Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to bring scholars and biblical language experts across the cultural spectrum to determine this? Are there Semitic people in that group since we are dissecting a Greek rendering to what is really a Semitic faith?

Moody Theological Seminary MDiv student here. This was a great video to watch!

i'm 14. i am called to be a pastor. i absolutely love Bible translating. do you have any advice on where to start for beginners? GOD bless!

love it!

i'm 14. this is what i watch for fun.

They should let the readers comprehend and stop making interpretative nuances for on behalf of the readers. The problem with using multiple words for the same Greek or Heb word is that vast majority of readers will end up thinking that the bondservant is a separate term and category.

Wonder how they interpret Revelation 22.18-19

🥱 These group of Men are playing a dangerous game. Deuteronomy 4:2 Revelation 22:18-19

This is a great insight into Bible translation. That said, there is some concern that modern cultural notions may be having too much sway. I do know how difficult finding the correct balance can be, and I know Hebrew, for the record.

I see this is BBC , I cannot find online the full documentary or where this is from. I would love love a full length version. They should have the full recordings even in audio when they have done these committees to do a translation. It’s so fascinating and would be helpful of how they came to the choices they did

And by which you are ⚠️BEING SAVED⚠️, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:2, English Standard Version) The ESV tells its reader that salvation is a process they have to work for. STRAIGHT OUT OF HELL!!!

interesting arguments here, but it seems clearly anachronistic to claim that anctient slavery was, in general, temporary and voluntary. This understanding on biblical slavery needs to be abandoned

Gordon Wenham denies the Mosaic authorship of Genesis and the Pentateuch. How can a man like that even be allowed to touch a Bible, much less edit it? “(Genesis) bears the stamp of a powerful creative author but who that was we cannot know….For religious readers, the uncertainties of source criticism do not matter very much: it has always been the final text that has had canonical authority and has been the focus of interpretation.” Gordon Wenham, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible

This discussion is such a waste of time. They are attempting to change God's word. Trying to have God's word to meet their narrative. They are exposing their biased views on a single word that was given by God for us to read. They miss the fact that SLAVERY is going on today. Slavery is a man-made practice. It will NOT go away by these bean bags changing the word. Their insulation/arrogance exposes them as ignorant to the real world. SMH

Jack Collins: a brilliant and incisive mind applied 110% to Biblical scholarship. Thanks, Jack.

This looks fascinating! Let me also take this moment to express deep gratitude to you for your work on Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage in its historical context. I have been studying this topic at length as I process what my Anabaptist heritage says about it. If you have time, I would be very grateful for your assessment of the following paragraphs I shared in a blog post. Do you think I (building on Meier) am presenting an accurate picture? Do we have solid reason to believe the view of the school of Shammai was current in Jesus' day? ------ Most modern writers say that two views on divorce were debated by Jews in Jesus’ day-the view of Rabbi Hillel, a “liberal” who said Deuteronomy 24 gives grounds for “any-cause” divorce (cf. Matt. 19:3) and the view of Rabbi Shammai, a “conservative” who said Deuteronomy permits divorce only on the grounds of adultery.[4] Wenham clarifies that “on the issue of divorce, it was the Hillelites who were upholding tradition, and the Shammaites who were challenging it.” In fact, “to limit the husband’s right to divorce whenever he chose and for any reason was for most Jews a shocking limitation on male freedom.”[5] Wenham’s clarification is crucial but may not go far enough. It’s possible that the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites had not even yet begun in Jesus’ day. Luck observes that “Josephus does not mention the distinction [between Hillel and Shammai], merely stating the position of Hillel as if it were the only position in vogue.”[6] Meier surveys Jewish intertestamental writings on divorce at length and concludes that “the mainline tradition begun in the OT and witnessed in Philo, Josephus, and the School of Hillel” allowed divorce for “practically any reason.”[7] The only known possible exception (besides Jesus) is the Essenes, a mystic Jewish sect, but this is disputed; Meier concludes that “their position on divorce remains a question mark.”[8] Given this evidence, some of the best-informed scholars warn against assuming Jesus was responding to the Hillel - Shammai divorce debate. Here, for example, is Meier (see footnote for more): Nowhere in pre-70 Judaism is there any clear attestation of a detailed discussion or debate on which grounds for divorce are deemed sufficient. Therefore, despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus’ prohibition of divorce against the “background” of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3d century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to elucidate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D.

You sold it to me! just ordered the set on Logos. Thanks David

Can you please make a video about your setup, it looks cool and comfortable.

would love to have a set

A great introduction - though the German is tricky to translate in some places! John Gill is also worth consulting, as he quotes many Jewish writers. But more has come to light of course since then.

Wow!

Ezechiel 16 3-4 LOLOL

so we're more concerned about being politically correct than been accurate.

why are there only white men in this room talking about “slaves”

I saw J I Packers interview about the ESV study Bible and immediately bought one.

Amazing video.

Slave is the correct translation for the Greek doulos but the listener has to be instructed not to understand this is the context of of modern day contexts of slavery. It is the translators job to translate the scripture. It is the preachers job to explain the difference to the modern reader.

A slave is a slave and that's part of our history and shouldn't be changed. A slave and a bondservant are two different things. Leave it alone! You don't change words in Gods book just to sell more copies!

They even prayed. Amen

This is the ultimate tap dance class

I find it amazing that the difference in the English words "slave" and "servant" are being debated in it's usage in the text.

What amazes me in this video is that there is not a single fulfilled-covenant representative in attendance! It's like a full half the perspective is missing!

It is frightening to see this group of men (excellent representation of diversity, there, ESV) who know the languages and culture of the Bible gloss over this sensitive issue on the grounds of bad apologetics.

So sad to see these men assume the reader is and will remain uneducated. They help us put our world into the word of God instead of stating the word of God as inspired by God.

1:27 A remarkable argument here is made (knowing the outcome etc.), and it really does feel brave. Fascinating that the ESV did actually have 3 members voting against what became to be one of the main features of their rendering.

Only man's wisdom? Let me ask, We are saved by the blood of Jesus, but the ESV doesn't believe that. Colossians 1:14 Colossians 1:14 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: The ESV believes the blood is not important. "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Colossians 1:14 ESV so Ask yourself, How do we have redemption from sins? We have forgiveness of sins through the blood. No other way. The ESV critics don't believe that. How can we give them credibility when they are working over board the destroy God's word? So, we can become a slave to sin like the bible says. It takes us over because we are sinners until we are glorified. Then sin will no longer have control over us. These Fools are rewriting Jesus out of the scriptures in these Other versions. The KJV has it right. The so called experts are doing the devils work.

I believe it's more important that we pursue what God means to tell us. Personally, it has been a great injustice not to realise that having Christ's eternal life in me means I am indisputably owned by Him making me His slave in every sense of the word. Its His power in me that leads me to life, what part of 'crucified with Christ' is not to understand? Luke 9:23 take up 'my' cross daily, if only I knew this from the start. Servant makes it sound like something I choose to do, sounds more like religion rather than life itself. What cost is there in something I can just put away when I choose, no wonder I'm a substance abuser, I keep believing I have a choice. At least a slave doesn't have choices. This was a very thought provoking video, thank you.

Dear Dr. Instone-Brewer, I am sorry if I am writing this question as a comment on a video in which you unpack an E-bike, but this is the only way I found to communicate with you. I have just bought and started to read your book Divorce and remarriage and I have one question. If the man in Matthew 5:32 who puts away his wife for any cause and marries another commits adultery, why is Jesus saying that the man who marries her that is put away, also commits adultery? The reason why God calls an adulterer the husband who puts her away and marries another it´s obviously because God considers him still married. Wouldn´t then the woman because of her husband sexual immorality be the one to have the right to re-marry? Why is Jesus saying that she and her possible second husband would commit adultery ? Thank you for taking the time, Paolo

Dr. Grudem explains this is a 2.5 hour conversation reduced to 4 minutes. What an awesome conversation, and what a privilege to get a peek into it!

The demographic of the translators... so sad

Wow. Instead of going with the intent and culture of the original text, they are worried about how "slave" would be perceived presently in Western culture. What could go wrong with this?

A shocking display of intellectual dishonesty.

... and then they arrogantly claim that God "led" them to their decision.

And this is why Christian "scholarship" is worthless. Their objective is to defend the Bible, not to seek truth.

Grace and peace! ✌😎✌

I can't wait until the LSB fully comes out at the end of 2021.

They should debate the words corrupted Bible version. That's what the ESV is. Maybe they should change all the contradictions that exist in this version besides debating something stupid like this.

So we’re interpreting the bible to suit the American agenda????

I would’ve voted for the word “slave” if you read the Bible in its entirety you find that it is an honor to be a slave to Christ. You are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. If you take time to consider what that means than you realize that we cannot serve two masters. As far as the word slave having a bad history, it is not God that caused that but man. We should not alter the translation because of man’s sin.

This is fascinating.