3 Problems with the ESV

In this video I explain 3 translation problems with the ESV. The problems reveal a consistent strategy that obscures meaning of texts with women in leadership or texts that could be used to support women in leadership. Thus, the ESV's translation of these passages functions to supports a specific theology of male headship, complementarianism, or patriarchal understandings go Scripture. Yet, when compared to other translations and the Greek and Hebrew originals, these translations are unjustified.
Consider becoming a patron at my Patreon: / biblegeek
Consulted Resources
Witherington, Ben. Biblical Theology: The Convergence of the Canon. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Samuel L Perry, The Bible as a Product of Cultural Power: The Case of Gender Ideology in the English Standard Version, Sociology of Religion, Volume 81, Issue 1, Spring 2020, Pages 68-92, doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srz022
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
ESV searches performed on Accordance Bible Software.
www.accordancebible.com/
Other notable resources
www.patheos.com/blogs/anxious...
margmowczko.com/tag/esv/
www.cambridge.org/core/journa...
www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscr...
scotmcknight.substack.com/p/t...
ESV Resources and Images
www.esv.org/
www.amazon.com/ESV-Study-Bibl...
www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-La...
Music
invention_ - Makai chll.to/8f8268c7
Ian Ewing - Hold On chll.to/b75dd361
Drips Zacheer - Carefree chll.to/14f70b0c
Masked Man - Lush chll.to/57a413c4
Middle School - Delicate chll.to/e4820ddf
El Train, Paal Singh - Over You chll.to/254cfa98

[@ChristianLisangola]

As someone who has grown with a strong french background, when i went into a country where English is spoken, i watched a bunch of videos promoting KJV and NKJV and the best bibles...So i bought them and started to read them side by side so i can also fellowship with my new brothers and sisters in Christ...But, i was being lost because the English wasn't beginner friendly...So what??Should i keep on reading something i don't understand where in an hour i just read 2 verses and the rest of the time being in an English dictionary???Is that what God want for me?? No... That's why this is a very useless debate on bible versions. I'll tell what I've learned in my life as a Christian. Whatever bible version you have and your confortable with, read it if you can understand, and the Holy Spirit won't let you down. When you're really seeking for the truth because you love God, the Holy Spirit will guide you. You can have your main bible that you use for your daily devotion, that you understand and can memorize verses, and have other bibles aside when comparing and try to grab the context. You can start debates from the morning till the evening about bible versions, at the end of the day millions of people are being saved, strengthened and blessed by the bible versions that some criticize or dislike, etc... When you die, God won't ask you which bible version you used to read. It will be a matter of if you gave your life to Jesus or not, if you worked in the fear of God or not, if you obey Christ's commandments or not...With any versions of the bible God can lead, and if the version is very evil, with false and intentionally wrong interpretations, the Holy Spirit will give you a red flag and lead you to a better one for you, because if you really seek God in truth, he'll show you the way. Even in french, the bible i use is not beginner friendly. So i knew some people because of their education, didn't understand it and kept using it because it said it was the best. But, i did the same, told them to grad a simpler version, easy french that they can understand and God through is Holy Spirit will guide them, and they ended being really blessed because they were now reading something they were understanding and they become more productive in their devotion and meditation, but what i also device from time to time try to see what other versions says to try get a better idea, and it works. My English isn't the best, but i think it can be understood.

[@biblegeek7]

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! :)

[@UrbanCowboy9]

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.

[@Barbara-pe2jf]

May God bless you for your faithfulness!

[@Mark3ABE]

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!

[@Mark3ABE]

@@UrbanCowboy9 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.

[@pinejared]

This video is quite misleading. For example, to people who don't know Greek, it can seem like the ESV added a possessive pronoun out of nowhere. However, this is something that is required by the English language. In Greek, possessive pronouns can be implied, but they can't in English, so when rendering the phrase in English, the possessive pronoun has to be supplied. This is basic to Koine Greek grammar and is done very frequently in all English translations. The video accuses the ESV of being disingenuous, but either the maker of this video doesn't have a good understanding of Greek or is himself being disingenuous. Similarly, prepositional phrases are the most difficult part of translating between any two languages. The way the ESV rendered it in both instances mentioned in this video are viable options, though they are debated. With the words διακονος and αποστολος, the video commits the fallacy known as "illegitimate totality transfer." These are words with multiple glosses in English and choosing the correct gloss depends on context. In both cases mentioned in the video, the ESV appears to me to have chosen the correct gloss, though it is debatable. Overall, this video treats the ESV quite unfairly, and people not trained in the original languages won't be able to spot the fallacies. The ESV among many others is a reliable translation of the Bible into English, and it is worthy of our trust. Sadly, people who watch this video will be left with the opposite impression.

[@MAMoreno]

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?)

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@pinejared]

@@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.

[@bespoke555]

As someone who has taken Koine Greek in seminary, you are mistaken when it comes to ‘en tois’. ‘En tois’ can also mean ‘to’. Also, ‘diakonos’ literally means ‘servant’ or ‘one who waits tables’. It can be translated literally as ‘deacon’ when the text is referring to the office of deacon. At the end of the day, context is king in determining any word with multiple meanings, and the ESV has done nothing wrong in these instances. I suggest learning more Greek before you make such comments, because a little Greek is a dangerous thing.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@James-li8cm]

I'll grab my popcorn while y'all flex

[@Keitenrenbu]

@@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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@Keitenrenbu]

@@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.

[@Gunner662]

You have convinced me to get an ESV, thanks for the help.

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@marktaylor601]

Only the NIV and RSV variants translate Romans 16:1 as deacon. All of the other major translations say servant.

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@thepickle5214]

@@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

[@samuelhutton1342]

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.

[@joshwitt1475]

Since this video is comparing the ESV to the NRSV and noting departures from the literal text, it seems disingenuous to ignore the fact that in the very same verse, 1 Tim 3:12 the NRSV changes “husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) to “married once” removing an explicitly male reference.

[@biblegeek7]

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. :)

[@joshwitt1475]

@@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.

[@dswartze]

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

[@tradcath2976]

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

[@MO-bo2du]

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???

[@Coteincdr]

St Jerome translated Rom 16:1 as minister. He was closer in time to the early church to know what those categories meant. I think you are imposing your 21st century view on the text.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@mariusmanole9886]

likewise in the Darby translation.

[@gilbertculloden87]

This is a deeply misleading video and you appear to have assumed malice and prejudice rather than acknowledge the sincere scholarly disagreement as to how these verses should be rendered. Whether you agree or disagree, all of the ESV translations you have cited are legitimate renderings of the texts. First, in Genesis 3:16, the word at issue is not the preposition אֵל but the Hebrew word for "desire" תְּשׁוּקָה - teshuqah). This is a very rare word that appears in the Old Testament only three times (Gen. 3.16, 4.7, Song 7.10). However, the use of the word in Genesis 3:16 is closely paralleled to its use one chapter later in Genesis 4:7, and that is the best place to look to figure out what it means in Gen. 3:16. In Genesis 3:16 Eve is told her desire will be for/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) her husband and he will rule over (מָשַׁל)her. In Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and that sin's "desire is for you/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) you, but you must rule over (מָשַׁל) it." Note the identical pairing of "desire" and "rule" in both passages. Whatever "desire" means in one it probably means in the other. Some would read the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as sexual desire, but that is impossible in Genesis 4:7 (not to mention that would make a woman's sexual desire for her husband a curse, which contradicts the rest of scripture). Instead, "desire for" in both passages seem to be the desire to overcome/control. This is certainly the best interpretation of Genesis 4:7 and makes the most sense in Genesis 3:16. Indeed, it has been argued that even the usage of the word (תְּשׁוּקָה) in Song of Solomon 7:10 conveys the desire to control/dominate in the man's desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman. Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83. I think the NET's rendering of Genesis 3:16 "you will want to control your husband" is probably the most accurate to meaning of the Hebrew, but the ESV's "your desire will be contrary to your husband" is still much better than the traditional "your desire shall be for your husband." Either way, the ESV reading is certainly justifiable and has scholarly research to support it. As an aside, I find Ben Witherington's take on gender issues unconvincing at best and intentionally biased at worst (likely as an outgrowth of trying to make the text fit his charismatic views, but that's another topic entirely). Second, to read the γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11-12 as female deacons seems to do violence to the natural reading of the text. To interpret it in this manner requires us to assume that Paul wrote 1. a series of qualifications for male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 2. a separate verse of qualification for female deacons in in 1 Timothy 3:11-2, followed by 3. a new qualification for only male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12. It's a very awkward way of reading the text that makes little to no logical sense. It's also very strange to me that you make such a big deal about "their" not being in the Greek when (as I'm sure you know) translators always supply words that are not in the original text for clarity and we could create a massive list for every translation in existence. Regarding Romans 16:1, there is nothing inconsistent in translating διάκονος as "servant" rather than "deacon" here, since it is frequently difficult to tell whether a formal office is meant in most of the New Testament use of the word. We can certainly find inconsistencies in how this word is rendered across translations. For instance, the Greek of Colossians 1:17 refers to Epaphras as a διάκονος, yet the NRSV renders the word as "minister" in that verse while rendering the same word as "deacon" in Romans 16:1. Turning to the famous example of Junias, the debate is certainly not closed on whether Junias is a male or female name. First, we do have examples of Greek Church Fathers who read the name as masculine ,such as the 4th century father Epiphanius. Notably, in his s Index discipulorum 125, Epiphanius not only described Junias as a man (as indicated by the masculine pronoun) but also provides a seemingly independent tradition that Junias became Bishop of Apameia in Armenia. While it is hard to say how much weight should be placed on this tradition, it does imply that Epiphanius was certainly not alone in understanding Junias as a man and that there appears to have been a larger ecclesiastical tradition regarding Junias' subsequent ministry. Aside from this witness, there is also the intriguing suggestion that Junias may have been an adhoc translation of the Hebrew name Yehunni. See Albert Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yehunni,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 397-408. However, assuming that Junias is a female name, the issue comes down to whether ἐπίσημος should be read in the comparative or elative sense. I quote the NET's footnote because I feel it expresses the issue best: "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." Personally, I find Burer and Wallace's survey of the extant Greek evidence convincing. I would also note that the 2020 update of the NASB agrees with the elative sense and renders the verse in question "outstanding in the view of the apostles." There are pros and cons to the renderings above, but they are all legitimate translation decisions rooted in defensible readings of the texts. To claim that the ESV has intentionally misread or mistranslated the verses in question is very unfair and deeply uncharitable. All translations have biases (and there are several translation choices I could critique in the ESV). However, you seem completely uninterested in understanding the debate surrounding these verses and far more interested in impugning the motives of the ESV translators.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@DEJ537]

Just had a look at my ESV - it has footnotes to outline the other possible translations - such as Deaconess for Roman’s 16 and “Or Wives likewise, or Women likewise” for 1 Timothy 3. The original meaning of diakonos from Roman’s 16 is a servant, attendant, minister. So it’s possible that it refers to either the formal role of deacon, or the simple version of servant. The best word for word translation therefore IS servant so I’d say in that circumstance the ESV is doing exactly what it set out to do. The good thing about the ESV is that it’s honest enough to give you all the options in the footnotes so you know there are other possibilities and then leaves you to attempt to choose the most appropriate definition.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@pwoeckener]

While I certainly appreciate the time you took to make this video and to point out some of the things that stand out as flawed in the ESV, I'll simply say that from a simple layperson's point of view, I think Satan is using all of the differences in different Bible translations to divide the church, and to distract us from what really matters. Specifically to Romans 16:3, we're talking about a personal greeting from Paul. I am really struggling to find anything in this verse that matters to me personally, and can be used to apply to my life from a spiritual perspective. With regards to memorization of Bible verses. Well, I grew up reading the Good News Bible back in the 70's and 80's. I came back to the church in the 90's and used the NIV. Then the NIV isn't good anymore, because they updated the 1984 version to something else, so now I need to use the NKJV. The church I was attending 10 years ago used the HCSB. Now my pastor uses the ESV. I mean, what's next when someone decides two obscure words in the ESV that don't match a Biblical worldview of the interpreter? And you are comparing it to the NRSV? I don't know anyone using the NRSV for various reasons. What is concerning to me is that I am wasting time watching videos like this, and distracting myself from hearing from God on what truly matters. Sure, we absolutely need to make sure that the translations of the Bible are accurate and relay the message that God wants us to hear. But I honestly think we're splitting hairs and wasting time away from where we should be spending our time and attention to.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@_clownworld]

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

[@Nick-wn1xw]

@@_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.

[@ronaldradcliffe6015]

Thanks for this video! What is the other cases mentioned? (Thinking about the 1 other time they translated en tois as "to" an not "among"? Thanks! (and if you posted this somewhere and I missed it, my apologies)

[@biblegeek7]

Check out 2 Cor 2:15 and then 4:3. Thanks for watching :)

[@majesticpictures5715]

I disagree with Bible Geek on some points. The original text says "wives", ESV retained it as such while NRSV changed it to "women". The adding of "their" does not change the meaning but the changing of "wives" to "women" significantly alters the meaning of the text. Remember this text is talking about deacons and the fact they they have to be husbands of one wife. When it goes on to mention "wives", it is clearly referring to the wives of the deacons, thus "their" wives. Bible Geek clearly has an agenda and it is barely hidden. I would never encourage anybody to depend on NRSV for proper bible study. I have never had any serious believer recommend it. It is NRSV that has serious issues with it's deliberate agenda for "gender-neutral language". Take for instance this passage in Psalms 8. In ESV it is rendered as " what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor" NRSV renders it as, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor." NRSV not only changes the nouns to plural but also makes them gender neutral. More troubling is that the term "son of man" is rendered as mortals. We no that "Son of Man" is a Messianic title and to replace it with "mortals" is to subtly attack the divinity of Christ. There are far more problems with NRSV and I don't encourage any believer to use it for bible study.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@joeangular]

exactly

[@danielhixon8209]

Definitely every Bible translation team has its biases that will come through in the final product. The NRSV you cite (which I also use a lot) consistently gives translations that obscure traditional supports for high christology (as in Rom 9:5; Daniel 7:13, etc) - but it is still a decent translation. In all these cases, however (as with the ESVs use of “servant” in Rom 16 or “wives” in 1 Tim 3 - the rendering is technically correct, even if it may not exactly communicate the original meaning. That’s why it is always good to study with more than one translation. I think the ESV and NRSV are a good pairing precisely because the translations are so similar for the most part - those places where the “biases are showing” (on both sides) come through more clearly.

[@biblegeek7]

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. :)

[@AmericanShia786]

Christian translations of the scriptures have been wrong for centuries? That is the message I get from your video. I'm not going to start using the NRSV. The ESV is not my favorite translations, so I have no axe to grind. Woke Christianity disqualifies Christianity. I reject it.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching.

Just found the channel, and for it being a small one (for now) the production value is up there with the rest of them that are well-established. I subscribed and encourage you to keep up the good work. Excited to see what's ahead. (Also, great verse, Rom 16:7, to start things with in the video. I absolutely agree with you even if most denominations would skin me alive for it.)

[@biblegeek7]

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. :)

[@kentuckymoonyup1425]

Great content and production value. Thanks Dain!

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching :)

[@sandsleeper3124]

This sounds like a skillfully constructed propaganda piece. For Rom 16:7 I agree that "among" would be a better choice but "among" does not say that they ARE apostles and using "to" does not reduce them to being only popular. Read in context, the woman are regarded highly in both versions. For Rom 16:1 "servant" is used in the NKJV and NASB so maybe the NRSV is the outlier here. The NRSV is known to lean towards gender inclusiveness and maybe the ESV leans the other way but it is disingenuous to present the NRSV as the correct standard and use it to denigrate the ESV.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@charlesurban3230]

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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@williamherring2349]

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

[@RevTrevNFL]

This was a very well done video. It was insightful, straight forward and honest. Thank you for making it and sharing it with the world.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting! :) many more videos planned in the near future.

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, Brother. Good, solid work🌹🌹🌹🌾

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@eugenius7]

Excellent presentation!

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting! :)

[@kelb5904]

All of the time and study you have spent on finding this out is of Great Value, thanks.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and your kind comments. :)

[@Adrian_Mason]

The ESV Interlear Looks like the cleanest interlinear that I have seen. This question is regarding that. Do the original words show first before their completey theological changed translation? Words original "among" and in complete translation "known to"?

[@biblegeek7]

Hi, thanks for your question! I am not sure I am understanding the question. Could your rephrase it. I don’t have the ESV interlinear so if your asking if the ESV interlinear has “among” or “known to” I wouldn’t know. (though I imagine it is a nice looking and feeling book because Crossway knows how to make Bible that are nice)

[@Adrian_Mason]

@@biblegeek7 That was my question and thank you!

[@venus_envy]

Thank you for this video! I have an NRSV study Bible from my university days but just ordered an ESV with a journaling margin, it hasn't arrived yet (I'm now also feeling glad I got it on sale). I will be adding notes on this subject for sure, including anywhere I find an issue with this in my NRSV (which I had planned to use to check the ESV against). But now I'm feeling also inspired to get my hands on an interlinear Bible in English, Hebrew and Greek, just for extra back-up. Anyway, will be coming back to this video for future reference. So glad you popped up in my recommended today, it was meant to be!

[@biblegeek7]

Glad you liked the video, and enjoy your new Bible :) thanks for watching! And an interlinear is free on the internet. Check out Biblehub. biblehub.com/interlinear/ That said, it’s not always as simple as reading an interlinear, because those too aren’t perfect, as language isn’t always one to one word for word kind of thing. :)

[@donmoe3083]

I have more translations that agree with the ESV than disagree on most of the verses mentioned in this video. The only translation that consistently agree with your video are the NRSV and NIV that I read regularly. The more literal translation like ESV, NASB, LSB, NKJV are pretty consistent on those verses. It appears that your video has an agenda as well.

[@biblegeek7]

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 :)

[@donmoe3083]

@@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).

[@paulp9769]

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

[@nathanielotto258]

​@@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.

[@TheMrAllesio]

yeah, this brother seems to be speaking in truth

[@joeangular]

The Rom 16:7 translation is correct. I suggest paper "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7 by Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace" (available online) "In sum, our examination of epij shmo~ v with both genitive modifiers and ejn plus dative adjuncts has revealed some surprising results - surprising, that is, from the perspective of the scholarly consensus. Repeatedly in biblical Greek, patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic texts, our working hypothesis was borne out. The genitive personal modifier was consistently used for an inclusive idea, while the (ejn plus) dative personal adjunct was almost never so used. Yet to read the literature, one would get a decidedly different picture. To say that ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostovloi~ ‘can only mean “noteworthy among the apostles” ’ is simply not true. It would be more accurate to say that ‘ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostoloi~ v almost certainly means “well known to the apostles”.’ Thus Junia, along with Andronicus, is recognized by Paul as well known to the apostles, not as an outstanding member of the apostolic band."

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@joeangular]

⁠@@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).

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@1956gaba]

Excellent! Thanks for posting.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@purposepowerlove]

Excellent video. Thanks for sharing.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and your comment :)

[@briankinsey3339]

"Known to" and "known among" are not necessarily different, at least in English. If I say "Einstein's field equations are well known among cosmologists" it does not imply that the equations *are* cosmologists. Same if I say that so and so is well known among the local law enforcement community. So and so could be a well known criminal and the sentence still works.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@pinkdiscomosh2766]

As a fellow bible translation nerd, what I’ve discovered over the years is that every translation (even the NRSV as your contrast) have their own deck that they play with. These days, I don’t mind when a translation picks a side, but I want to know why. As long as the argument isn’t pure theological bias-it often isn’t believe it or not- I’m cool with it. This is why I love the NET notes, even though I don’t love how the translation reads, it’s great to get extensive footnotes that go into these topics. The LSB is slowly releasing translator notes as well which is nice. With that in mind, I do want to point out just a couple of things: 1.) The ESV didn’t update Gen. 3.16 to “contrary” until it’s 2016 edition. Which means the translation existed for 15 years using the traditional rendering “for”. The first translations to adopt this were the NLT and the NET, yet I don’t hear anyone giving them flak for it. Lol. There is a great discussion to be had around this change so I encourage everyone to dig into it as it serves both as a point of consistency with the usage of the word in Gen. 4:7 and the “contrary” reading is actually the affirmation of a woman’s opinion on the topic, one Susan T. Foe who wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal in the 1970s I believe called “The Desire of the Woman” 🤔) 2.) When it comes to Phoebe not being referred to as a “deacon”, it should be noted that the ESV also doesn’t refer to Epaphras as a deacon in Col.1:7. Both are referred as “servants” despite the Greek word being present for both. It’s understandable that a section about the role of deacons would maintain the word, but to use that as a contrast for Romans 16:1 might be a poor comparison. “Servant” is also a classical rendering as it appears in both the Geneva Bible (1599) and the KJV (1611). The ESV mentions in the preface that it wants to exist in the line of the KJV which makes sense given that a text based on the RSV which renders as “deaconess” would make this change to more closely align with the KJV instead. Seems more like a classical approach rather than a complementarian approach. 3.) Lastly, your argument about the footnotes in the ESV about junia, in my opinion, is a moot point as they’re footnotes and not in the text itself, which is a translations way of saying that what is in the text is the better option. Simply acknowledging other possibilities is just honest, especially in the case of junia/junias. There is at least a history there that should be acknowledged. So I did find it interesting that you made an entire point on a footnote when the ESV actually picked the historical reading in favor of Junia. This was something the LSB and NASB2020 corrected, thankfully, because the NASB77/95 (If I’m correct) was the only main line protestant translation that rendered Junias. 4.) I do agree with your point about adding pronouns to bend a passage (which is why the NRSV shouldn’t be used as the poster child here my friend 😉), but the ESV is not alone in rendering this as wives, (CSB, NET, NLT, KJV, NKJV) and as previously mentioned, this does more closely re-align the ESV with the KJV. “Even so must their wives be grave…” The NET has a fascinating footnote on this topic. It’s a highly contextual rendering and probably should not be used as a definitive knock against the ESV. To conclude my soap box 😅 I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but I disagree that the ESV is overtly trying to force a complementarian view point here. Something that I can’t confidently say about the NRSV and the CEB and their bent toward the egalitarian perspective.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@pinkdiscomosh2766]

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

[@Sumatra123]

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

[@apologeticsfromtheattic7131]

Question: so what English translation would you recommend for someone who is not conversant with the original languages? NRSV?

[@biblegeek7]

I always tell people to look at multiple translations. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing . I made this specific video on the ESV because it is becoming one of the most popular translations, and as a translation it has a noticeable and significant bias that makes intentional changes passages that are unjustified. Moreover, I don’t talk about this in the video, but the goals of the translation were born out of those biases against women. You can see that history chronicled in the Samuel Perry article. Thanks for your questions and for watching the video. :)

[@studiodemichel]

​@@biblegeek7 from what you said in the video, I respect the ESV even more. But, I am biased to the complimentarian view of church roles, as Adam preceded Eve and Adam is blamed for the fall throughout the New Testament, not Eve. The fall is Adam's, not Eve's, yet she initiated it. Or, is this Bible story and New Testament record on women's roles based upon a patriarchal myth?

[@MrZORROish]

@@studiodemichel If a doctrine or a bias is the result of a wrong translation, or worse, a deliberately wrong translation then it is worthy of zero respect and upholding it is hardly praiseworthy, especially if you proclaim to the world that "Thy word is truth" John 17:17.

[@TheBinaryWolf]

May I recommend the NKJV, based on Nestle's text. I am a Bible translator and assure you no translation is fully faithful. The smoother the English, the greater the sacrifice of theology. That virtually no attention has been paid to NT Greek grammar--often communicating as much as the lexals--is a tragedy. But even if it were unnecessay to translate Holy Writ, people will still eisogete (read into) and ot exegete (draw out the Auther's intent). Indeed, if men were more objective, denominations would not exist. If Mt.16:18,19 were correctly translated, Catholicism would not exist.

[@bretclement3197]

@@TheBinaryWolf How do you say Matt 16:18-19 should be translated?

[@Arathulion]

Hi, which Bible version would you recommend that's at the same time rather on the literal end and modern in language?

[@biblegeek7]

I always tell people to look at multiple translations. Based on what you’re looking for, probably the NRSV. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing. Thanks for your question and for watching the video. :)

[@Arathulion]

@@biblegeek7 Thanks for the answer! I'm not a native English speaker, but I am looking for a good go to translation and the number of options is overwhelming

[@geraldarcuri9307]

The word "among" in English has several meanings. So, taking the ESV to task for a single ( or, at most two ) instance of failing to use it to render the Greek is somewhat misleading in itself. Nitpicking, I'd say. The RSV and NRSV may have some slight technical advantages, but in the case of the NRSV using gender inclusive language, it is clear that those translators also had an agenda. In my view, nothing reads like the ESV. I have all the other major, legitimate translations available for comparison, as well as my Greek interlinear and lexicon. I prefer to read the text without chapter and verse markings, only referring to those "intrusions" for detailed study.

[@tradcath2976]

@@biblegeek7 LOL! Sure the NRSV has no agenda with it's "inclusive language." Nor does the NIV, with its interchanging of "teachings" and 'traditions" to suit its evangelical Protestant agenda.

[@willnichols6470]

Oh good, I was worried you were going to ruin it for me. This just sold me even more on the ESV. The word Διακονοσ literally means servant. An English speaker ought to know that one word can have multiple meanings, your Bible translation would make no sense in the broader theme of scripture.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@ashert4918]

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

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@peterjhamm]

People are likely to latch onto the familiar. For instance, the best way to translate John 3:16 starts with, not "For God so loved the world" but "For this is the way God loved the world". There IS a difference, but translators know that if they don't do it in the familiar fashion, nobody will buy the Bible or use it anyway... sad... This translation was created to appeal to a market, not to be an accurate 21st century English translation... at all. All you need to know about the supposedly new translation called the ESV is revealed in the copyright info. It is "adapted from" the RSV, not a new translation at all. They licensed the RSV and made it appealing to the complementarian, patriarchal base that was angry about the TNIV. And frankly, Crossway created this translation as a reaction against "inclusive language" (and other concerns) in other modern translations (too bad, because inclusive language is actually the correct way to translate into 21st century English). Their traditionalist agenda made it impossible for them to practice any kind of intellectual rigor with regard to translation, already deciding beforehand how they would translate, in essence... rendering the translation useless or worse to any serious student or preacher of Scripture.

[@biblegeek7]

Spot on! Thanks for watching and commenting! :)

[@miuaia1]

Thank you! Will watch more of this kind of analysis.

[@miuaia1]

Also, thank you for your patience in answering the comments. Please don't let it discourage you from your work.

[@biblegeek7]

Thank you so much for your encouragement and thank you for watching. :)

[@teachermike1947]

Hello from Cambodia! Great Channel! :)

[@biblegeek7]

Hi! Thanks for watching!

[@jamesanderson2876]

You are wrong in that you accuse the translators of adding anti woman bias to cut women out of leadership roles they actually had. The reason you do this is you are looking at it through the lens of modern culture. Their translation simply conformed more accurately to what the culture OF THAT DAY WAS ....male domination in specific leadership roles in the church. ....and is illustrated by the apostles, the missionaries, and the elders which held those positions. The term "leader in the church" can be as generic as the term servant. Then AND today women are vital to the church . If someone is going to make a big deal about you calling the a servant vs a leader there's a big part of what the NT teaches that you seem to have missed. Take your "modern day glasses" off and see it for what the church was as it functioned in the first century world and you will see the ESV for what it is...one of the best w for w translations available.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@filipcruz7688]

1. The ESV doesn't claim to be "Word for word" Crossways states this in its description of the ESV. "It embraces a word-for-word, or 'essentially literal,' translation philosophy. The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks, as far as possible, to reproduce the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer." 2. The only literal, word for word English language Bible I have ever found it "Young's Literal Translation". It is extremely difficult to read. 3. I like the ESV because it is one of the few English Bibles that incorporate the texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls wherever possible. 4. I agree, you should always use multiple Bibles when doing serious Bible study OR just buy Logos software.

[@biblegeek7]

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 :)

[@Gibeah]

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

[@Bildad1976]

Non-greek-reader here. In Bible college, I was taught (hopefully, correctly) that the word "deacon" is an English transliteration of the Greek word "διακονέω" (i.e., the English translators made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters), but it is correctly translated "servant". It appeared that the early church created a special class of official servants called... SERVANTS! (or, deacons). I was also taught (again, hopefully, correctly) that when the translators came to the Greek word βαπτίζω, ("baptizo"), they didn't translate it because of disputes over whether it should be translated "immerse", "sprinkle", "pour" or something else, so, again, they made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters, hence "baptize".

[@biblegeek7]

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).

[@michaelstrauss6587]

Just found your channel; subbed. I recently purchased an ESV; thanks for the insights. I so hunger for the purest Word.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching, and welcome to Bible Geek! :)

[@robertmsimpsonjr7455]

Compare it to the Greek and Hebrew yourself don't just take somebody else's word for it

[@michaelstrauss6587]

@@robertmsimpsonjr7455 I do and have for many years. I am responsible to do so as a preacher and teacher.

[@tradcath2976]

Lol! What a bunch of woke nonsense.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting

[@MO-bo2du]

The newer NIV revision says “Junia” and my study Bible even calls out explicitly that it’s a feminine name, while also providing more details about the history of this issue. It seems to be treated very well now.

[@biblegeek7]

Great! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@TheBinaryWolf]

According to professor Maurice Robinson, textual critic, scholar and editor of the Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon, 15% of the NIV is non-biblical. That is a lot of addition to Holy Writ.

[@biblegeek7]

@@TheBinaryWolf I would love to know how Robinson came to such a precise figure. When I compare the NIV to the original languages, I don't see a bunch of stuff added. Rather, I see a translation that is trying to communicate in simple English, and sometimes the Bible isn't simple, so they miss the mark. That said, I think it is an overstatement to say they have added 15% to the text. I don't even know how one would come to such a figure, because translation isn't a quantitative kind of thing. Translation isn't math, translation is interpretation.

[@joe1940]

I grew up hearing the old KJV and I've been using the NKJV for years, but recently I've been reading the ESV and so far I like it. I'm not a theologian or anything, I just noticed that a lot of pastors are switching to it and decided to give it a try.

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@MAMoreno]

The ESV is hardly unique in its handling of these verses. Romans 16.1 reads "servant" in the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, CSB, NET, CEB, MEV, and LSB (cf. TEV "who serves"). You can write most of those translations off as "conservative," but not the CEB. Romans 16.7 describes Junia as "known to the apostles" (or with similar wording) in the CEV, CSB, NET, NASB 2020, and LSB. Beyond that, Andronicus and Junia are referred to as "men" in the KJV, NKJV, NJB, and MEV. The variant Junias is used in the ASV, RSV, and NASB 1995; it is noted in the margin of the TEV, NRSV, and NLT. 1 Timothy 3.11 reads "wives" in the KJV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, CSB, NET, and MEV. Genesis 3.16 in the ESV 2016 follows the interpretation offered by scholar Susan Foh, whose work has also influenced the translation of this verse in the NLT and NET.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@MAMoreno]

@@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.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@MAMoreno]

@@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.)

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@apologeticsfromtheattic7131]

Thanks for the video. Romans 16:7 is interesting indeed. Is has massive range of translations, even among the KJV, CSB, NASB. Interesting that the LSB departs from the 1995 NASB by translating the dative as “outstanding to the apostles”, when the 1995 NASB translates it “among the apostles”.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@guitarfrk316]

Wow I knew about Junia but I didn’t know ESV translated ev tois consistently 100 other times! Awesome content Dain

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting Ryan.

[@samuelhutton1342]

Thanks for the content.:)

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@johnh.williams8470]

What you have said is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bible, on the whole, is patriarchal. Some translations add words to try to make the Bible seem more inclusive than it really is. The ESV does not try to hide the fact that the Bible patriarchal, but sometimes it goes overboard and makes it seem even more patriarchal than it is.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@chamuuemura5314]

@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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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."

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@angelinadegelder7722]

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

[@leechjim8023]

The nrsv has many problems, though. I use tbe nkj.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@BunsBooks]

I found this helpful, I ordered a Jesus Bible thats ESV cause I was curious about it and I got a good deal on it. I’ve never read ESV though. I am Eastern Orthodox so none of the issues mentioned here are news to me, church tradition has always upheld the understanding that Phoebe was a Deaconess, Junia was a female apostle, and that “patriarchy” (inequality in general) is a result of the fall. But now that I’m aware of the more conservative Protestant angle that this translation takes, I think I can better maneuver through this text. Thank you 🙏

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@c.g.j.h7265]

Excellent video presentation! I’m really impressed with your video editing skills. It was engaging and informative. You need to show me how to do this. Looking forward to more content from you, Dain! -Your coffee roasting neighbor:)

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching! I am glad you liked the video. Happy to show you some time. PS You roast the best coffee!

[@biblegeek7]

Mmm, coffee :)

[@c.g.j.h7265]

Lol. Thanks, bro.

[@c.g.j.h7265]

17k views! Wow!

[@kc6384]

I strongly suggest the NKJV or the Amplified 📖

[@Jackiexx77]

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

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@thedungeon1288]

You make an interesting points but I think this is one of those things that I would like to hear the other side of the opinion. What would an ESV scholar say in response.? Only then could your audience come to a more fair conclusion. I mean perhaps they translated this way because of what we know about the culture at that time. I do not know.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@thedungeon1288]

@@biblegeek7 Interesting. Thanks for your response

[@davidpetersonharvey]

Nothing is always the best translation. ESV seeks a balance between literal transfusion and original meaning.

[@biblegeek7]

If only everyone knew Greek and Hebrew.

[@marvinthemartian6788]

I have the esv and rarely use it. Upon Matthew Everhard’s advice I use three consistently( esv is one he recommends). I use kjv, nkjv, nasb. I never cared for the esv. It’s always felt extremely “ wooden” to me. My preferred translation is nkjv. I prefer Byzantine( majority)text over textus receptus or eclectic text. Great video

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@protochris]

The ESV does not deliberately skewer the text; it largely falls in line with the tradition of the King James Bible and adopts most of the methods of translation. I feel you bring a bias to the other translation examples, which cast the ESV in the wrong light. Everyone agrees 1 Tim chapter 3 is written in the context of "the office" of a deacon, as it does for an Bishop/Overseer (επισκοπος), but you avoided mentioning that. It also represents a later structure in the church than Romans 16:1, which is why some critics reject Timothy as Pauline. The other example of Romans 16:7 can easily be translated either way; to say that it's because it's in the dative case does not change the translation. First context, Andronicus and Junia(n) were Paul's kinfolk and "apostles" in Christ before him. If they were in the church before Paul, they would have been Jewish and not Gentile. So, how likely was it then to have an ordained female apostle within the Jewish patriarchy? Afterward, The phrase "εν τοις αποστολοις"can very easily be translated "to the apostles", just as when Paul says in 1 Gal 1:16 "that I might preach him (Christ) εν τοις εθνεσιν (to the Gentiles)". It's often translated "among", however "to the gentiles" does not change the meaning. The best argument for Junia as a female apostle does not come from the grammar, but the testimony of St. John Chrysostom.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@protochris]

@@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".

[@biblegeek7]

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. :)

[@dustinburlet7249]

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

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@bigd3721]

”Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.“ ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@biblegeek7]

That is indeed the KJV.

[@o0o_OutCast_o0o]

@@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.

[@AmericanSentinelK9Productions]

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.

[@Hope-cn1tm]

They nail the Genesis 3:16 translation. I can't recall which update they made that change in. They also give the alternate translation in a note. The NET Translation notes can help you out.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@Hope-cn1tm]

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

[@Agben35]

Thanks for this video. Just found it at the end of ‘23 and about to be using this exact study bible for ‘24. I had not heard these issues before. It does appear the ESV study bible addresses those issues in the notes, explaining the debate. Interesting, I had heard nothing but good things about the translation up to now. (Of course I’m one of those dastardly complimentarians) 😉

[@biblegeek7]

Hi, thanks for watching and commenting! You’re, of course, welcome to be complimentarian, I know many. I hope you will continue watching my videos, despite that difference. That said, these choices in the ESV are unjustified, and thus I made the video. One odd choice, here or there, is fine, but the consistency in the ESV is alarming. We should not translate the text in ways the serve a theological conclusion, but rather let the text inform our theological conclusions. In fact, one of my former pastors, who is complimentarian, reached out after watching the video and was surprised that the ESV had made these choices, as he was an NIV and NASB user. The texts highlighted in the video, when translated normally in other Bible translations, don’t cause problems for his theological conclusions. Also, I am by no means the first scholar to notice these problems. You can see many that I cite on the video conclusion. Though, I don’t think anyone had made a video on this topic before. Anyway, thanks for watching, and I hope you stay for more videos in the future.

[@DrBillHaberman]

Roman 16:7 The dative case used within a context make for a reasonable translation of to. If they were known among the apostles, they were known to the apostles. TO is a reasonable rendering of the text in context here. We need to be careful that we do not condemn translations because their rendering of the text disagrees with something that we presuppose or it does not promote something that we presuppose. I think you have done this here. There is no perfect translation. In the parallel consideration of several formal equivalence (modified literal) translations we will clarify any shortcomings in one particular version in a particular verse. Applying the basic principle that you are applying in this video you make it impossible to trust any of the translations. That is unless you have some special training in the original language. (By that I mean beyond accidence.) The new testament quotes the Greek Septuagint and calls it the word of God. It was not perfect and they were slight changes that were made under inspiration of the New Testament writers and speakers. Do not take the Greek language and make it a hindrance to receiving the word of God.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@DrBillHaberman]

@@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 .

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@DrBillHaberman]

@@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.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@David_Watts]

Gotta say, you quoting that Ben guy really creeped me out!! The dominant patriarchy is a product of The Fall?? Did i hear that correctly?? Is the patriarchy incorrect in its place because it somehow dominates women?? Somebody please help me understand this guy!! 🙏 p.s. I just looked up B.W. and discovered he's a Wesleyan Arminian...'nuff said. I get it now...

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@David_Watts]

@@biblegeek7 oh thanks

[@AmericanSentinelK9Productions]

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

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@AmericanSentinelK9Productions]

@@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.

[@denislamoureux6569]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@manuscus6289]

What would be the most accurate in your opinion?

[@biblegeek7]

I am going to assume you’re asking for accurate translation. Hard question, every translation has strengths and weaknesses. And accuracy of translation is hard to quantify, and language translation isn’t math. I always tell people, read whatever translation keeps you reading. For some that is the NRSV, NIV, NLT, or CEB. Others want a more wooden or clunky translation that follows the different kind of word order in Greek and Hebrew tree, and for that the NASB would be good. Or the KJV (but keep in mind the KJV is very old English, and is not using the best Greek manuscripts), that said the KJV is also a good translation considering it was translated 400 years ago. If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the SBL study Bible (NRSVue), or the Oxford annotated study Bible (NRSV), would be a good options. Those Bibles choose NRSV, not necessarily because it is the best, but probably because it is the “ecumenical” translation. So, the translation is working with people from multiple denominations and faith traditions, and because those Bible’s are trying to be more academically minded, so rhetorical editors would choose the translation that fits that perspective. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@tangle70]

KJV.

[@lemonster1]

Agree that most importantly Bible reading and studying should be done with many different translations. I recently acquired the NRSVUE and it is my go to over the RSV and NRSV now. I have the ESV but use it only to compare (same with NIV). Enjoyed the video and I really would like a video tour of your bookshelf! Recognized lots of titles I have 👍. Always fun to see what people are reading Thanks, Byron

[@biblegeek7]

Hi Byron. I am glad you enjoyed the video. I haven’t had a chance to check out the NRSVUE yet. I am usually reading my Greek New Testament and referencing translations. The first one I look at is usually NRSV, but it’s never limited to that one. And when I read the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament I will usually read whatever: Septuagint (ancient Greek translation), NRSV,NIV or others, and reference the Hebrew (while I know Hebrew, I am an NT scholar, so reading Hebrew is not my expertise). And, a tour of my book shelf. That’s a great idea. I have to say, my library is much bigger, but I started getting digital books because they are easier for research and moving books is not fun. Haha. That said, I may have to make a video about some of the books I find important on the shelf behind me. Anyway, thanks your watching and you comment. I really appreciate your engagement.

[@joshwitt1475]

The NRSV-UE states that the meaning of Arsenokoitai is uncertain which no preceding translation has had any trouble translating. The act as if, as if after hundreds of years we suddenly don’t know what it means. It is clearly culturally motivated to obscure the clear meaning that we have always known. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXuyqJKGpMSIf6M

[@cherilynhamilton746]

The real issue is 1881 Westcott and Hory changing the greek text away from God's truth. Changing doctrine!

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching.

[@wenceslausraymond4521]

Which bible translation is better brother? Any suggestions?

[@biblegeek7]

I suggest that people read multiple. NRSV, CEB, NIV, NKJV, NASB and more. Read whatever keeps you reading the Bible, and when you study it, read multiple translations or learn the original languages and then reference multiple translations. Thanks for watching and for both of your comments. :)

[@trishamann737]

This is awesome! Great depth of the language structure! I have become cautious as of late with the translations of the NIV post 1984-6 especially when in the newer one they completely altered John 3:21 from "through God" which reflects the teaching of Galatians 5 to a more humanistic "in God's sight". I recently bumped into the ESV translation change in Genesis 3:16 and that sent me digging for info on this translation because I knew that had to be newer. It has certainly made me cautious and I think I will be sticking with older translations like King James and keep testing anything especially the new!🙏

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting. The KJV is a great translation, for its time. If you are looking for a good study Bible to help understand the Bible, the SBL Study Bible is edited by some of the world’s best scholars, so definitely worth picking up.

[@trishamann737]

@@biblegeek7 Thanks so much! I'll look into that! I have noticed that in languages like Spanish and Russian, the text has had minimal revisions, which is interesting that English has so many. Thanks again!

[@KindomChums]

I’m seeing comments suggesting the gentlemen in the video “has malice” and “an agenda”. It blows me away that anyone could think such nonsense. He is sharing an opinion and if you actually listen to what he is saying you will find that he is innocently presenting a juxtaposition of translation. You may disagree with his view but it’s quite cruel the way some of you are going about it. Act your faith not your sin

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

[@markwest7928]

can't find a nickel's worth of difference between known to the brothers and known among the brothers.

[@biblegeek7]

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. :)

[@toddthacker8258]

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

[@biblegeek7]

@@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).

[@toddthacker8258]

@@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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.”

[@joshwitt1475]

It is important to note that “contrary to” in Genesis 3:16 is only in the latest update to the ESV in 2016. All ESV bibles since 2001 up to 2016 would not have this reading.

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@tedroybal5231]

It was well known that the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition was going to be published in 1995 in England. This really got the complementarians going in the U.S. They searched for an existing bible that would allow them to revise the text. Their intention from the onset was to push their complementarian agenga in the text. So, the RSV was revised and the result was the ESV.

[@biblegeek7]

Indeed! Thanks for commenting and watching :)

[@doseofreality100]

I think people get so wrapped up in translating Greek and Hebrew they forget the meaning of English words. They were known to the apostles and they were known among the apostles..... pretty much means the same thing. Among is a proposition. "Among the apostles" is a prepositional phrase. Meaning, you can move it around the sentence and it will still make sense. Like... "Among the apostles, they were known." Bottom line "among the apostles" is the prepositional phrase. What does among even mean? According to Webster.... in company or association with. So we can rewrite that phrase then as "they were known in the company of the apostles." In no way does that imply "they" were apostles. They... amongst (older version/ synonym of among) the apostles... were known. That's like saying "LeBron James was well known among the priests." That's not saying LeBron James was a priest... within their company/club. It's just saying... Within that group of people... that company... the priests... knew who LeBron James is. Just like the group... the company... the apostles knew who Andronicus and Junia were. Like "Bill Gates is well known among the video gamer crowd"..... in no way does that imply Bill Gates is a part of that video gamer crowd. This is why I say when it comes to Bible translations people can get a little insane... and no offense, dare I say stupid when it comes to the ENGLISH language and understanding THAT language.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@stvargas69]

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

[@biblegeek7]

@@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.

[@stephenfennell]

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.

[@biblegeek7]

@@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 (kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGPdqaqwlt-Mj6csi=cZqsVRgL0g4eusH5).

[@LudovicoCamarda66]

If you read the note on Gen.3:16 in the ESV Study Bible, you would understand that they are explicitly highlighting the conflict between man and women that rose as result of the fall. Clearly not an attempt to change God's word in favor of men. Concerning all your other comments: ESV appears to be very consistent with KJV, and NKJV (at least), while it seems that you are trying to make a point in favor of NRSV 🙂

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching.

[@Snoopy0310]

Thanks for the info about translation difference, I'm very familiar this issue

[@biblegeek7]

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching.

[@davidpetersonharvey]

I'll look forward to going through these in Greek when I'm off work.

[@biblegeek7]

Let me know what you find out, as a Greek prof. I am happy to chat about the Greek any day. :)

[@timotheus2020]

I can live very good with these "problems".

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching :)

[@AmericanSentinelK9Productions]

If you look at the KJV, 1 Timothy 3:11-12, you will see in verse 12 it refers to the deacon's wives...which therefore makes the deacon a male. Perhaps you need to study the KJV a bit more, and you will again see the male headship in the family.

[@biblegeek7]

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

[@AmericanSentinelK9Productions]

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

[@trevrockrock16]

Nah, they changed that too, if you didn't notice. They dodged that issue by changing verse 12 from, "a man of one wife" to "must be married only once". The twisted webs we weave when we practice to deceive.

[@wenceslausraymond4521]

The translation choice of Gen 3:16 in the Esv 2016 translation is adopted from NET translation.

[@biblegeek7]

Yes, I imagine the NET is why they made the change. It is unfortunate that they did, because the NET's choice was based on old scholarship from the 1970's that had a narrow research scope. Meanwhile in 2011, a much more thorough article was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature that concludes much differently.

[@dustinburlet7249]

@@biblegeek7 Well said - I appreciate your clarity here

[@davidwireback8621]

Thank you for your concise and clear discussion and pointing out the discrepancies or the biases of the ESV. It should be noted also that this translation was done mostly by Calvinist.

[@biblegeek7]

Yeah, I have heard that, but never looked into it personally. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

The ESV is also used extensively by a host of major denominations, churches, and church networks, including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Free Church, the Anglican Church in North America, the Presbyterian Church in America, and Acts 29.

[@eternalhalloween1]

The ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION is not my favorite. But it certainly destroys the obnoxiously gender inclusive NRSV. The ESV also tears the NIV to shreds.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@eternalhalloween1]

@@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.

[@robertoster4858]

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.

[@bigd3721]

”I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭16‬:‭1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@biblegeek7]

That is indeed the KJV.

[@ReformedDoc]

I use the ESV, LSB & NET 2nd addition, but i also have the NA28 with Sigla opened next to them as my primary Greek text. I usually do a quick study of the words & for Hebrew I have Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS-T) as my primary Hebrew text.

[@biblegeek7]

I also plan to make a video in the NET on the future. Some of their notes are interesting presentations of scholarship. Glad you have an NA28 and BHS. They are basically always open on my computer, and my physical copy of the NA28 or NA27 (my old one) is basically always open on my desk. And, my UBS4 Readers GNT is by my seat in my living room. So, glad you’re interacting with the original language. Keep it up! You may be interested in the new SBL study Bible. It is edited by world class scholars. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

[@ReformedDoc]

@@biblegeek7 The UBS 5 is my secondary, we have been asking Accordance to do the NRSVue translation with Strong's tagging, I think I will through this in as a request with the information they need.

[@janetbillington286]

Thank you!

[@biblegeek7]

Thank you for watching :)

[@ryanlanders6893]

This is Christianity's biggest problem, armchair scholars thinking they know more than thousands of years of scholarship and tradition. They then go and start their own "non denominational" church and teach their own "interpretation".

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for your comment and for watching. Indeed, it’s a huge problem. And that’s why I wanted to highlight the ESV’s problems. The ESV is only about 20 years old, and they propose translations that go against centuries of scholarship and tradition that says otherwise. Additionally, complementarian theology is also only like 60ish years old. Catholic and Orthodox churches don’t have women priests, but they definitely have women in ministry, and that’s because they get to male church leadership differently than complementarian Protestants. Also, there is numerous examples of women being priests in Catholic Churches in the first 1000 years of church history, so the current stance of the Catholic Church isn’t what it has always been. See, “Mary and Early Christian Women” a book written by a Catholic Church historian. www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3

[@joeangular]

Concerning the word diakonos. Look at the usage in the NT. It is used all over the NT clearly meaning "servant". You have to consider the context of 1 Tim 3. Paul speaks about offices - episkopos and diakonos. The second point you make is also not correct because the juxtaposition of the "Women" in v. 11 is not "men" but deacons. So it is not question of sexes as you make it to be. Again it is correct translation. In the time of Paul it was quite popular to push women into leadership. For example the cult of Diana (feminism is nothing new nor progressive) pushed the idea that women should rule the society. It was great problem in Corinthian church. But clearly you have your agenda. :D

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@joeangular]

@@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.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@GuilleTerrazas]

Really good video!

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@israelrivera3009]

Excellent video! ,.....I would appreciate your thoghts on: 1.- Most accurate Bible Translations 2.- Best Study Bibles

[@biblegeek7]

Thank you for your kind comments and for watching the video. 1) everyone translation has strengths a weaknesses. Read whatever one is easiest for you to understand, and compare it with other translations when you have questions or confusion (NRSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, CEB, are all good, and more). 2) the Oxford annotated NRSV study Bible, also the New Interpreter’s Study Bible, and the CEB study Bible. All of those are useful and from more diverse scholarship than the ESV study Bible.

[@tyronedawson8553]

Since their were no women apostles it seems arcurate to me.

[@biblegeek7]

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.”

[@tyronedawson8553]

@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.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@tyronedawson8553]

@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.

[@3ggshe11s]

Mary Magdalene was the Apostle to the Apostles.

[@ovando48]

LSB and ESV the best .

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching,

[@servant_symm]

LSB is peak

[@oneday3857]

So what’s a good translation what’s your opinions on the NLT

[@biblegeek7]

In my experience I have enjoyed the way they simplify some of the syntax and tricky vocabulary, but I haven’t used the NLT much. I always tell people to read the version that keeps them reading, and when you have a question about a passage, open up multiple translations.

[@eskulmo]

They translated Genesis 3:16 poorly, the same as the ESV. I would rather read the Living Bible, the predecessor of the NLT

[@oneday3857]

@@biblegeek7 well I just purchased the esv and I have the King James Version with the apocrypha and the nlt I’m enjoying the nlt it’s keeps me reading people always have there opinions on translation only because everyone else have different IQ so sometimes there vocabulary is more greater than others

[@hoc1992]

What are you’re favorite translations?

[@biblegeek7]

I reference the NRSV probably the most often. And then after that I will also look at NIV and CEB and NKJV and others.

[@hoc1992]

@@biblegeek7 Nice. Thanks for getting back. Just wanted your perspective. I do have 1 ESV and I am a fan of it, but I rarely read it. Mine are the NASB '95, LSB, and NKJV - I do have many different translations but those lately are my top 3

[@thepickle5214]

The nrsv is a funky translation, I never trusted it before and I think this video has solidified my opinion on it

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching :)

[@davidtoop3990]

I could not have the NRSV as my go-to. But I now include it in my Top 3 after watching a scholar on KZbin. 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

[@thepickle5214]

@@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

[@thepickle5214]

@@biblegeek7 Thanks for the video

[@linken3280]

Actually, these examples seem to be representative of what is good about the ESV when compared to the NRSV. Not usually an apologist for the ESV, but this video seems to be an apologetic for women's leadership in the church.

[@biblegeek7]

I chose the NRSV alongside the ESV because both are updates to the RSV. Thanks for watching.

[@ThisisPam]

Don’t be mad, just bring alternative scholarship instead of unfounded accusation.

[@jasonfishburnmusic]

So Ken, you prefer your ideology as supported by the intentionally deceptive folks behind the ESV over biblical accuracy and authenticity?

[@jmcgregor316]

I grew up with the RSV. After reviewing your thoughts, I feel the NRSV has the most proper treatment of women. Thank you.

[@biblegeek7]

Thank you for your kind words and for watching. :)

[@marksweeting24]

I appreciate your points. Having been involved in the work of Bible translation, I came to realize that "word for word" doesn't really exist. Way to often choices made from several options. For course having Grudem involved and Piper endorsing, one expects a bit of bias concerning passages dealing with women. I am also assuming that the 100 translators represent a small demographic.

[@biblegeek7]

Indeed, I realized the same when I learned the original languages. And, you’re suspicions about Grudem and Piper and the other translators is correct. The article I reference by Sam Perry actually discusses the origins of the translation historically, and shows that this bias was a large contributor to the translation and outright stated by those involved. So, this version was biased from the start. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)

[@kainech]

It certainly is inconsistent with their translation philosophy, but the cases in Genesis and I Timothy are rather defensible. The sense of אל there is not positive. Every pronouncement of God to every character is negative in the fall narrative. I can see the sense of "for" being one of strife and disharmony. Marital strife is just as much a theme in the patriarchal narratives as marital domination, so that either or both is a possible reading. The biggest problem is not the interpretation they have but their clarifying when "for" was suitably ambiguous. In I Tim 3, it transitions to deacons after a discussion of bishops/presbyters. The sense of the passage is the office. It begins describing appropriate behavior, then moves to declaring he must "rule his own house well." It then moves to deacons and repeats similar standards in v 8-10. It moves to "γυναῖκας likewise," and directly parallels the place of ruling the house above and pairs this with a deacon must be the "husband of one wife" μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες. With no contextual change, the sense of γυνή should be the same: wife. The only gripe I would have is that "their" is not justified, due to the absence of both pronoun and article. Readers are capable of inferring who the wives are. This is not a severe problem, though, because the meaning of the text is unchanged. The translation problem in I Tim 3 is the NRSV, not the ESV. "Women" is simply not the sense being used in the passage, and it doesn't say "married once" γαμοῦντες ֲ⁠ἄπαξ or something similar but μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες "husband of one wife." The contrast in gender was intended by the author. I don't think the NRSV's reading is not defensible. I know it's come in vogue with scholarship, but when culture shifts, that will change too. He could have said "married once" and didn't. I would share your criticism of Rom 16, though. Deaconesses are well attested in the earliest days of the Church and only transitioned out with changing roles of baptism and deacons. "In the church" makes it quite clear it's an ecclesiastical office in at least some communities. Marginal notes in virtually every translation are consistently bizarre and unjustifiable. This is the place where translators can push their least defensible ideas (and typically do) since it's technically not part of the text. I don't think most translations' translational footnotes are beneficial to the average reader. The biggest fault I find with the ESV in your passages is market-speak. Overwhelmingly, people who say they have a "word for word" translation are selling beachfront property in Kansas. It's designed to sucker people who don't realize that "word for word" would be outright gibberish and isn't possible for a translation. It's fundamentally a lie.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and your extensive comment. :)

[@dale5497]

Different translations translate it differently. It even appears in the Greek. In any event, scripture is clear elsewhere…the pastorate isn’t open to women. Or unqualified men (most of us) for that matter.

[@biblegeek7]

Thanks for watching and commenting. In my future videos, I plan to go into more detail about specifically women in ministry. Feel free to watch those in the future to see my interpretation. :)

[@tradcath2976]

@@biblegeek7 "Women in ministry." Yeah, we have 2,000 years of consistent tradition against this. Just saying.

[@biblegeek7]

@@tradcath2976 Thanks for your comment and for watching the video. Sorry, it is not true that there is 2000 years of consistent church tradition of women not being in ministry, even Catholic Church historians note that women did ministry in the first 1000ish years of the church. Check out "Mary and Early Christian Women." This is written by a Catholic scholar, who works at a Catholic university, and the book is a product of the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research. This book notes numerous paintings, carvings, and more that show women wearing clerical garb and even offering the sacraments. So, the tradition you have been told, isn't accurate. I plan on making a video on this in the future, so you could also subscribe and see my discussion in that future video. That said, the book is free on amazon kindle because the research has been made open access. Link below. www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9Y34UW76AKI5&keywords=mary+and+early+christian+women&qid=1680114759&sprefix=Marry+and+early+chr%2Caps%2C164&sr=8-1

[@MrZORROish]

Is there such a thing as "the pastorate"? I think not in the Bible. There are elders (plural not a boss) and there are pastors as part of the range of ministers Christ gave to the church - equal to not superior to the apostles, prophets, teachers and evangelists. Get rid of this non-biblical head of the pyramid, understand that as over half of most congregations are female, (and that no male "leader" with a brain would deprive himself of the wise counsel of saintly women, his own wife especially) there is a strong case for women as part of a corporate leadership. Inconveniently, God seems to be willing to entrust leadership to women - presumably not allowing the dereliction of duty by men to prevent him pastoring his flock - as well as evangelising, teaching and preaching to them, and leading them to plant new churches. My point is some men want to monopolise church leadership for themselves then when men cannot be found to fill, or sadly to remain in, the posts it seems they prefer to see them empty.

[@dale5497]

@@MrZORROish Understand, I meant Elders. There is NO biblical warrant for a woman teaching over a man. That said, who said women can't be leaders? Plenty of leading needed in churches, including of children and amongst the community of sisters.

[@ChericeGraham]

As bad as these problems are, they're not the worst. The ESV also tries to foist the heretical ESS (eternal subordination of the Son) view onto the text, especially in the prologue to the Gospel of John.

[@biblegeek7]

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.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Every time I see the word “behold” awkwardly placed within the text….

[@biblegeek7]

Behold, thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@blackham7]

What's the best translation that has the readability of the NLT but some of the stylistic shakespearean English of other translations. I like the NLT but some of the wordsmithing in other translations is beautiful.

[@Nick-wn1xw]

NIV is probably the closest to what you are looking for.

[@biblegeek7]

Yeah, I would say the NIV is the most readable. The NRSV also has some of the more Shakespearian style, but it is a bit more complicated to read.

[@PinkFloyd28394]

The best part of this video is that you tell people to use multiple translations, not just one. I usually do not like watching videos where people just pick flaws in translations. Because most are just everyday people claiming they know everything, etc. I took this video and others like this with a grain of salt. Let’s be honest here, there is absolutely no perfect translation of the Bible, there never will be. Unless the Lord himself comes and sets it straight. You said exactly what I tell and encourage people to do use multiple translations, but to warned there are bad translations out there that do exist.

[@biblegeek7]

Yeah, the best case scenario is that everyone acquires facility in Greek and Hebrew, but not everyone has the chance, haha. So, the next best thing is to engage multiple translations. Indeed, no translation is perfect, and everyone has issues, but what makes the ESV unique is its consistently poor choices when women’s roles are involved. So, people need to be aware of that. And, while I am not the first to talk about it, many people won’t read the random article or blog post by a scholar, but a video is a bit more accessible, and so, this was made. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@PinkFloyd28394]

@@biblegeek7 Even if people did have the opportunity to acquire facility in Greek and Hebrew that still raises controversial translation. Because people interpret that a different way. Each translation out there has their own unique way of translation. I could pick a flaw in every Bible translation out there, that people should be aware of. That is a video I would like to see. I appreciate your input on the ESV selection of verses. I will check in time to time to see what other content you put out.

[@biblegeek7]

Yeah, people knowing Greek and Hebrew doesn’t erase translation issues, it creates readers who understand the complexities of translation, and hopefully leads to more humble readers and interpreters (when taught well). I hope you enjoy my other videos when you drop by time to time :)