ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Robert wrote:
Valerie wrote:The problem is Robert- the Church practiced headcovering for 2000 years now- MOST denominations dropped it in the last century- this had nothing to do with 1st century custom at all, only a 'misunderstanding' of it-

Now that sounds like you are teaching to me. 8-)

No, again, I shared EO teaching which preceded Anabaptist teaching, but they both agree on headcovering- this is not 'my' own interpretations, or teaching- sharing historical Church teaching on it- :)
Valerie wrote:This is why I supplied the teaching from EO who would disagree with what you said regarding this- I don't know if you took the time to actually read the link or not, but I find it quite good, and truthful-
I read it and took into account many of the cultural practices that the EO does. Many which are NOT in scripture. I have no big issue with them. I just do not pick and choose, but look at the entire picture as best I can.

But THIS one IS in Scripture- and they continued throughout this 2000 Church age (although in some EO churches many women don't do it, their choice) but just as those who add their own understandings which are outside of Scripture, EO practices that which the APostles taught that they didn't necessarily 'write down' (2 Thessalonians 2:15) plus since the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church, the Church was in the process of being 'built'-
Josh wrote:The New Testament sure is out of date. It needs to get with the times. Human beings are really enlightened now, not like those savages 2,000 years ago.
So sarcasm is allowed in scripture now? I missed that verse. :P

He is making a point because it gets frustrating to contend for the faith in modern days
Josh wrote:When those churches were part of the General Conference or of the old Mennonite Church, they wanted to be more like the world in the 1950s and 1960s, and so started dressing like the world, things like the veiling became inconvenient, and they wanted to be involved with radio and to watch TV. So as they embraced all those things, eventually they got rid of the veiling since it forces you to look different with a visible sign you are a Christian and obey the New Testament.
GC was from Russian Mennonites who did not require headcoverings because they were not their culture to use them. MC looked at the verses and tried to apply the principle instead of the letter of the law to life. MC had done away with the requirement many years before the merger.
Josh wrote:We can see how that played out in the present day situation in MC USA.
While I am no great fan of MCUSA, I think this is an unfair and condescending statement. Head coverings has little to do with the issues in MCUSA presently. The issue is how do we apply the principle while still staying true to the teaching in scripture. Since this takes interpretation, there will ALWAYS be differing perspectives.

Again he is making a point- as soon as a denomination decides to discard certain passages as 'old fashioned' then they go in a direction that leads to complete Apostasy- which- was prophesied would happen in the last days:

2 Timothy 4:3King James Version (KJV)

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Careful with the splinter in someone else's eye when we have logs in our own. Someone really witty said that some time ago. I wonder if he was being sarcastic too?
Is disobedience, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit modern day preferences considered a 'splinter' Robert? I am not convinced that is the case. Yes we all need to remove the logs/beams from our own eyes before pointing out the splinters in others- but I don't think that passage applies to changing Scripture interpretation to fit our own preferences- when we have historic evidence of the actual interpretations and practices for 2000 years.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote:In other words the early days of MCUSA didn't embrace this modern idea that it was a 1st century practice like slavery, etc- they actually DID use to teach it, but then dropped it?
The MC USA didn't exist until 1995.

Churches that are part of MC USA now come from a variety of backgrounds; the one where I live was part of the Conservative Amish-Mennonite Conference for half of the 20th century and practiced the veiling and taught it back then. Nowadays, it doesn't teach it at all.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

Valerie wrote:No, again, I shared EO teaching which preceded Anabaptist teaching, but they both agree on headcovering- this is not 'my' own interpretations, or teaching- sharing historical Church teaching on it-
Image

Share, Show. Are they really different?
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

Valerie wrote:Again he is making a point- as soon as a denomination decides to discard certain passages as 'old fashioned' then they go in a direction that leads to complete Apostasy-
So we should return to slavery and wives as slaves to husbands, not allowed outdoors unless accompanied by a male fromt heir family?
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by lesterb »

Valerie wrote:
lesterb wrote:If I remember correctly Luther's translation said the same thing. That is one reason the Old Order Mennonites don't allow unmarried girls to be covered except for church.
Thanks lesterb
Hm. Interesting. For that I am thankful to know the Orthodox teaching about it- and that they do go back 2000 years so it is settled that it is NOT limited to married women. Of course, they didn't and don't use Luther's translations- but at least learning their teachings and the ancient ones removes that element of 'wives' only.

But also this understanding that 'was' a 1st century custom-

who gives them the authority to know this to be true??? Or to teach that it was??? :evil:
so what- for 1900 years all women covered, and they were misinformed that they could have dropped this centuries before? It's only been the last century that women really dropped it!

Sound doctrine- we need Sound Doctrine! I guess I felt like we had been lied to, when we took the time to seek truth about it- maybe it's taught in ignorance these days, the modern translation- not blatant lying. But it bothers me.
My understanding is that old Russian Bible would have said the same thing as Luther did.

I would be a bit slow to accuse people of deliberately translating false doctrine into a version. That is probably the case with the New World translation, but translators need to make many judgment calls, and you will never find a version that agrees with you in every case. The KJV is fine, providing you realize that it uses archaic word meanings in places, and is written in Elizabethan English. Personally, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that the ESV takes a lax view of translation. But when I really want to know what a passage means I look at four or five translations and compare them. I think it is a bit naive to think that we can avoid translation controversies simply be sticking to the KJV.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by lesterb »

The NET note on woman in 1 Cor 11:3 states this:
N2 tn Or "the husband is the head of his wife." The same Greek words translated "man" and "woman" can mean, as determined by context, "husband" and "wife" respectively. Such an approach is followed by NAB, TEV, NRSV, and NLT (with some variations).
In this case all the other versions that I commonly use disagree with the ESV, including the NET. But the translators of the NET agree that it is a judgment call between the two renderings, not a matter of being right or wrong. I feel that the ESV makes the "wrong" choice here. But whether wife or woman is called for in this case is really moot. Many women in Christendom ignore this passage whether they are married or not.

I agree that sometime knowing the understanding of the audience can help. But the Bible is above and beyond culture, and culture is sometimes used as an excuse to ignore clear Bible teaching.

The MC USA didn't go astray because they dropped the covering. They went astray because of their attitude towards biblical teaching in general. Which included this topic, but also a lot more.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Robert »

lesterb wrote:I agree that sometime knowing the understanding of the audience can help. But the Bible is above and beyond culture, and culture is sometimes used as an excuse to ignore clear Bible teaching.
While I agree with most of what you said, I want to remind everyone that language is a cultural thing. That is why we have so many different languages. Each culture has it's own. Scripture is written in languages that are not from our culture. Even the languages change and cultures change in the Old Testament. We see slight changes int he NT, but not as pronounced since it was all written in a much closer time frame. Neither the OT or NT was dropped out of the sky in Heavenly language. Both were written by humans who were immersed in their cultures. Many idioms and cultural sayings were used throughout scripture. This is why a verse is seldom understood completely by it self. We need the context of the verses around it and an understanding of the culture it was written for.

Now, to the KJV. It was written to justify some of the lifestyle of King James at the time. Early Anabaptists would not use it. They used the Geneva Bible. Many of the puritans and other early settlers came to the US because they were being forced to use the KJV and they felt it was not honoring the original text in many areas. Now, 300+ years later, those same types say the KJV is the best translation and only way to go. How funny is that?

George Santayana-Quotes
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Robert wrote:
Valerie wrote:No, again, I shared EO teaching which preceded Anabaptist teaching, but they both agree on headcovering- this is not 'my' own interpretations, or teaching- sharing historical Church teaching on it-
Image

Share, Show. Are they really different?
Of course! On a discussion forum, sharing what someone else teaches isn't teaching, it's sharing- I think that if these were my understandings and I'm trying to teach them to you as 'student' or to take authority over you - then we're going into teaching, at least this is what makes sense to me. If someone is sharing something with me, I don't necessarily equate that with them being a teacher in authority to teach me- can I learn from someone this way? Sure- maybe they are too close for comfort at times but I am not sharing my interpretations, they were interpreted before me.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:The NET note on woman in 1 Cor 11:3 states this:
N2 tn Or "the husband is the head of his wife." The same Greek words translated "man" and "woman" can mean, as determined by context, "husband" and "wife" respectively. Such an approach is followed by NAB, TEV, NRSV, and NLT (with some variations).
In this case all the other versions that I commonly use disagree with the ESV, including the NET. But the translators of the NET agree that it is a judgment call between the two renderings, not a matter of being right or wrong. I feel that the ESV makes the "wrong" choice here. But whether wife or woman is called for in this case is really moot. Many women in Christendom ignore this passage whether they are married or not.
It wasn't just that they exchanged woman to wife- but the fact that their footnote claimed it to be a 1st century practice, to veil, by married women-

Is there some part of history that would make that a true statement, therefore not making it misleading by making that the case?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by Valerie »

Robert wrote:
Valerie wrote:Again he is making a point- as soon as a denomination decides to discard certain passages as 'old fashioned' then they go in a direction that leads to complete Apostasy-
So we should return to slavery and wives as slaves to husbands, not allowed outdoors unless accompanied by a male fromt heir family?
Slavery was not a 'spiritual ordinance' it was something that was happening at that time
the teaching of the headcovering has spiritual significance, and meaning- which would be timeless.
0 x
Post Reply