The womanish translators of the NIV (2011) and the ESV...

Translations are like women. Si elles sont belles, elles sont infidèles, mais si elles sont fidèles, elles ne sont pas belles.*

For several decades, now, Evangelical Bible scholars translating Scripture have proven themselves women lacking the male capacity to stand the heat of battle and fight. This is true of Zondervan's New International Version (2011), but too often it's also true of Crossway's English Standard Version.

Zondervan's New International Version 2011

The Committee on Bible Translation is paid to produce all translations bearing the name "New International Version," which translations are then licensed and sold by News Corps' publishing company, Zondervan. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) is made up of men like Craig Blomberg, Gordon Fee, Dick France, Doug Moo, Bill Mounce, Mark Strauss, and Bruce Waltke, all of whom have gotten the sort of degrees mothers dream of.

Being very educated, we may safely conclude it's not out of ignorance of Hebrew or English that their Bible product, the New International Version 2011, mistranslates the Hebrew 'ishshah' as "weaklings" in each of the texts... below (w/thanks to Andrew D.):

In that day the Egyptians will become weaklings. They will shudder with fear at the uplifted hand that the LORD Almighty raises against them. (Isaiah 19:16)

A sword against her horses and chariots and all the foreigners in her ranks! They will become weaklings. A sword against her treasures! They will be plundered. (Jeremiah 50:37)

Babylon’s warriors have stopped fighting; they remain in their strongholds. Their strength is exhausted; they have become weaklings. Her dwellings are set on fire; the bars of her gates are broken. (Jeremiah 51:30)  

Look at your troops—they are all weaklings. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed the bars of your gates. (Nahum 3:13)

When God made Eve from Adam's rib and presented her to Adam as his wife, Adam exclaimed: “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (ishshah), because she was taken out of Man (ish)” (Genesis 2:23). In the hands of Doug Moo and his colleagues, this verse might be rendered, "She shall be called Weakling, because she was taken from Weak."

Even readers who know nothing of Hebrew easily understand that the name Adam gave his wife is pregnant with meaning: 'ishshah' indicates derivation from 'ish.' So also in English, 'woman' indicates derivation from 'man,' and it's for this reason feminists have made it a habit to change the spelling of "woman" to "womyn."

What the Holy Spirit does in each of the texts above is to shame fighting men, pointing out their weakness and cowardice by calling them "women." Will our highly educated translators let the Holy Spirit say this in English?

No. And why not?

We all understand it's not politically correct to shame weak and cowardly men by calling them "women." As the CBT men see it, such a usage is beneath the Holy Spirit—unworthy of Him—so they correct Him lest any other sophisticate read His usage and think less of Him for it. It would not be right.

But of course the real issue is not the Holy Spirit. These men of the Committee on Bible Translation are worried about themselves. Translation is an aspirational vocation. Translators use their work to sign their sophistication and what sort of sophistication would anyone think they possessed if they allowed such a statement into a translation their name was associated with? So thousands of words throughout the Holy Scriptures are changed by men who tremble at the thought of offending our feminist age.

Rupert Murdock needs to fire these guys and hire himself some real men who are able to stand the heat of battle and produce a genuine Bible that says what the Holy Spirit inspired. Do any of our readers know Rupert Murdock? Can someone bend his ear for those who tremble at God's Word?

Too, what I find almost as distressing is how many of these men officially claim to hold to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. They sign statements of faith declaring their allegiance to the "plenary verbal inspiration" of Scripture, and then turn right around and replace the word 'women' with 'weaklings.'

But what of...

Crossway's English Standard Version

Again, translation is an aspirational vocation that's heavily influenced by what the translator wants his academic peers to think of him.

Some years back I wrote the ESV men pointing out how bad a job they'd done on 1Timothy 4:7. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to command Timothy to have nothing to do with 'grawdeiv muyouv'—literally "old women's tales." Note how the ESV translators gagged it:

NASB: But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. (1Timothy 4:7a)

KJV: But refuse profane and old wives' fables... (1Timothy 4:7a)

NLT: Do not waste time arguing over godless ideas and old wives’ tales. (1Timothy 4:7a)

ESV: Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. (1Timothy 4:7a) 

What's with these guys? I mean really.

Just like the NIV's Committee for Bible Translation, the men paid to produce the ESV also felt keenly how gauche it is to refer to "old women's tales." What would people think of them if they allowed such an archaic construction into their own text of their own translation of their own Bible? Their peers might think they are hicks!

High-flown, pompous, elegant, or regal forms of language in the source are generally represented by terms of corresponding social rank in the target. Real difficulties arise only when the class register is low, and especially when the language of the source represents the speech forms of uneducated folk.

(T)ranslators shy away from giving ...uncouth forms of language in the target text. The reason is obvious—grammatical mistakes, malapropisms, and other kinds of "sub-standard" language must not be seen to be the translator's fault.

(David Bellos, "Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything," p. 194-195.)

Sadly, Crossway has recently issued a major update to the ESV and they still refused to allow God's Holy Spirit to say "old wives' tales." How faithless!

Recently, preaching through 1Corinthians, I've come upon another place where the ESV translators placated feminist sensibilities. (While I don't use the ESV myself, a few in our congregation do and they alerted me to this.)

In 1Corinthians 11:3-16, there is an extended presentation of the doctrine of the Creation Order. Here the Apostle Paul applies this order of Adam first, then Eve, to length of hair and men's and women's head coverings. This text is an extended presentation of the doctrine of sexuality—the meaning and purpose of God creating man and woman.

The two Greek words 'aner' and 'gune' or their derivatives are used throughout this text. Normally, these words are sex-specific referring respectively to a member of the male or female sex. As subsets of the male or female sex, on occasion the context in which these words 'aner' and 'gune' are used indicates the proper translation is not "man" or "woman" but "husband" or "wife." In rare cases 'aner' may be used to refer to all men—that is, inclusive of both men and women as the Hebrew 'adam' is used in the Old Testament for all human beings.

So then, see how the NASB, the King James, and the ESV translate this passage:

NASB: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man (aner), and the man (aner) is the head of a woman (gune), and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man (aner) who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman (gune) who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman (gune) does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man (aner) ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman (gune) is the glory of man (aner). 8 For man (aner) does not originate from woman (gune), but woman (gune) from man (aner); 9 for indeed man (aner) was not created for the woman’s (gune) sake, but woman (gune) for the man’s (aner) sake. 10 Therefore the woman (gune) ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman (gune) independent of man (aner), nor is man (aner) independent of woman (gune). 12 For as the woman (gune) originates from the man (aner), so also the man (aner) has his birth through the woman (gune); and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman (gune) to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man (aner) has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman (gune) has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1Corinthians 11:3-15)

KJV: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (1Corinthians 11:3-15)

ESV: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1Corinthians 11:3-15)

Some readers may find the above translations confusing. They may get lost trying to trace which 'aner' is translated "man" and which the translators switched to "husband;" which 'gune' is translated "woman" and which the translators switched to "wife." They may find themselves asking the question, "Why—what was the translators' rationale for leaving this 'gune' "woman" while changing this other 'gune' to "wife?"

Let's simplify matters by giving the reader a peek behind the curtain. In their footnotes, the ESV men claim the proper translation of 'gune' (and by extension, 'aner') is determined by the context of headcoverings. They assure us headcoverings were only for married women and so any time the word 'gune' is used in connection with headcoverings, it must not mean "woman" but "wife."

My patience for scholars is worn thin.

As soon as the reader examines what the translators did with each 'aner' and 'gune' in the text above, it becomes painfully clear the translators' decisions had everything to do with their embarrassment concerning God's Order of Creation of man and woman, and nothing to do with headcoverings.

But then each vocation has its temptations, doesn't it?

(There is a) general tendency of all translations to adhere more strongly than any original to a normalized idea of what the target language should he. To put that a different way: translation always takes the register and level of naturally written prose up a notch or two. Some degree of raising is and always has been characteristic of translated texts—simply because translators are instinctively averse to the risk of being taken for less than fully cultivated writers of their target tongue.

(David Bellos, "Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything," p. 195.)

"Translators are instinctively averse to the risk of being taken for less than fully cultivated writers of their target tongue"—in this case English. No surprise, then, that the men paid to translate the ESV balked at the Holy Spirit's declaration, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1Corinthians 11:3).

How humiliating it would be for one's name to be attached to such a trogladite construction! They couldn't—they simply could not allow readers of the ESV to see their own revered names attached to such a self-evidently patriarchal declaration from the ancient world! Why, they'd be taken for rubes, for less than fully cultivated writers of their target tongue!

Thus "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" was silenced and replaced by "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of a wife, and God is the head of Christ."

At what cost?

At the cost of the world and God's people being taught and led to understand that man first, then woman is the universal law of God for all time in all places among all men. It is the warp and woof of manhood and womanhood, irrefragable in its splendor. It is the cornerstone of sexuality and man will either build his happiness and contentment upon it, or it will crush him.

Tragically, this is not the faith of the men who got paid to revise the Revised Standard Version into the English Standard Version. They flinch and cower.

This is the reason they gag the Greek words of 1Corinthians 11:3-15. They tremble to think of being salt and light in our desperately wicked generation, and so they refuse to allow the doctrine of sexuality to be given expression here in this text. "It's husband and wife—not man and woman!"

But of course, they're wrong. What the Holy Spirit actually inspires the Apostle Paul to write here is "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man (not husband), and the man (not husband) is the head of a woman (not wife), and God is the head of Christ" (1Corinthians 11:3).

What is dealt with here is man and woman as man and woman—not husband and wife. Lodged in God's Creation Order there in the perfection of the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall, both implicit and explicitly the Apostle Paul here teaches truths that are universally applicable to the two sexes, to every last man and every last woman. Thus Calvin writes:

It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. (Calvin on 1Corinthians 11:10)

Good readers, in this statement by the great reformer, John Calvin, you see everything our highly esteemed academics who produced the Bible product known as the English Standard Version did not want to say, everything that would make them be taken for less than fully cultivated writers of their target tongue. So they refused to say it.

Poor Church. Poor world.

* * *

* Loosely, "If they are good-looking, you can't trust them to be faithful, and if they stick by their mates, it's because they're old frumps."

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

I use the ESV and perhaps the best solution it just to tippex the inaccurate parts out and write the correct word(s) on top.

Saves switching to a new version...

I'd be interested to hear more on the difference between 'every woman should submit to every man' and what these verses teach. Paul's specific admonitions for wives to submit to husbands probably informs things a little. But he also speaks of the head/submission in a general man-woman context as well as the wife-husband context. Any thoughts on this would be helpful. Thanks.

While I am certainly no fan of Islam, if a group of Islamic "scholars" tried to similarly adulterate the Koran, they would be immediately executed. No reason not to have a similar penalty for those who deliberately mistranslate scripture. (Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.)

On a related note, this afternoon I'm watching the rebroadcast of EWTNs coverage of the March for Life. 

It occurs to me that, while I was a student at Denver Seminary, where Craig Blomberg is on the faculty), I heard very little about abortion. There was certainly never any publicity about a student contingent going to the March for Life. 

This leaves me wondering about the institutions where these translators teach.  If their professors aren't faithful to the very words of Scripture in their translation work, how faithfully do they teach how we should act and live in this fallen world?

(1) Nietzsche said something like "It was clever of God to write in Greek-- and not to write in good Greek".  I guess modern translators have the problem that if   the Bible doesn't sound sophisticated, they want to translate it to sound 21st century because otherwise people will blame the translator, not God. 

(2) The problem with the King James Version is that it's not as accurate as it could be. Nonetheless, it's both more beautiful and more faithful than the NIV and and the ESV.

    Why do men pay so much  for ugly whores? 

If she's so expensive, she must be good at it.

As the CBT men see it, such a usage is beneath the Holy Spirit—unworthy of Him—so they correct Him lest any other sophisticate read His usage and think less of Him for it. It would not be right.

When I work on sermon transcriptions I have to face a similar dilemma: when a pastor says "gonna," should I transcribe it as "gonna" or, in charity (as I think) promote it to the more sophisticated "going to"? Same with "wanna". Won't it be a distraction to the readers if they read "wanna"?

A notch more difficult: what about the "ums" and "uhs"? It feels like I must've crossed the line into disrespectfulness to transcribe the ums and uhs. Surely I should overlook them or cover them over in love, shouldn't I? Yet some of the most tender pastoral content of a sermon happens when the pastor goes off-notes, and it's hard to extract that content from the ums and uhs without damaging it---rendering it sterile---when it was alive and helpful.

Mike Shields: "No reason not to have a similar penalty for those who deliberately mistranslate scripture."

There seems to be such a penalty attached to the last Book of the Bible:

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Couple this warning with Deuteronomy 4:2 (which you quoted), the warnings about prophets in Deuteronomy 13 and 18, and something like God's words to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 26:2 ( " ... speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word."), and I think you can make a pretty good case that such penalties are already in place somewhere in the courts of Heaven.  No doubt they will be recited when the Books are opened at the Doom.

To Daniel: You're running into a true "translation" problem which most folks would not understand, viz. that written English is a different sort of language than spoken English (as is, I'm guessing, for every other language you might mention). Have you ever submitted a "faithful" transcription to the speaker for his edits?  Did he leave them alone? Or, did he correct them?  In any event, even the most faithful transcription is going to lack a host of communicative signals always present in a live speaker: voice volume, varying pace of speech, facial expressions, hand and/or body movements (shrungs, for example). 

My wife is currently reading me a novel by the Victorian Anthony Trollope set in a rural village in mid-19th century England. In one passage she attempted last night, Trollope presents the reader with the idiomatic English of an unlettered and elderly groom in long service to a country squire. Having never heard such language, I can't judge Trollope's success in rendering it in print. I do know that my wife simply could not speak what was printed on the page -- it was like she were seeing a text written in a language she did not know and had never heard.  Gobbledygook it was.

written English is a different sort of language than spoken English

Ah, perhaps I have erred then in how I've gone about it. I know it's not the same as Scripture where you know the very words are inspired---with a man's sermon there will always be things to correct, and perhaps it's my duty as a transcriber to correct them. (I need to address my ignorance in this area.) With God's Word though, there are not errors to correct so any "corrections" are us inserting our own errors. Is that the difference?

I'd be interested to hear this too. As much as I despise gender-neutral translations, and appreciate the accuracy that you espouse here, it would be far too easy for a man to see your exegesis and think he has carte-blanche to lord it over all the women around him - especially those unfortunate young spinsters like myself who have no father close by to speak for them.

Also, as amusing as the initial quote comparing translations to women is, it is still a vile sentiment.

Here's an essentially literal translation of the French: "If they're pretty, they're unfaithful, but if they're faithful, they're not pretty." Witty, but false.

Fr. Bill,

The other part is, sometimes transcribing every utterance is important (see for example here and here). Maybe that's something you do as-needed and not as a general practice, eh? Just like you sometimes need to turn the squelch all the way down on your CB radio for troubleshooting, but generally you want to set it at "just the right level" so you don't lose the message in the noise.

So basically what you're saying is, Hey people, the Bible is even more disgustingly sexist in the original languages!

Well that's ... good to know, I suppose.

TRiG.

Daniel, realizing you're talking about something else (transcribing versus translating), you raise a good point. In translating the Bible we are working with words by an Author who never says "um" without meaning to say "um." So we should choose the word in the target language that most closely means "um." God is never at a loss for just the right word.

The translator's job, then, is not to make the text easily accessible to any reader, no matter how deficient he may be in his own language (NIV 1984 is written for 6th graders to read whereas the KJV is on a 12th grade level). The job of explaining what the text means should fall to the authors of commentaries, to pastors, to teachers. Bible readers who are confused but hungry to learn will find the help they need from outside their own brain.

Someone will object and say that's making the laity dependent on ivory tower scholars or on the self-seeking clergy. But that's exactly what every yo dude version of the Bible does anyway. It's just that the gender-neutral, or Message or NLT won't tell you how extensive its scholarly interpretation is (unless you read the translators' preface. But if you're the kind to read the preface you're ready for a faithful translation). They lead their readers to think God really said, Blessed is the androgynous being who does not...

It isn't as though they are throwing out words people don't know anymore. Rather they are throwing out words because people do know what they mean. And it isn't as though they were throwing out words that God in His infinite wisdom would not use anymore. See the above warnings in Fr. Bill's comment. It would seem to be evident, perhaps not to all, but to me, that, in my own humble opinion, what may be happening is that certain among the translators may be, in a manner of speaking, endangering his own soul, so to speak, in a way which is somewhat clearly not God's best plan for his or her or their life or lives as the case may be by assuming something God never said. Namely, "Thou shalt recognize when these words of mine have grown moldy and then thou wilt know what thou shalt do with them. Exp: 1/1/1996."

To sum up: it isn't God's awkward diction that forces money into these translators' and publishers' pockets. Rather, they are hard at work every day helping the common human hate God's clear speech. Insane and suicidal souls, they spend themselves correcting the words of the one by whose very word they are made.  

What the post is saying TRiG, is that Zondervan might be interested in hiring you! 

Arwen, I think that when Paul says "man is head of woman," he is describing a principle and reiterating the order of God's creation.  So, a proper deduction/ application would be, there is no time when "woman is the head of man," save when we are speaking of a parent and child.  It would NOT be correct for this to be read as EVERY man is the head of EVERY woman.  So, there are certain roles in the church that a woman may not assume, such as being an elder or a minister of the word, so in that sense, a woman is under the authority of those men, but it would be incorrect to assume that you are under the authority of a man in the church who is not a shepherd of the flock.  I suppose I should preface all that with "I think," as I am not a minister or an elder myself.

Calvin writes: "On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex." We must understand this is not a statement that woman is inferior to man in value or personhood. Calvin is speaking of woman's inferiority in terms of her being created for and from and to man, and not man being created for and from and to woman.

Love,

The way Calvin phrased it is less than helpful, especially since"inferior" and "superior"  are commonly understood by modern readers to indicate differences in the intrinsic values of the nouns they modify.

I think I understand anyway:

So when it is written:

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." 

We are to understand this as a simple ontological statement? Something akin to "Water is wet" ? Or is it an ordinal statement like "First is the seed, then the sprout, then the plant, then the fruit"?

Or is it a combination of both?

 

 

@Daniel: You have put your finger exactly on the thing that makes a transcriber's task essentially different from a translator of Holy Writ, viz. the latter's inerrancy. On one level, a transcriber's task is fraught with greater challenges and temptations to infidelity than a translator's, though the latter seems to succumb to those temptations far more often than a transcriber.  

It's odd, no? It ~should not~ matter to a translator that the original text of Scripture is (in Trig's terms) even more sexist than the fruit of the translator's art. If it's obnoxiously sexist (as, indeed, Scripture ALWAYS is in the modern context), then a faithful translator will not blunt that in any way. And, yet, they do, as Pr. Bayly has pointed out. 

Before the feminist  spirit overthrew patriarchy within evangelicalism, post-Victorian translators had a consistent practice of imposing Victorian Bowlderizations onto English translations. Interestingly, the Elizabethan sensibility was (in Victorian terms) outrageously profane.  So, those fellows pissing against the wall in the KJV morphed into "he who urinates against the wall" (KJ21), "manchild" (ASV), "male" (AMP, CEB, CJB, Darby, ESV, KNOX, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, TNIV), "man or boy" (CEV), "man" (ERV), or "men" (EXB, GW, GNT, HCSB, NIRV). 

Is it any wonder that you have to go into the deepest, darkest part of Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon to discover that almost all of Ezekiel's references to what pagans worship, rendered "idol" in every English translation I've encountered, deploys a Hebrew word for which we have a perfectly fine Anglo-saxon term in English (it's Scheißkugeln in German) that is regretably (for Victorian ears) scatalogical?

"are to understand this as a simple ontological statement? Something akin to "Water is wet" ? Or is it an ordinal statement like "First is the seed, then the sprout, then the plant, then the fruit"?"

I believe it would be ordinal in the sense God has ordained--ordered--these things to be so, but also ontological because he has created them to be fit this ordination. More specifically, however, those are things this text simply assumes (though actually, the wider context does explicit them), while its own intention is to explicate authority: "head" isn't about ontology or ordinals (as in numbers), but that a woman is to obey her master, and man his Master.

I wouldn't, BTW, so much worry, as you stated above, about how this words may be mistaken: the actual number of people who really think Christians who speak in traditional terms, or use "hard" language, are advocating that men should be able to "lord it over" women, are probably quite few: they're not actually serious, they just don't like the idea of submission or obedience, and so the proper response is to point them to the verse of the apostles' teaching via pointing to the examples of godly women who called their husbands "Lord", and watch them squirm and scream. If they were serious they would do more than accuse and slander, and actually come to know given individuals' and groups' real intentions, and report and say as with the same meaning as those who speak those teachings. Since they are not, the first purpose of our speech should not be to make them feel comfortable or reassure them, but to convict them with salt and light: and expect what reaction darkness and unsaltiness has when confronted.

Fr. Bill, can you provide a bit more detail on that word rendered "idol"? A couple of verses would probably be sufficient to get me started researching, but if you've got more info readily at hand, I'm curious.

Thanks,

Joseph,

See my comment here.

Fr. Bill, exactly how could that term NOT be scatalogical?  :^)

But thank you, I'm looking it up.  It is so freeing to see the Word as He is as much as I can, without the filter of those who think we can't handle it.

(any good word search or concordance, along with BDB, will get people there)

BTW, I looked up the term "galul" in BDB last night, and yes, there is a link to exactly what Fr. Bill says.  I'm not quite sure my Hebrew reaches enough to establish clearly that it means that primarily, or whether it's a secondary inference, but the link is definitely there.

Maybe by the time my family gets around to Ezekiel in family worship, I'll be educated enough to firmly re-translate that part of Ezekiel for my kids.  If I'm so convinced, I'm sure they'll love it, and it also puts a bit more kibosh on the hyper-pietism we see too often today.

Thank you, Bill, for pointing out the translation of Ezekiel's Hebrew 'gullulim' by the English "idol" almost entirely hides the contemptuous meaning component. Incidentally, the word group surrounding 'galal' is fascinating. Tolkien fans might find this discussion of "conglomerate" interesting.

Love,

Transcripts for the sermons from all four years of ClearNote summer conferences are now available here. (I cleaned them up like any normal person would expect!) Thank you for the help in understanding what a good transcript is, fathers and brothers.

Add new comment