the patriarchy in the Bible should be seen, not as God’s intention, but as reflective of the fallen human state. So, when the ESV editors go overboard, they have really missed the point. It’s one thing for a translation to accurately reflect the patriarchy in the Bible, it’s a whole other thing for a translation to consistently make the Bible more patriarchal than it actually is.

@Greg yes, Authority doesn’t mean malice. In Japan homes are generally matriarchal with wives/mothers making all the decisions. Women actually feel relieved when men take responsibility and initiative but men are taught by their mothers to be docile. Herbivore men don’t know how to lovingly take charge and carnivore women try to step up and be aggressive instead, but while they have the testosterone they lack the tenderness that a true father has because they never experienced it as a child. The author’s responses to comments likewise demonstrate an unfortunate agenda. Exposing questionable translations is fine but if the intention is to attack a “patriarchy” that, if it even existed would actually be kind of nice and relieving for women, well that’s what they call problematic.

@@gregmahler9506 Greg, you're reading of Genesis, while it makes sense in English, the Hebrew tells a different story. The woman was not made from the Adam's rib (2:22), that is an unfortunate mistranslation, rather the Hebrew there is properly translated, "side." This is further supported by the 2000 year old Greek translation also using the word for side.This is why early Rabbinic interpretation understands this as splitting the Adam in half, not removing a rib. The Adam was a dual person, who was split in half. And, then in 2:23 the man naming the woman is not Adam naming Eve, but rather the Adam saying these two people are Hebrew words: ish (man) isshah (woman). It is not a statement of authority, but a statement that these two things are related, they were once one thing and now they are two. The Adam before that moment was a person that encompassed both of ish and isshah. The reason we know that the Adam in Genesis 2 is both individuals is actually because of the conversation in Gen 3. In Gen 3:1 and 3:3 the command from God that is reiterated is "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree," this command that was given to the Adam is oddly plural. The "you" is plural, meaning the command was given to both the ish and the isshah, but it was given to them when they were one body in Gen 2, not two. This implies that the Adam was both Ish and Issahah before God split them, they were one being. This further explains verse 24 saying that they will also return to being one flesh. So, when we read Adam as a man that was created first, we have not read the text closely. This is understandable in English, because Adam gets translated man often, and then ish gets translated man as well, so it seems like man is created first, and then woman. But the story in Hebrew reveals that the Adam, is actually an earthling, or a human, and it is only when God spilts this person in half that you get man (ish) and woman (isshah). This reading also makes sense of the seeming differences between Gen 1 and 2. God did create male and female and man and woman at the same time in the Adam, but then at some point later in the garden God splits them in half. This reading of Genesis can be seen detailed in the book, "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda Gafney. She is a Hebrew scholar at Brite Divinity. Oh, and I should also add two more things, first, the whole idea that someone born first is the authority or God ordained leader is just not true in the Bible. Isaac, Jacob, and David were all younger brothers given special blessing by God. So, to arguer that man was born first, and he is therefore the leader, isn't accurate in the big picture of the Bible. Key leaders in the history of Israel were actually not born first. Second, the woman is described as a helper to the man in Gen 2:18. This term "helper" is only used of God elsewhere in the Bible. In other words, the woman being designated a helper does not mean she is subservient to the male authority, for to argue that would also be to argue that God is subservient to the male authority. Rather, both represent God in equality. These last two points you can see discussed more in Nijay Gupta's book "Tell Her Story."

@@gregmahler9506 What I suggested about the Adam being split in two isn't some modern idea, and it isn't some modern transgender agenda, it is from rabbinic interpretation, specifically, the Bereshit Rabbah, 8.1 which is from 300-500 AD. So this is a very old way of reading this word (www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah?tab=contents). I unfortunately don't have time to fully delve into the Pauline passages, but I am very familiar with those texts, as I am a Paul scholar and have even published articles in 1 Corinthians. To put it simply Paul undercuts that very statement in 11:12, "for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." This is why I suggested you check out Gupta's book. It delves into the NT passages on women very thoroughly. Thanks again for you comments.

​@@biblegeek7😮 first time hearing this. Time to process!

See my longer discussion on Junia in “Does the Bible support women in ministry.” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-62zxwzazYYE.htmlsi=ZdDPQS_wjYSL3B8R Essentially, no one thought Junia was a man until like the 1800’s. Even early church fathers who read and spoke Greek as their first language understood Junia was a woman.

Doesn’t seem like much a difference, until people start arguing that they weren’t apostles based on that translation. So I guess pennies of difference add up over time. Haha. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

@@biblegeek7 Are you saying they had the apostolic office? Like Paul-Peter-James apostles?

@@toddthacker8258 Paul's explanation suggest that, and early church interpretation also suggests that. This is why Dr. Lin confidently explains in her 2020 JBL article that, “All grammatical, morphological, and historical evidence … point to a prominent woman apostle named Junia. In the context of Paul’s emphatic and sometimes strident defense and his claims of unique apostleship and authority, we can confidently understand Junia as an apostle before Paul.”(Lin, “Junia: An Apostle before Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature (2020) 139 (1): 209).

@@biblegeek7 Are we talking about a different type of apostle? Because as far as I know Andronicus wasn't an apostle either, if we're talking about the small group of 12 + Paul.

@@toddthacker8258 the 12 + Paul isn't what Paul claims constitutes "apostle." 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul explains that Jesus "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." So here Paul mentions that apostles being broader than the 12 + Paul because he has already mentioned the 12, and then he adds James and all the other apostles. The implication is that an apostle was more than the 12 + Paul. This is why John Chrysostom says in the 4th century, “Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle.”

Most modern versions will usually be decently consistent, meaning if they chose to translate the word “seed” as “offspring” they will in Galatians too. Additionally, most modern versions will also have a note that indicates it is “seed” and also note Paul is questing Genesis. That said, the word isn’t limited to being translated seed. Here is one lexicon entry: “seed, semen, that which propagates a species; by extension: that which is propagated, child, offspring, descendant, line, race” The KJV is a good translation, but it’s not any more superior than others, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

See my longer video that discusses Junia in-depth, about 6 min in ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-62zxwzazYYE.htmlsi=L3GsqarU-ZpInCT-

Apostle is used variously in the New Testament, not always as one of the 12 or Paul. For example, in Acts 14 Barnabas is included with Paul as an apostle, which I take in the looser sense of missionary. See also Epaphraditus Philippians chapter 2.

You should see my other videos. People who read and spoke Greek as the first language, in the centuries after the writing of the NT also thought Junia was an apostle. So, despite what modern readers think, even the early church understood this phrase to be talking about an apostle.

​@biblegeek7 Good video, brother. The whole Junias deal was thoroughly debunked, with over 250 Greek sources still existing today are all feminine. Junias is in later manuscripts and not representative of the original text. This should show some people that different texts can be wrong. What type of bias do we have that we don't know we have?......Unconscious bias. One needs to know it exists in order to recognize it in one's self. Indeed, there is an anti-feminine bias in some translations and many churches today. I'm sure Junia was an awesome Apostle, and one must ask why it was put in there. There is strength in diversity. Nice way you respond to detractors, spoken with Eph. 4:15 in mind, and great humility from what I see, that tends to be rare nowadays. Shalom aleichem.

Did you watch the end of the video where I recommend using multiple translations? The NRSV is placed in parallel to the ESV, not because it is superior, but because it is an update to the RSV like the ESV. And, while I can read Greek and Hebrew, most can’t, so I needed another translation a to discuss the issues with the ESV. Thanks for watching and commenting.

Thank you so much for watching and for your kind words of encouragement and for subscribing. I am really enjoying making these videos, and I have many more videos planned. :)

Yeah, women were in ministry long before feminism. There were multiple churches with women leaders in the NT and in the centuries following the NT. You can read all about it in: (www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3) So, the discussion of women and ministry is not a thing that was spawned simply because of feminism. Despite what people will tell you, there were many churches ordaining women before the 1970’s. You may be interested in my videos on women in ministry and the Bible, and I go into more detail on the translation on diakonos. Thanks for watching.

@@biblegeek7 Yeah, but that is not what I am saying. The ancient Cult of Diana is an example that devisive spirit of contemporary feminism is nothing new nor pregresive. Rather regresive to push the society before the time of truly revolutionary christian ideas communicated in the Bible.

Yeah, I was aware of what you were saying. I don’t find women taking places of authority a threat to the church, but actually all people can be called to lead church congregations in all capacities. And, I think Paul was perfectly fine with women leaders as well. Christianity is definitely revolutionary, but if I am reading your comments correctly, I think we have different ideas on what that revolution looks like.

Thanks for watching and commenting. A couple of these choices are noted in the NET, and that gave the ESV the gusto to change their translation in their updates, specifically the Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:7. You can read the notes on those verses in the NET to see what they reference. If you do look at those notes, the NET “scholarly notes” on those verses are straw man arguments, and they ignore opposing views. So, they present their choice like it is vetted by scholarly articles, but those articles are one sided, sometimes lacking substantial peer review, and the leave out the responses to those articles, or newer articles that argue differently on top peer reviewed scholarly journals. All that said, the NET notes on those verses look like scholarly opinions to non scholars, but to other scholars, they are noticeably flawed. The novel choices of the ESV and NET are new and novel because they ignore basic grammar and syntax, and the scholars who support their conclusions have been heavily critiqued. There is a reason that for centuries no one made the choices they made, it’s because it misrepresents the original language.

@@biblegeek7 Interesting. Thanks for your response

Even the slightest change in translation can change the whole meaning of a scripture....that why God gave us a warning about it!

Yeah, the debates on the verse have made some translations shift to the “to the apostle” idea, when that is not how it’s been translated in the past. While I haven’t dug into this, I suspect that certain translations began doing “to the apostle” after the case became too strong in favor of Junia being a woman, but that is just speculation. Note that the NASB 95 has Junias, and so Junias could be a prominent man apostle … but now that this person is a understood rightly as woman named Junia, the translation changes from “among” to “to” in the LSB. So, you can see that these problem are not limited to the ESV, unfortunately.

@@MichaelTheophilus906 That is an old edition. The more recent editions do not have the masculine form NA27 and NA28. The Nestle from 1927-1993 had the masculine form in their base text, however, before 1927 critical GNTs had the Feminine name, which is what the actual manuscripts reflect. This is all detailed thoroughly in the Epp book I cited in the video. The reality is, there is not Greek manuscript evidence for the Masculine form that was put in those critical GNTs, there were some latin manuscripts that had masculine forms, and this allowed them to hypothesize that this was a man with a contracted masculine ending. When in reality, the latin scribes made the mistake. However, there is basically no evidence for this masculine name in the NT era. This is all detailed in the Epp book. You can also read a very abridged and accesible discussion on this in Nijay Gupta's book, "Tell Her Story." But if you know Greek, Epp's book is very detailed. There is a similar chart to the one in the video of GNTs with the masculine and feminine forms. So, your Nestle is probably one before 1993. Not even Crossway's critical GNT the Tyndale GNT (came out in 2019 I think) has the masculine form.

Modern Greek and Koine Greek are not that far apart linguistically. A modern Greek person could read the GNT and understand it, most of the time. It would read like slightly older English than the KJV or something like that. That being said, there are definitely unique things about koine that should be learned. Glad you’re learning Greek! Good luck!

@@biblegeek7 Hey! Thank you for the perspective. That is an excellent comparison. At the moment I am at an A2 level in Greek, hopefully in 6 months I will reach a B1 level, hopefully and thanks once again.

This video is not an endorsement of the NRSV, nor does it claim the NRSV is without problems. In fact, I acknowledge that no translation is perfect.

You’re welcome! Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

Thank you for watching, commenting, and for the encouragement :)

To clarify, the issue is not “among” or “known” the issues is the translation of the preposition translated “among/in.” The ESV has chosen to translate it “to” which is not correct. That would be a completely different Greek preposition. And, for the phrase to be “known by” there would need to be a passive verb, and there isn’t. So, the ESV is not representing the Greek well. All that said, there is indeed a bias, and the bias is in the ESV’s odd and unique translation (which actually follows the poor choice that the NET made, which is a whole other video worthy topic). Thanks for watching.

@biblegeek7 yet it still means the same thing. They were known by them. They knew them. That is what I mean when I say a bias is evident. The meaning of the text is still that "they knew them" not "they were one of them. The meaning of the author is more important than what you feel it should say. Many other translations have this same translation or they get this same meaning across. Are they wrong too?

An overwhelming majority of scholars argue that this verse indicates there were women apostles. That said, the translation choice of the ESV did not exist until very recently, so their choice is novel and breaks translation norms. Look at any English translation prior to 2001, and it will say sometime like “among the apostles.”

@biblegeek7 I never thought that among the apostles meant their were women apostles. If we interpret scripture with scripture it seems unlikely thay female apostles would be mentioned in such an obscure way and in only one place. What is clear is that the Bible limits female authority over men within the body of Christ. Therefore, I must conclude that the idea that most scholars have may simply be wrong.

When you look at the evidence, it is not clear that the Bible limits “female authority.” I was told that same thing growing up, and then I studied the Bible at a Christian university and realized it was not that simple. I would recommend the book by Nijay Gupta, “Tell Her Story,” or watch my two videos on the topic, starting with “does the Bible support women in ministry.” You’re welcome to have your opinions, as a Bible scholar myself, I am going to side with the opinions of my expert colleagues.

@biblegeek7 I can give you one scripture that refutes what you say. Paul says I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man. The reasons for this prohibition is stated in the following verse. Eve was deceived by the serpent. It doesnt take a scholar to excavate the meaning of the text. It is not an opinion it is a fact based on basic exegesis. Instead of siding with scholars we should side with God.

Mary Magdalene was the Apostle to the Apostles.

The NRSV is not *my translation. I only put the NRSV in parallel to the ESV because they are both updates to the RSV, so they are related. The video isn’t comparing the ESV to the NRSV, it is pointing out the problems with the ESV. So, every point I make is based on the Greek or Hebrew and the NRSV is just a reference translation for viewers that is used because they are both successors to the RSV. In other words, I make no claims to the superiority or perfection of the NRSV; it is not perfect, and at times there are issues with it as well. That said, I am not here to defend the NRSV, but merely to point out the consistent and unjustified issues in the ESV. The ESV doesn’t live up to its own parameters and aims in key texts that create problems for complimentarians. In other words, they are breaking their own self imposed principles to fit an unstated theological position. Though, these positions were made public in interviews and such in the 90’s and early 00’s because of the controversies around the NIV and gender neutral translation. I don’t know if the NRSV does the opposite (has an egalitarian perspective), that may be something to research. That said, the NRSV is an ecumenical translation, so it has a diversity of scholars involved, and I bet some complementarians worked on it. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 Hey, thanks for responding! I grant that you are not defending the NRSV; I just thought it was interesting that the parallel seemed to be more egregious. All words have a dynamic range. The word "aner" can mean husband or man, and it's not inconsistent to recognize this. Most words have multiple meanings or connotations. Given what I Tim 3:12 says, (deacons each be the husband . . .), specifying whose wives/women in verse 11 seems justifiable. In John 3, pneuma is translated both as spirit and wind, but the context shows that this is not only allowable, but the only way the passage makes sense. An emphasis on "word-for-word" is a lot different than a slavish obedience. Thanks you for your video!

Διάκονοι deacons g1249 ἔστωσαν Let be g1510 μιᾶς of one g1520 γυναικὸς wife g1135 ἄνδρες, the husbands g0435 τέκνων children g5043 καλῶς well g2573 προϊστάμενοι ruling g4291 καὶ and g2532 τῶν - g3588 ἰδίων their own g2398 οἴκων. houses

Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

Indeed! Thanks for commenting and watching :)

Thanks for watching,

LSB is peak

Yeah, many people switched the past 20 years because they did a great job marketing the Bible. Thanks for watching :)

Thanks for your civil dialogue. I really appreciate it. To your very last point about the ESV not pushing an agenda, you should really look into the sources in my video description, they detail it very well. There is ample evidence for this exact thing, well beyond translations. Like interviews with editors talking about liberals and gender in the Bible, editors and contributors being all men, and more. To point 3, yes the footnotes are minor, but with the Junias footnote, it should at least say something like, some translations. Their note makes it seem like it is a manuscript difference, but it isn't, it is a translation problem. There is a whole bunch in the Epp book that unpacks this. So, their footnote is misleading and not representative of modern scholarship or the Greek texts. To point 4, I chose the NRSV as the companion in they video because the NRSV and the ESV are both updates to the RSV, so they are related translations. That said, I think those other translations have missed the mark as well, but I wasn't talking about them so I didn't specifically address it. As I said in the video, no translation is perfect. Point 2 is a really fair critique. I was going for maximum impact, and wanted to show how this inconcistency of translating διάκονος creates problems that limits women, and men for that matter. I decided to discuss it with 1 Tim specifically because I also wanted to talk about the addition of the pronoun, so it was a natural connection. As I said in the video, other translations have the same problem with διάκονος and its cognates, even the NRSV in places. I agree with Nijay Gupta's recent work, "Tell Her Story" that the term should be translated something like "ministry provider" or something like that. That way we avoid the modern day ecclesial office and still communicate that these people were doing ministry. Servant just doesn't cut it for what we know about the term and how it is used. You should definitely check out Gupta's work. Very well done. Point 1, I have read the article you mentioned. It's unfortunate that people keep referring to that article, probably because of the NET note. It is outdated, one-sided, and very limited in its research. Like, it is actually surprising that article is cited in things because it is so limited in scope. There is a much more recent study published in JBL 2011 that looks into the same word, but it studies like, everything: Dead Sea scrolls, rabbinic exegesis, early church reception and more (Lohr, Joel N. 2011. “Sexual Desire?: Eve, Genesis 3:16 and תשוקה” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2): 227-46.). Lohr concludes very differently than Foh, and it is also in a world class peer reviewed journal, like one of the best. In fact, Lohr's article may be worth making a video on because, despite being one of the world's top journals, its conclusions don't seem to have made it into any Bibles. That said, Foh's article is not a good representation of scholarship on the word, and her conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when one actually considers the content of the article. And, although we have more access to things like the Dead Sea scrolls and such today, her article definitely should have incorporated other things to prove her point even back in the 70's, and it doesn't. So, her article is significantly lacking. Anyway, thanks for the friendly dialogue. Peace.

@@biblegeek7 All great notes. Thanks for the feed back. 👍🏼

My CSB does have “wives” instead of women, but puts “women” in the footnote.

Thanks for watching :)

I read the Bible in the original language, and the KJV’s interpretation of the Greek is one option, but there are other options.

@@biblegeek7 so, in Greek does it refer to wives? If so, well, then you know the deacons were men.

​@AmericanSentinelK9Productions The original reads "the women" (gunaikas) in Greek, which *could* mean "their wives" if you already believe deacons can only be male - or it could mean "the women deacons".

Thanks for your kind words and civil disagreement. So many people disagree and are jerks. So thanks for not being one. I used the NASB a lot right before reading Greek. It is consistent and committed to being a clunky translation that tries to get close to the original in word order and syntax. Though, not perfect either. If you are legitimately wondering about women and men’s roles, and what God intends, you should watch my other videos on women and the Bible, and also read the books referenced there. I was also taught that women complement men, and men are supposed to lead, and it was only after learning Greek and Hebrew and reading a bunch of scholarship that I realized the Bible presents a different vision for humanity, and this whole idea of women complementing men is a more recent position. You can see some of these ideas is my videos. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

That is indeed the KJV.

@@biblegeek7 The KJV is not hard to read or understand if studied out with the teaching coming from the Holy Spirit. I have studied for years with the ESV, NASB95, NLT, NIV, and in the end, I fell back to the faithful KJV and the NKJV.

Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

The problem with “known to” and “know among” is that the Greek words used do not actually mean “known to.” Moreover, those who argue for “know to” are doing so because their theology has problems with a being an apostle. So, the translation is a poor translation that misrepresents the language, and one that is for contrived theological ends. I am a Greek professor, so I base this entire video on what the Greek words mean, not on Webster’s dictionary.

Given your last paragraph in the response above, since you are a Greek professor, are you a professor of the Greek language or a professor from Greece? Yet, its always lost in translation. It boils down to who translates it, who edits it, who reads it & ultimately who believes it. Dont get stuck in the weeds

@@stvargas69 I specifically teach people how to translate New Testament Greek at a seminary. So I train future pastors how to read the New Testament properly. To you it may seem like minor weeds, but to a farmer these minor weeds can spoil a whole crop, and thus they must be addressed. In other words, these seeming minor changes in the ESV have real consequences.

If you want the Greek to imply these women were apostles, it's got to say not that they are KNOWN among the apostles but that they ARE among the apostles, or are known TO BE among the apostles.

@@stephenfennell There is actually a lot of scholarly work about this verse and Junia. And, even native Greek speakers centuries after Paul, understood that this woman was an apostle. You can see that discussion in my video 6 minutes in (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-62zxwzazYYE.htmlsi=cZqsVRgL0g4eusH5).

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

Thanks for watching and commenting! :) I find the NASB really clunky, but it is usually a consistent translation, similar to the KJV.

This video is not a defense of the NRSV, it is a critique of the ESV’s misrepresentation of the Greek. They are adding words to 3:11 that obscure that 3:11 could be referencing women deacons, which actually makes sense in light of Rom 16:1. By adding the pronoun, the ESV makes the choice for the reader, and it falls short of the supposed “word for word” correspondence it champions. You’re welcome to dislike the NRSV, i don’t care what translation you read, but everyone should be aware that the ESV makes these consistent poor translation choices.

@@biblegeek7 Romans 16:1 in the KJV uses the term servant. Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

Neither of them are as accurate as the KJV

​@@AmericanSentinelK9ProductionsAmen!!...well put!

As I said in the video, something like “this isn’t only a problem with the ESV.” That was me acknowledging that other translations do the exact same thing that the ESV does. I didn’t want to bog down the video with a lengthy justification of why I think the word should be translated deacon or something similar in Rom 16. I had to cut so much from the video to make it digestible and not too technical. That said, if you want see a discussion on that word that I am in agreement with, check out Nijay Gupta’s book, “Tell Her Story.” I think for a number of reasons Rom 16 is talking about Phoebe doing ministry, and thus servant does capture the term well enough. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 Sure, I get that re trying to simplify - but your words are somewhat misleading in trying to be simple: it's not accurate the say diakonos is "often" translated as 'deacon' when the numbers are 4 out of 29 occurrences. And to suggest that the ESV is being inconsistent because they don't use 'deacon' here when they do in 1 Tim 3 is not correct - it would be inconsistent to translate as deacon here when the majority of the other times they translate as 'servant'. Which is exactly what the other translations do, too - you could argue the NRSV is being inconsistent in Rom 16:1 because for the large majority of other uses of diakonos they translate it as 'servant' (or equivalent). I don't especially like the ESV so I'm not trying to support it as a translation, simply wanting to challenge some of your reasoning.

@@richardmyerscough5242 Perhaps saying "often" was misleading. To clarify, I was not arguing that translations "often" translate the word deacon, I am well aware they don't, as I said, "This is not a problem unique to the ESV." I am also aware the NRSV doesn't often as well. I think the term should be used more often to communicate ministry related tasks, and servant doesn't represent that. This is why I suggested Gupta's book, because he goes into more detail. Youre welcome to check that book out. Thanks for your watching and civil dialogue. :)

She was, in all likelihood, a deacon. However, I think that the reason they differed here would be to differentiate the male deacons from the female deacons as the church has recorded the history of deacons and deaconesses and they are distinct ministries even though they both functionally mean “servant”. The Bible clearly sets up humanity as being bipartite, two halves in union. They probably avoided using the term “deaconess” to prevent readers from conflating “deacon” and “deaconess” as being essentially the same ministry because, nowadays, any position that is gendered (waiter/waitress, actor/actress) are essentially the same position just done by a different sex. I’m sure you would agree with me that all translations require interpretation. Languages can’t do one to one word replacement usually. Especially with 2000 years of time difference. They chose this in order to fit what they thought the author was going for. Same thing for the 1 Timothy passage. They translated it as “their wives” because it was a bit weird for Paul to be writing to Timothy about the requirements to become an Overseer (episcopos/bishop) or a deacon and then just pop in and make a comment about women in general, then immediately afterwards start talking about deacons only being married to one women. Why, when talking about requirements of the members of the church hierarchy, would Paul compare that with the expectations for women? Wouldn’t he compare it to the laity? That interjection is strange, and it would be less strange for it to be speaking about their wives which are mentioned in the next sentence.

Thank you for your politeness.

There are many other translations one could use other than the KJV and ESV.

My pastor has been using the ESV for years. It’s one of my favorites along with the NKJV

You can see more my thoughts on the word deacon in my videos on women in ministry. There I talk more about its translation. I was also taught something similar about baptize, but I have never looked into it as an academic. I will say, the word deacon is used liberally to encompass a whole host of bathing actions, whether they be full immersion or something else. And, in the didache, and early Christian text, actually explains baptism in the early church, and they recognized a whole host of methods (read here about it www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html) (read the text here www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html).

“There is no war in Ba Sing Se.”

There is something that is able to be criticized about every translation, including the ESV. Is it better than the NIV? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This video has demonstrated evidence (which is also documented in scholarly literature) where the ESV purposefully picks minority positions (largely unsupported by the scholarship) to keep a consistent message (protecting complementarianism) instead of keeping the tensions that exist in the text. The NIV, at times, does this as well (but in its case, its trying to protect inerrancy). Unless you have read the literature on these issues, you cannot proclaim that there is nothing wrong with a translation.

@@aperson4057 Considering that I have a B.S. in Biblical Studies from a well known Theological Seminary, and have been a Christian for 37 years and been in church for 42 of my 44 years, says I know what I'm talking about. Plus, the Bible is all about complementarism.

@@jeremymckinzey3734 - Modestly spoken. The reality is, you have your opinion based upon you own experiences, your interpretation of things you've read and what you have been taught by others. That does not necessarily make you an expert on Bible Translations, nor does it qualify you to question the choices of fellow Believers.

When scholars refer to the “original” they are referring, not to the original written author’s text, but the what scholars believe is the original based on modern textual criticism. Correct, we don’t have the original documents. That said, when it comes to the NT, a majority of scholars recognize that we know what the original author’s text said, the variants in the MSS make up less than 5% of the text. And, many of them are minor spelling differences, word order changes (which don’t matter much in Greek), and so on. And, the NT documents are the best attested ancient documents from the ancient world. We have thousands of manuscripts, hundreds in the first thousand years of church history. So, when people come saying all we have is copies of copies, what they overlook is other ancient texts like Homer or Seneca or whateve have very few ancient manuscripts. So, yes, we have copies of copies, but that’s actually very unique. Most other ancient text are not very well attested. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

@@biblegeek7 The ESV bible was produced using the corrupt Wescott and Hort New Testament. They purposely created a new greek testament to replace the Textus Receptus, relying on just two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These disagree with each other and with the untold thousands of Ancient Greek manuscripts that we have today. One was “discovered” in the late 1400’s in the Vatican library and the other was found in a rubbish bin at a Roman Catholic monastery in 1844. Do you actually believe that the Word of God was hidden for over 1400 years and that the Roman Catholic “church” was in possession of the only two reliable manuscripts?

So, whoever told you this, was wrong. The ESV is not based on Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament. Crossways explains on their website that it is based on "the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland" (www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-esv-translation/#:~:text=The%20ESV%20is%20based%20on,%2C%202012)%2C%20edited%20by%20Nestle). These Greek New Testaments are, the Greek text I spoke of in the pervious comment, based modern textual criticism. They look at the thousands of Greek manuscripts, and choose the reading that is most likely the original. And they actually disagree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all over the place, because they utilize all the manuscripts at their disposal. Now, Crossway did come out with their own GNT based on Wescott and Hort, and that is available on their website, but that is not what they used for the ESV, as it came out after the ESV's most recent update. That said, even that text disagrees in places with the manuscripts you mentioned, as they also use a criteria for determining which variant to choose. And, that project began as an update to Wescott and Hort, and became something different. All can be read in their introduction to the Tyndale GNT.

@@biblegeek7 And what did Nestle use as a basis for their New Testament. And the United Bible Society, it’s been corrupted since the beginning of the 20th century. Why do they need to keep updating and correcting their versions? Textual criticism? Improving the grammar is one thing, eliminating verses and or words is at the core of so called textual criticism.

@FAODayTripper as I said in my previous comments the UBS uses all the texts at their disposal: manuscripts, early church fathers, early translations. You realize that these texts agree with the TR more than they disagree, right? And, the TR is essentially the Byzantine tradition, which is relied on and appealed to all the time in critical GNTs. It takes a lot of evidence for scholars to change an agreed upon reading. They are constantly updating and changing things because more manuscripts are found, new insights on those texts are made, and arguments about the choices made change minds and opinions, and so on. Humans are not perfect, and even the best make mistakes, and thus new versions are needed. And the core of textual criticism is not "eliminating verses and words" it's finding the original text and understanding how these texts have been transmitted and copied throughout the centuries. Despite what many people say, text criticism is done by many faithful scholars.

Διάκονος is used repeatedly for ministry leaders, men and women included. This is why it is also translated “minister.” You should check out my video on “does the Bible support women in ministry?” To see more of this discussion. Thanks for watching.

so why not translate it as 'servant' when referring to men as well? why the inconsistency?

@@ashert4918 indeed, that would be one consistent way of translating it. I would be fine with that kind of consistency, though I am not sure "servant" works in every context. Regardless, we should try to be consistent with our translation choices. And, the ESV does not treat men and women consistently in their choices. Well, it is consistent, but not consistent with translating the language, consistent with their predetermined theology that relegates women out of leadership, when the text and language often suggests something different.

Are you saying "he sold you on one word"?...what about the rest of the translation's? Look in the King James Version, which has already been proven to be the most accurate.

​@ashert4918 because no one e has the right to add their own transaction...It is God's word & he clearly gives warnings to those that would add to or take from it!

Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 Welcome. Blessings.

Thanks for watching :)

There is a reason very few English translation are like the ESV, it’s a poor choice. The ESV made the change in 2016, after the NET presented their translation. I am aware of the NET note, and it is significantly flawed. To the average reader, the note looks like a scholarly vetted choice. To a Bible scholar, it’s a bunch of red flags. The NET cites an article from the 70’s that is dated, not an academic peer reviewed journal, and the article is significantly flawed. Meanwhile the NET and ESV ignore the recent work on Gen 3:16 in the JBL (a world renown academic journal) that contradicts the article from the 70’s, and their translation. Essentially the NET presents a one sided argument that looks like rigorous scholarship, but it is actually ignoring biblical scholarship. I plan to make a video in this in the future, so if you are interested, subscribe to be notified when that comes out. But it will be likely next summer, as I need to finish my PhD dissertation first.

I appreciate your other translation objections. Every translation has bias and the ESV is without exception. But it's interesting that you can speak so definitively about a translation decision that is highly debated and is not settled in all of the scholarship, as you suggest in Genesis 3:16. I was simply pointing out that your argument is not compelling. The extra little "scholar" resume in your response doesn't make your argument better. If you make a video on the topic, my point is to come up with a better argument. Your current one is weak. When the ESV includes an alternate translation in a note, you should note that as well. It's a debated issue for a reason. You should not speak so definitively when the word is used three times, and personally, the connection to Genesis 4 is more compelling than a sexual reference. @@biblegeek7

Thanks for watching :)

Thanks for letting me know. I just look at my older ESV, and it indeed does say “for.” That’s an unfortunate change.

Thanks for your opinion. :)

Per your own records: NLT: among CSB: in AMP: in RSV: among ASV: among YLT: among DBT: among LSB: to NET: to Ummm, looks like “in/among” is the overwhelming favorite. To give you some history, the novel choice “well known to the apostles” in the ESV is based on the scholarship of two Greek scholars who published an article in 2001. Their work has been heavily critiqued, despite this, the editors of the NET, which included those scholars, went with “to” and other translations followed suit. This is why in ESV editions prior to 2016, it does not have this choice. So, you will struggle to find any translations who translate the phrase “well known to” prior to recent history. So, the reason the NET makes that choice is because their editors included the scholars who proposed this choice, and the ESV and LSB followed. Again, I will stated, the scholarship that informed the “well known to” choice has been found wanting numerous times over the past 20 years. Idk about you, but I feel like it would be crazy if people mistranslated this phrase in the Bible until 2001. Haha It makes a lot more sense to read the Greek like every other Greek scholar did for 2000 years, in/among.

You are not reading 'among' as people have for 2000 years. The Nelson NKJV points out: "Of note among the apostles as a phrase can mean either that they were well know to the apostles, or that they were distinguished as apostles. It is probable that they were known to the apostles because there is no mention of them in the Gospels or Acts." Until recently, there was no need to clarify the meaning because few people interpreted it the way you are now advocating.

@@biblegeek7 CSB - noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles AMP - held in high esteem in the estimation of the apostles NET - well known to the apostles LSB - outstanding to the apostles

@@captainnolan5062 “until recently” is really misinformed. In my video on women in ministry I cite early church fathers who understand Junia was a woman apostle. The denial of Junia being an apostle is actually what is recent. Hence why the majority of scholarship agrees with my take.

@@biblegeek7 When we both reach heaven, let's meet each other, find Junias/Junia, and ask him/her to give us some additional insight on this matter.

Hahah 🤣

I'm stealing this! Best comment!

Bold claim, especially because I read from the ESV in this video, and my own copy of the ESV is even referenced. Haha.

Let me share this with you.​ I find within the modern bibles, a false prophet, prophesying of a Jesus who was a tiller of ground like unto Cain and not a shepherd, who had wounds which he received in the house of his friends, which were on his chest(NIV), on his back(ESV), or in between his arms(NKJV). Jesus Christ had wounds in his hands and he was a husbandman, a shepherd. He wasnt a farmer. ESV says he was a worker of the soil, for A MAN SOLD ME IN MY YOUTH. Zechariah 13:5-7. Do you have any scripture that would explain when and where Jesus was sold in his youth? Surely there would be some kind of documentation to back that up. Zech 13:5 is a prophecy of Jesus. Therefore, the Prophet Zechariah within the NIV,ESV,NKJV, and others, is in fact a false prophet, prophesying of one who is not Jesus Christ, and therefore, a "false Christ" is present as well representing a false image of God. Jesus is the image of God, is he not? The False image, created by the beast, is not a tangible image, just like the mark of the beast is not a tangible mark. It is a spiritual mark. It is a spiritual image. It is very subtil. Jesus said , the words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life". When someone comes along and changes those words, they are no longer spirit and they are no longer life. Rather than changing the words to make them easier to understand, someone should be teaching them that "ALL" things come from God. Including being able to read and understand His word. They should teach people to pray for understanding and read. But of course the devil is gonna beguile them with something that is a little easier on the eyes and pleasant and easy to relate to. God says that the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. Go figure that you can find just as much doubt being spread upon the KJV as you would find them saying about Jesus Christ. He also says that the false prophet would cast down the truth to the ground. He is able to do so because he is trusted as being the source for the truth. Very subtil. Satan goes out to deceive when he is released from his prison. Rev 19 tells us that the beast and the kings of the earth and all their armies gathered together to make war with him who sat on the horse. He who sits on the horse is the word of God. It is a war on the word of God. We wrestle not against flesh and blood.....This is spiritual.

Yeah, this is an unfortunate reality of many women in ministry. I am so sorry this has happened to you. Thank you for watching, and I hope you are able to find a community that supports you.

Hi Andrew, Well, this video is an ESV video, so I wouldn’t be commenting on the KJV. The ESV is placed in parallel to the NRSV because they are both revisions of the RSV. Yes, I know Greek and Hebrew. I also know Aramaic, which like 12 chapters of the Bible are written in. I have been studying the Bible in the original languages for over a decade. I am actually a Greek professor at a seminary and a PhD candidate in biblical studies. So, my analysis of these problems are based on the ESV not accurately representing the original languages, not English grammar and elementary Greek and Hebrew knowledge. I am not the first scholar to point these problems out. Feel free to look at my sources in the video description. :)

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

@@biblegeek7 Cool, thanks for answering. Just being careful who I choose to listen to on translation, that they actually know the source languages. The reason I mention the KJV is because it renders 1 Timothy 3:11 in the same manner as the ESV, and it is generally recognized by the majority as an accurate translation. It just seemed strange to critique a part of a new translation that agrees with a well trusted one. Nonetheless, your proper knowledge of the original languages is enough for me. Too often, there are people who only know English and treat the Hebrew and Greek words as if the rules of English apply. At least I won't pretend to know anything about the languages. Lol My extremely limited Latin knowledge was enough to teach me how different the different languages really are, and that English is not similar to most other languages.

The things you argue come “directly from scripture” regarding women and their subjugation is not as clear cut as modern evangelicals have made it seem. Feel free to watch my other videos on the subject. To put it briefly, early church fathers, who read and spoke Greek, do not interpret the texts the same way the ESV committee has chosen to translate these things. Not to mentioned the many scholars and years of translation prior. Many of their choices in translation are very new, and not justified. So, they are not being consistent with scripture or even accepted translation norms. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

@@biblegeek7 I thought I heard Scot McKnight say that that the ESV committee admitted to these changes as an effort to obscure a message of gender inclusion. Maybe it was even in the ESV statement? Or maybe McKnight heard it secondhand. I also may be remembering it wrong. Thanks for the video!

There were definitely people who were editors and contributors who openly claimed this stuff generally. The ESV was a reactionary translation against the NIV using some gender inclusive language, and the editors and contributors were open about that in interviews and such. So your recollection of McKnight is probably right. I think I cite some of his blogs in the video description, so you may check those out and find it there. Not sure if he says anything about this there, though, I made this video long enough ago that I don’t remember those details, haha. Anyway, thanks for watching and commenting! :) hope you subscribe and watch some of my other videos.

@@biblegeek7 Will do, and thank you for the references!

The only reason I used the NRSV in this video is because the NRSV and ESV were updates of the same translation, the RSV. So, I chose the NRSV as a stand in for English translations.

Anyone and everyone couldn’t become Apostles

Thanks for watching and for commenting.

Thanks for your comment and for watching. It troubles me because they have not properly translated the words on the page. And I read the curses in Genesis very differently. I would recommend checking out the Biblical theology book I reference in the video.

The NRSV is placed in parallel to the ESV because they are both updates to the RSV. The ESV’s problem are based on the Greek or Hebrew, not the NRSV choices.

Thanks for watching :)

I could not have the NRSV as my go-to. But I now include it in my Top 3 after watching a scholar on RU-vid. He made a very, very good point and sold me: When the ecumenical NRSV comes in agreement with your standard more evangelical version(s), you can BANK IT. I was also pleasantly surprised to find out the NRSV *footnoted* a lot more than I was expecting. If these 3 agree you can BANK IT: 1.) The Hall of Fame who's who of scholarship and the BEST among Dynamic translations by a mile: NIV 2.) The most accurate among Evangelical Scholarship and the BEST formal equivalent: NASB95 3.) The most accurate among ECUMENICAL scholarship by a mile: NRSV89

@@biblegeek7 I'm just going to trust the exceedingly vast majority of theologians, scholars, and translators throughout all of Christian history on this one personally

@@biblegeek7 Thanks for the video

You should watch my video, “Does the Bible Support Women in Ministry?” I discuss “among the apostles” in more detail, and cite the early church father, John Chrysostom, who read and spoke Greek, and he even understood Junia as an apostle. So, I am not just making this interpretation of the Greek up out of thin air. The Russian and Ukrainian translations may understand it as you have stated, but someone who spoke and read Greek in the early church did not understand it that way. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

This is wrong as John Chrysostom, a church father and native Greek speaker, understood this as Junia being an apostle. He wrote, "Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles: To be an apostle is something great! But to be outstanding among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." In Epistolam ad Romanos, Homilia 31, 2

The NRSV and the ESV are both revisions to the RSV, and this is why I put them side by side. I am happily egalitarian. That said, I don’t think we should translate the Bible to support egalitarian views or complementarian views. We should, rather, translate the Bible to best reflect the original language in a new context. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeek7 I agree that we should not try to support our doctrine by “altering a translation”. In this video though most of what you point out are not “wrong” translations, they are in fact using English words that are representative of what the Greek word meaning can legitimately represent . You are just objecting to when they choose to use one meaning over another. I am sure the translators would say they used the clear “context” to aid in which specific English term they chose, but you disagree with their choice because of your own bias. Thus we are left with one possible bias being called out based on another bias. There is actually one real wrong word translation in the ESV made because of bias, though even that may have been a subconscious error. Rev 13:8 in the ESV say “…BEFORE the foundations of the world…” when the correct translation is “…FROM the foundations of the world…”. This difference has nothing to do with context and supports a Calvinist interpretation that is not in the text. While it would take too long to explain why the difference matters and how one supports a Calvinist bias over the other this is an actual mistranslation as “apo” means from and not before. The ESV is not my favorite translation but it is a very good one and since egalitarians have literally produced their own Bible translations just to push their teachings such as the Inclusive Bible that claims to be the first egalitarian translation (which I agree it is as no previous Bible translation supports the egalitarian viewpoint) it’s a bit ironic to try to call out the ESV as agenda pushing because it supports the traditional, historical understanding of these scriptures.

@@SaneNoMore You should really look into the history of the ESV (check out the resources in the video description). The aims and goals of the ESV were to push an agenda that was a reaction against "gender neutral language" and "feminism" and "liberalism," in translations like the NIV and other versions. All of which were false flags and baseless. Gender neutral language wasn't a liberal plot, it was a change to reflect linguistic usage in the ancient world and our modern world. And, the changes to the ESV were well beyond the gender neutral language accusation. When it comes to the ESV representing the original Hebrew and Greek. It often does a great job, but consistently deviates on texts that could be used to legitimize women in ministry. I have only presented a small sample set in this video, and there are many more examples just like I covered in the video. The fact of the matter is, the ESV has consistently mistranslated words to support their agenda. You are correct that translations of words are open for interpretation, but some of the ESV's choices are just not consistent with how they translate the same phrases in other passages. The discussion of Rom 16:7 is a great example of that.

I will mention, the idea that the lamb was slain before the foundations of the world is not only a Calvinistic reading. Scholars in the Orthodox Church have also cited this as correct. The idea being that God doesn’t change. He is outside of time and space, so the crucifixion and resurrection, the harrowing of hades, the transfiguration, literally all of these events have an eternal reality in God. Otherwise, pretty much agree.🤙

@@consideringorthodoxy5495 In Rev 13:8 there is no debate apo means from.

You have misunderstood my point. Let me clarify. It is not that the ESV is too complementarian. It is that it breaks translation norms to support its complementarian views. A translation should represent the language not a theological position. Of course, theology is always a part of Bible translation, but the ESV is making choices that it basically never makes elsewhere. This reveals that their choices are in error. In other words, the language does not support the translation choices. This is problematic because they are changing texts that push against their comp views. That is not how it is supposed to work. Anyone is welcome to have their own theological perspectives, but they shouldn’t change the translation and misrepresent the language to support their views.

@@biblegeek7 1. One problem is what you say likewise applies to other Bible translations as well. So what you say, if true, proves too much. Many Bible translations in English don't consistently follow their stated translation philosophy or generally accepted translation principles and in fact bend or break such philosophies or principles. Some even bend or break such philosophies or principles to fit certain purposes or agendas. And it's the latter that you primarily find a concern for the ESV. Yet again it happens in other translations as well. For example, the latest revision of the NRSV has done the same in their translations of 1 Tim 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9-10. Have you done a similarly critical video of the NRSV for their choices? If you have, that's good, and hopefully you'll follow through and do similar videos on all translations that are inconsistent in this regard. If not, that itself isn't telling the whole story to say the least. 2. Another problem is that you immediately assume there's a nefarious reason for a translation to veer from translation philosophy or principles. First, a mistake be an honest mistake. But more importantly, even if it's an intentional error in translation for a particular purpose or agenda like you allege about the ESV translation, it is not necessarily nefarious. For example, there are English translations that generally translate in simple or basic or bare English, intentionally not using complex or "big" words for their agenda of making the Bible understandable for people who aren't very literate in English or who don't have English as their first language or similar. These translations water down or dumb down what the original Hebrew and Greek actually say. Often their translation is quite far off the mark from what the original languages say. And this is intentional. But it's not necessarily nefarious. Rather it seems to be for a good reason, to help non-native or less than fully literate English speakers understand the basic message of the Bible and move onto better translations when they can. So with the ESV the question is, is there is a sufficiently good reason for their goal or purpose or agenda of translating certain verses or passages to better fit complementarianism? 3. I think it's at least in part defensible, though not entirely defensible, and it's not necessarily nefarious or anything along those lines. You focus on these different verses in your video - Rom 16:7, Gen 3:16, and Rom 16:1. Regarding Rom 16:7. See what the Pauline scholar (as well as the chair of the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation) Doug Moo writes in his Epistle to the Romans. Regarding Gen 3:16. See Old Testament scholar Kenneth Mathews in Genesis 1-11 of the New American Commentary series as well as OT scholars like Bruce Waltke and John Walton on this verse. Regarding Rom 16:1. See again Doug Moo's commentary on Romans as well as Thomas Schreiner's updated commentary on Romans.

Yeah, that is trending in some complementarian spaces. I haven’t looked into that in the ESV, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Thanks for watching.

Well, you can’t fit everything in a short video. In fact, this video began as 4 problems with the esv, but I cut the fourth because it was too long. I agree with you that knowing the original language isn’t enough. And that is why, I am close to finishing a PhD in Biblical Studies, and why I have become an expert in the text and world of the New Testament. So much so that I have even published work on ancient literary criticism and the ancient world of the NT. So I have extensively studied how people in Ancient Greek communicated with their writing, especially when I talk about talk about the Greek text. Additionally, because my degree is in Biblical studies, I am also well acquainted with OT scholarship, and have taken many semesters of Hebrew. All that said, the critiques in this video are all drawing on a whole host of scholarship, so I am not alone in these critiques. And, for example, the translation choice “well known to” in Rom 16:7 actually ignores how this phrase is used in the ancient world, and follows a scholarly argument that was only proposed in the early 2000’s, which has been rebuffed by many scholars, including Epp, who I cite in this video. And, Epp’s book is actually building its case on the corpus of literature in the ancient world. I could go on with the other problems mentioned in this video. This video is just the tip of the iceberg, and a whole host of scholarship and knowledge lays behind it. I would recommend looking at my sources in the video description, as those blogs and books thoroughly explain what I am talking about. Also, the ESV editors were upfront about their desire to “put women in their place.” The ESV was born because of the gender neutral controversy that were made in the NIV and other translations. The editors were open about rooting out any hint of feminism and specifically wanted to make a Bible translation that was made by and for complementarians. There are interviews in Christianity Today and such where they talk openly about this. Consequently, they changed passages egalitarians used to make their case. All of these details are explained in my sources. Whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, they should faithfully translate the text based on its context and usage in the Bible and time of its writing, not based on predetermined theological positions, as the ESV has done. I actually have complementarian friends who hold their views and agree that the ESV is overreaching and mistranslating, and they don’t use the ESV for those reasons. Thanks for watching :)

@@biblegeek7 thanks for actually responding, it would have been nice if you included that in your actual argument. It still doesn’t get to the root issue however. Unless you represent both sides of an argument you aren’t fully making a fully understood argument. There are scores of “bible PhDs” that work on these translations (the big ones) and they all have their credentials. What exactly makes their argument wrong? If you’re main beef is complementarianism, then maybe a video like this would be best made as an in depth look at these different views and why you disagree, followed by which translations promote your view and which ones don’t. It would leave far less questions to be asked and would naturally open the door to exactly why these scores of scholars translate the way that they do. I am familiar with the references and viewpoints of the ESV (and others) but in order to properly respond to your arguments I would need to hear from you what your understanding of them is. Using their own words (which you did in your response to my comment, sort of) is good but in this case it was only that they “support a view” which again, doesn’t explain their reasoning for doing such and sort vaguely hints at motivations (which you also vaguely hint at as being nefarious). Such bold implications demand a thorough treatment, in my opinion at least. We don’t really accomplish anything by putting out a discordant message unless it has a purpose, which again you sort of hint at in your video but never really flesh out. As an aspiring PhD I’m sure you do this and just assume your general audience might not understand, but that assumption (if you are indeed making such) is flawed and leaves open the idea that you don’t really want to reason between viewpoints, but instead want to discredit one on its face with a one sided argument. Thanks for responding, and may the Lord guide you in your studies.

Thanks for responding cordially, often I get vitriol on this video, haha. And thanks for the blessings in my studies. I hope to finish this spring. And then I will be making many more videos. If I was presenting this information in an academic context, I would certainly detail more thoroughly “the other side.” That said, often times in public facing dialogue, like this space, what that actually does is legitimize “the other side” as academically and intellectually justifiable. However, the choices surveyed here, especially the first ones (“well known to/among”, and “contrary to/for”) are not legitimate choices. We could actually debate some of the ideas in the end of the video in 1 Tim 3 and such, but the first two misrepresent the original language and go against thousands of years of translation choices and the scholarly consensus. So, this video is not the space for rigorous detailing of arguments, this is why I actually cite books and articles where that happens. If you’re curious, I would check out the article I reference at the end by Perry. It is full of academic jargon at the beginning, but it details the biblical issues using English translations well. The difference between myself and Perry, is that I am point out the issues with the original languages. Also, Perry has a Mdiv from DTS, so he has been trained by people who actually worked on the ESV and the NET, and DTS is a flagship of complimentarian scholarship. Perry’s article also references the history of the ESV and its origins. Additionally, if you’re interested in the world and culture around many of the words discussed in this video, especially Rom 16 and Junia, see my video on “does the Bible support women in ministry.” I detail there much more information on the language and culture of the NT. However, there too I don’t present the opposing arguments against women in ministry. And, like the ESV video, you can find those arguments in my sources. Essentially, there is only so much one can do in a 10 minute video, and that creates limitations. Books and articles are where one will find full academic discussions, not a RU-vid video.

@@biblegeek7 I can agree with academic arguments having their place, but you are making assertions that are based on academic study, so to me it falls a bit flat without the full picture. I understand your view (as far as you’ve stated it) but there is a double edged sword with this type of content. You worry about “legitimizing the other side” but if you have to worry about that it implies that either you don’t fully understand the “other side” or you don’t have answers to their claims. Citing “original language” is also double edged. And I agree the ESV (and others) that claim “literal meaning” as their reference point maybe don’t go as far as they should in pointing out when “literal” doesn’t quite work and why they might have deviated. This alone does not, however, an argument make. Was the early church always right in everything they did? Is the church today always right? Do women really belong in ministry just because some early form of the church may have interpreted certain versus to mean something? If such a large scale shift occurred (evidence of its magnitude in practice, not just word choices in translations ?) was that shift incorrect or was it rectifying a misunderstanding some had at certain points? These are all fair questions that hundreds of highly studied men and women have grappled with for millennia. It just seems a tad disingenuous to label choices made in translations as worry/troublesome and just assuming the case made for said viewpoint is flawed. Maybe you yourself aren’t assuming, but to the audience it appears you are because of this “legitimizing the other side” fallacy. The only way to legitimize something is to show its facts line up with the truth. If we can’t do this without legitimizing the other side, then we by definition could never legitimize even our own position, since we would need to compare our facts to the other side and see which better aligns with the truth. Overall, I just find it silly in general to make arguments such as these. Is anyone’s salvation at stake by not knowing the exact conflict created by the fall between husband and wife or whether or not a gal was “among” or “well known”? Is any evil truly committed out of ignorance to these meanings, or is man just evil at heart and even if there was only one translation available we would still muck it up and do bad? This kind of reductive conflict, in my estimation, only gives the lost and weary pause to hearing the message. Because if we trifle over things such as these, how can we answer their most burning and important questions regarding why we are here, what is our purpose, do we even matter, etc. I would be interested to know if you do believe these viewpoints (specifically the ones you mentioned in the video) put salvation at risk. Because if they don’t, what’s the point? If salvation isn’t at stake, aren’t people then free to worship how they please, so long as they are saved? It’s another consequence of the format of your video being as it is that I’m confused as to what the actual point is unless salvation truly at risk. Maybe you were just making suggestions so that the translation could be more effective at communicating or explaining it’s communication but it really comes across as the “read this, you might burn in hell” sermons that kept so many away for so long. If you are just trying to improve the effectiveness of the references and footnotes, that’s fair, we all want the whole picture. But it comes across as a delegitimization which implies possible active deception, which is hypocritical and evil. And that scares people, or turns them away entirely, which I’m sure is what neither of us want.

Many of your points are fair. Yet, not every video can cover every idea or viewpoint. To your final questions about: do these things matter if it doesn’t affect salvation? I also find many debates and quibbles on the Bible pointless. Like, why do people just debate things that are pedantic and such. So I get where you’re coming from. This is why you won’t see me making videos on the KJV only controversies and such. That said, the reason I made this video specifically is twofold. One, the ESV is becoming incredibly popular because of its marketing and sleek and well made Bibles, and people love them. As a result of these things, this translation is becoming a standard for many. Two, these choices affect how people are treated. For example, I have seen the ESV Gen 3:16 used to oppress women. Essentially, anytime a woman disagrees with her husband and is “contrary to” him, she is living in the curse of the fall. Thus, husbands will make poor choices, and the woman is expected to follow with deference. Yet this translation is a distortion of that verse, which actually presents male domination as a result of the fall, not the obstinance of women. The ESV has literally translated with the result being the opposite of the verse’s intention. So, these poor translations can be used to legitimate harm. And, if this translation continues to grow in popularity, that magnifies potential of these harmful theologies and practices. All that said, I think this topic warrants discussion because it affects people’s lives. Thanks for chatting.

I have been translating the Bible from the original languages for over a decade, and I study the Bible for a living. So, the context isn’t lost on me. I omit the broader context of verses in order to cover more examples and the broader context does not explain their translation choices. That said, the ESV claims it is an essentially word for word translation. While I know that is impossible, they present it as though their translations is word for word translation. My video is merely pointing out their own failures at framing their translation in their introduction, and living up to their own standards, which they fall short of. Thanks for watching.

The Greek word for “he/him/his” is αὐτός, and it does not appear in chapter 3. So, “he” literally appears zero times in chapter 3. Further, αὐτός only appears in chapter 1, 4, and 5 a total of five times in all of 1 Tim. So, when you see “he” in ch. 3, a translator is choosing to interpret the context as talking about a man, and supplying a “he” to smooth out the sentence. All that said, “he” actually does not appear in that text.

@@biblegeek7 so does just the word matter and not the context?

@@biblegeek7 so does just the word matter and not the context?

I would argue that the incessant inclusions of “he” in the text, suggests to many English readers, like yourself, that these qualifications can only apply to men. When, in Greek, the text is less straight forward as being only about men. Hence, why many denominations allow women leaders (deacon, elder, etc.).

Ps, thanks for watching and commenting :)

Thanks for watching and your kind comments. :)