CEB Study Bible - An Honest Review (of a Mainline Bible!) 

Yes, there is definitely a bit of overlap between the two...which I tried to signify by the occasional “more conservative” and “more liberal” qualifiers. But I agree with your point overall and am not sure of the best way to distinguish them in popular usage. I think it does a lot of things really well, but is a bit too loose for primary study...though I can see it being useful in preaching for sure.

The highest...and most legible! 😅

I don’t think so. There is a type of angel called seraph or seraphim. The word means fiery ones. Cf. Isa.6:3, 6:6, 6:7, and 6:2.

I don't understand that reeds thing. The whole point of the story is that God is doing something great, not "take your staff and prevent your clothes from getting damp"

Yes, I use "mainline" precisely because of its political connotations in America that I do not intend, and because it is generally understood to refer to historic denominations that have embraced specific hermeneutic assumptions. There's no perfect terminology to convey it with precision, so I try to let viewers know that I'm using the term loosely and more colloquially. I am an evangelical Methodist as opposed to a mainline Methodist (and our denomination is in the middle of a messy identity crisis and split because it has tried to hold incompatible hermeneutical approaches together for decades unsuccessfully).

@@DiscipleDojo Sorry to hear. Must be painful to be in the UMC at the moment... (not very united). Hoping the new Global Methodist Church brings more joy for you and other evangelical methodists 🙏🏼 I grew up Methodist and also identified more with the evangelical camp here in South Africa. Before leaving the denomination because of the growing theological frustration and tension.... Am 3rd wave Charasmatic now but miss so much about being a Methodist after 8 years out

The "God's DNA" line is just so utterly awful. I can't believe someone approved it as a translation.

@@DiscipleDojo Agreed. Just... why? And gross. I'm saying this as someone with an undergrad in biology who understands DNA and has done DNA sequencing. I'm not anti-science: this translation is just terrible. Sorry to harp on to you about it, but I didn't know about how the CEB handled this verse and I guess I'm still in shock!

I don't know of any Trinitarian that argues for a plural pronoun when refering to the Godhead, as that would entail polytheism.

I actually think "the Human One" is an acceptable way to translate "son of man", if used consistently in order to preserve the connections between its NT and OT uses. I believe ESV has an apocrypha translation, but I'm not 100% sure on that at the moment.

@@DiscipleDojo "The Human One" may be an accurate translation but I have to think they knew exactly what they were doing when they translated it that way. "Son of Man" at this point is essentially a technical term. Regarding the ESV, my understanding is that's correct but it was made specifically for the Catholic market, and so I assume any ESV study Bible with the Apocrypha will have notes from a Catholic perspective.

@@sorenpx if you find out, let me know. ESV is a pretty solidly Reformed translation, so I'd honestly be surprised if that were the case.

@@sorenpx youtube is deleting your comments for some reason. I see them in my notifications, but when I click, they aren't there. Just letting you know it's not me doing it! :)

@@DiscipleDojo I see that. I have no idea why. Maybe this one will stick. Did you what I said about the ESV Catholic Edition?

No, I am a Protestant in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition.

Both are Protestants, but there are major differences in how they interpret Scripture overall. There is a bit of overlap between them, but the terms embody some broad historical as well as modern differences. If you laid them out on a Left/Right axis, it would be a continuum something like: Secular - Liberal - Mainline - Evangelical - Conservative - Fundamentalist Lots of overlap, but that’s a general way to see the theological trends.

@@DiscipleDojo Thanks a lot 🙏

@@DiscipleDojo excellent explanation

Rom 16 Talks about Paul's collaborative style of ministry (very important) and says Phoebe may have had official capacity with Cenchrea. Junia is mentioned as an apostle and it is stated that women can be God's authorized representatives. 1 Cor 11 “Head” assumed to mean “authority over” with zero discussion and it is stated that even Christ has someone in a position of authority over Him. (Heresy of the Trinity?) The woman having authority over her head is interpreted to mean control over her hair to prevent men from lusting for her. It is assumed that all respectable women covered their heads in public, something totally NOT established by historians. Roman women are seldom shown with heads covered. Slaves and low-class women were forbidden by law to wear the veil. Also Corinth was a mix of at least Jews, Greeks, and Romans. 1 Cor 14:34 Notes just refer you to the sidebar, which mentions that the verses are controversial but then only mentions two possibilities - later insertion and their preferred interpretation which is that this is primarily about wives shaming their husbands in public by challenging men. So they may pray and prophesy, but not participate in discussions. Meh. (The best explanation is that Paul is quoting the Corinthians here and then responding “What? No way!” in vs 36. Because God never made a law about women being silent or not discussing things.) Eph 5 Only Bible I have seen so far that does not cut through Paul's sentence with a heading about Wives and Husbands. A Household Code article talks about Paul addressing the weaker members first and “no one is to be controlled or manipulated.” The verse notes mention everyone “submitting to one another” but no discussion on that or what submission really means. Col 3:18 Notes mention that this is another household code but also draws attention to the fact that vs 11 emphasizes the equality of everyone in the church. I’m pretty sure the latest scholarship talks about these passages as NOT being “household codes” in the ordinary sense. 1 Tim 2:12 Earlier in the passage, an article emphasizes that Jews and Christians believed in praying anywhere and everywhere, and church meetings were often in homes. So his instructions about praying and clothing were not specifically about church meetings, so the part about a woman teaching may not be either. I found this idea worth pondering, and it is followed up by another article further on. The CEB chooses to translate the verse as “I don't allow a wife to teach or to control her husband.” So they are at least trying to take notice of 'authentien' and they also do in the notes. They state that it is never used of the proper behavior of a leader, but of mastery, force, injury, or dishonor. They also emphasize that worship meetings are not in view - the text implies a one-on-one relationship. The notes go on to mention false creation stories spreading among the women as a possible reason why Paul mentions Adam and Eve. No connection drawn to Artemis worship in Ephesus. This makes this discussion the most current and very best in all the study Bibles I have looked at, but still not covering enough possibilities. 1 Tim 3: 1 I like that the CEB ditches the religious terms “bishop” and “deacon” with their unavoidable denominational baggage and uses other terms. I would prefer “guardian” to “supervisor” myself. Warm family terms are more appropriate to the New Testament context and God’s Eternal Purpose than terms that evoke slavery or the business world. They would also tend to be less contributory to the epidemic of spiritual abuse by religious leaders. Titus 2:5 “Any disrespectful behavior among wives would weaken the Christian message in the eyes of those outside…” and “submission can be effective in winning others to the faith.” This does legitimately seem to be a strong concern among the apostles, and I take it as proof that radical equality in Christ was being taught to women and slaves. If abject obedience was enforced across the board, there would never have been any need to remind women or slaves to be careful and circumspect in their behavior. The whole Roman Empire expected women to obey their husbands already; the idea wasn’t new. What was new was freedom as equals inside the Kingdom while still having to navigate cultural norms at home, and especially with unbelievers. Heb 13: 17 I like the translation of the first half of this verse, but not so much the second half - something that keeps happening with this translation. They are one of the rare ones who do not shamelessly insert the word “obey.” “Rely on your leaders and defer to them, because they watch over you ...” 1 Pet 3:1-7 An article points out how Peter, like Paul, addresses wives and slaves directly, instead of typical household codes addressing men. Peter assumes that wives will refuse to worship their husbands gods but be submissive otherwise. The CEB translates vs 7 as “Husbands, likewise, submit by living with your wife in ways that honor her...” Interesting choice, to insert the word 'submit' here referring back to earlier in the passage, exactly as everyone does in Eph 5 about wives. Current scholarship does verify the mutuality intention of these passages. The apostles deliberately soften their language while still calling leaders and husbands to mutual submission. 1 Per 5:5 terrible translation "accept the authority of the elders." They add the words and concept "authority of" to the Greek. Then they don't carry the concept of mutual submission into the rest of the verse like older translations do. The notes say Peter is instructing them to "follow the direction and shepherding of the elders." However they also mention the "Jewish pattern of entrusting leadership to those with the wisdom of age rather than to a specific church office." Exactly.

What did you read as a dig, specifically? I am an evangelical United Methodist, but I thought I was fair in delineating mainline presuppostions from evangelical presuppositions when it comes to biblical scholarship. At least, I genuinely tried to be.

@@DiscipleDojo Mainly disregarding there are evangelicals who hold the same theories that your so-called "Mainline Christians" hold while stil maintaining a more evangelical stance. While in seminary, I formed the Athanasian Society in the early 1990's at Perkins School of Theology with my faculty advisor, William J. Abraham (RIP) for fellow students who were evangelical and wanted to fellowship with other evangelicals. I would say a good percentage of us in that group would have zero problem with the notes and late authorship or ambiguous authorship theories and ideas. It seemed your were setting up a strawman to knock down. I know many of my former ministry colleagues who would agree with the notes and the textual critical approach to scripture while being strongly in the evangelical camp.

How is that a "dig" though? I think Documentary Hypothesis theories are unconvincing (and say so in my reviews of Bibles that adopt them in their notes), but that doesn't have any bearing on them having been specifically and unapologetically put forth in opposition to conservative/evangelical views of Inspiration to begin with. This is a pretty plain fact of history rather than a judgment, I'd say. I think there is probably a disconnect in terminology between us and we may have different understandings of terms like "mainline", "evangelical" and "conservative/liberal." Evangelicals certainly exist within mainline denominations/organizations. But mainline approaches are still mainline approaches, with their own historical pedigrees, whether or not some evangelicals embrace them or not. And the degree to which the notes in the CEB Study Bible embrace them is the degree to which I find it unhelpful--which is what I must express if I am being honest in my reviews. Of course someone who doesn't share my views of Scripture will disagree with some of my review conclusions, but I don't think I've misrepresented the actual content of this study Bible in any way other than noting my disagreement with some of its presuppostions.

@@DiscipleDojo I am not intending to argue the point here. I just found myself not comfortable with the good guy/bad guy dichotomy I was pisking up. Study note in a Study Bible are typically skewed one direction or another. It is just the nature of the product, I suppose. None are perfect. I typically stick to reference Bibles and text Bibles like my CEB thinline. I used the NIV Study Bible in Bible college as our primary Bible for class. It had just come out and our prof designed his whole course around it. Used it for years. However, the notes were definitely biased toward an Evangelical view. ( My college was Pentecostal Holiness) I meant what I said about the review being good. I appreciated it. I got the CEB Study Bible yesterday from Amazon. I am looking forward to using it. I have also appreciated our exchange. As former clergy, I miss theological discussions. Oh, BTW, I guess I would be a Liberal Mainline Evangelical. LOL

I am interested in a translation that is not NASB or ESV. I own both already. I just finished reading the book _"The Human Faces of God"_ by Thom Stark and I noticed, as a Biblical scholar, he quoted from NRSV most of the time. After a little research I really like how the CEB and NRSV renders the Old Testament in places, especially the literal translation of Genesis 1 (now that I view Genesis 1-11 as a polemic against other ancient Near Eastern mythologies). I also noticed the the NRSV is getting an update to the NRSVue. I personally do not like the more liberal approaches to gender neutrality and homosexuality more modern Bibles are switching toward. I want a Bible that is most accurately translated into English even if it goes against my presuppositions, modern science, and even if its "offensive" to the gender-war today if that makes sense. *In your opinion what are the pros and cons of CEB vs NRSV? And do you know much about the NRSVue and its comparison?*

You might enjoy our podcast series "Genesis 1-11: The Primordial Preface" if you haven't already listened to it. www.discipledojo.org/podcast

@@DiscipleDojo Thanks! I'm checking it out now. I would like to add that some Hebrew scholars think Genesis 1:1-2 is better translated: _When God began to create the heavens and the earth- the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters._ *edit: I'm on your second podcast in the series.* I really think Genesis 1 is most consistent as a polemic against other Mesopotamian mythologies given that the stars, sun, and moon were created on Day 4. I would also like to add that the ancient Near East people held to a geocentric model of the Earth. You can see that language throughout most of the scriptures. _Raqia_ is best understood as a solid dome like structure given their cosmological view. Genesis 1:14-19 literally says: _God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will mark events, sacred seasons, days, and years. They will be lights in the dome of the sky to shine on the earth.” And that’s what happened. God made the stars and two great lights: the larger light to rule over the day and the smaller light to rule over the night. God put them in the dome of the sky to shine on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was._ _There was evening and there was morning: the fourth day._ Job 37:18 _Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?_ I know you know all this. All the differences come down to interpretation. To modernize the text to say _expanse_ you change what the author actually meant. The order of creation is completely wrong if it is to be taken literally as well. Genesis doesn't support _Long-Earth_ nor _Short-Earth_ in the order of the text. It was never meant to be applied the way we are trying to force it to modern cosmology. I've been following the Evolution debate vs the Old-Earthers/Young-Earthers my whole life. I've listened to many of Hugh Ross' debates. I do think the Earth and Universe are old. After learning of ancient Near East mythology and all the similarities I don't think Genesis 1 is explaining anything scientific at all. I think Genesis 1 should be divorced from "Creation". There are only a few points Genesis 1 is teaching: God created everything (in Ancient Near East understanding), God made man and we are His imagers, and because God worked six days and rested, you should too.

1. This video was made long before this channel was monetized, so your attempted dig is incorrect. 2. The CEB is no more scholarly than any other prominent translation, evangelical or otherwise.