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 »

Josh wrote:
Valerie wrote:if Alistair Begg has an issue with it because he sees it as a stumbling block by way of evangelizing- I wouldn't be surprised.
So, be like the world to win the world? I don't see where the Bible says we can ignore a part of scripture just because it makes evangelising hard. The gospel is indeed foolishness to men - and even describes itself as a stumbling block.
Do you know if that is why MCUSA dropped the practice? I remember visiting a couple Mennonite Churches in Holmes where I was the only one wearing a covering (or in one case, there was one other woman covering)- assuming this would have been MCUSA
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 »

I would disagree. Much of scripture HAS to be taken with the cultural context that it was written in. What they say is correct. A married woman would cover as a sign that they were married, just as we wear wedding rings now as a sign we are married. There was other ways of dressing that denoted things then. We would not really get them because, like all cultures, subtle things speak to that culture and are missed by others.

Even the EO recognize that much of scripture has to be "interpreted" or understood int he context that it was written. Wife beating and slavery was allowed way back. Should we say that it is okay now because scripture does not speak against it?

A woman should not teach. Are you teaching right now?

We have to be careful what we pick and choose ourselves. Either we take it all literal, or we have to understand that all scripture has a cultural lens that it has to be read through.
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:I would disagree. Much of scripture HAS to be taken with the cultural context that it was written in. What they say is correct. A married woman would cover as a sign that they were married, just as we wear wedding rings now as a sign we are married. There was other ways of dressing that denoted things then. We would not really get them because, like all cultures, subtle things speak to that culture and are missed by others.

Even the EO recognize that much of scripture has to be "interpreted" or understood int he context that it was written. Wife beating and slavery was allowed way back. Should we say that it is okay now because scripture does not speak against it?

A woman should not teach. Are you teaching right now?

We have to be careful what we pick and choose ourselves. Either we take it all literal, or we have to understand that all scripture has a cultural lens that it has to be read through.
No I am not teaching right now, I am sharing what I have been taught- not my 'own' interpretations.
That is the difference-

EO has this to say: (Since this HAS been taught there for 2000 years now)

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 ... coverings/
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 I am not teaching right now, I am sharing what I have been taught- not my 'own' interpretations.
That is the difference-

EO has this to say: (Since this HAS been taught there for 2000 years now)

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 ... coverings/
For 2000 years in the Orthodox Church, the tradition has been for women and girls to veil their heads during worship, whether at church for the liturgy, or at home for family prayer time.
And the culture this came from was a place that had woman veil their heads as a sign of servitude and ownership of their husband. At that time, a wife was just one notch up from house slave. Shall we return to that?

In Acts 15, the early Christian Church broke away from many cultural expressions of Judaism. Men were required to pray with their heads covered. Paul writes that they should pray with their heads uncovered. Clearly a break from culture.

We are so used to many of the cultural aspects used in the 1st century, that we can not always easily separate what is holy and what is cultural. We also miss some of the nuances that are in scripture. Any translation will loose some detail, but if we stay focused on the purpose of the practice, we can find ways to apply it in our culture.

And all teachers share what they have been taught. We all learn and teach. Even staying silent will not take away your ability to teach someone if they can observe you also. Learning by example.

And lastly, the EO supported slavery 2000 years ago. SO not everything accepted back then can be used to set practice today. This is why Jesus told the Disciples what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven. He knew they would have to figure things out as they went.
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.
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: ESV Translation on 1 Corinthians 11

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
Josh wrote:Here's what Luther said, and keep in mind these words are fairly archaic and have a very different meaning now ("Weib" in particular pretty much a rude word in modern German):
Ich lasse euch aber wissen, daß Christus ist eines jeglichen Mannes Haupt; der Mann aber ist des Weibes Haupt; Gott aber ist Christi Haupt.
A modern, vernacular German translation does this:
Eine Sache allerdings möchte ich zur Sprache bringen, weil ihr darüber offensichtlich noch nicht Bescheid wisst: Der Mann Ich will aber, dass ihr wisst: Jeder Mann. hat Christus als Haupt über sich, die Frau hat den ihren. Mann als Haupt über sich, und Christus hat Gott als Haupt über sich.
"Frau" is a lot closer in meaning to "γυνε", which can mean wife, woman, unmarried woman, virgin, bride - just like our own English word "woman".

(If someone is more skilled in Greek than I am, please feel free to correct anything I said.)
It SEEMS to me then, that what's being done in translations like ESV- is that they are picking which 'word' fits what they want to convey in this case- obviously, 'woman' seems to be one of the choices, but they are in this case, choosing 'wife' where they want to say 'wife'- and also applying it to 1st Century wives at that- I imagine 15th century Luthern followers, of the female gender, covered their heads!
One of the questions that arises, I guess, is if Paul is saying that any man is the head of any woman, or if he is saying that the husband is the head of the wife.
The nature of the Greek word is such that it can be translated as wife or woman, depending on the immediate context.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
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 I am not teaching right now, I am sharing what I have been taught- not my 'own' interpretations.
That is the difference-

EO has this to say: (Since this HAS been taught there for 2000 years now)

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 ... coverings/
For 2000 years in the Orthodox Church, the tradition has been for women and girls to veil their heads during worship, whether at church for the liturgy, or at home for family prayer time.
And the culture this came from was a place that had woman veil their heads as a sign of servitude and ownership of their husband. At that time, a wife was just one notch up from house slave. Shall we return to that?

In Acts 15, the early Christian Church broke away from many cultural expressions of Judaism. Men were required to pray with their heads covered. Paul writes that they should pray with their heads uncovered. Clearly a break from culture.

We are so used to many of the cultural aspects used in the 1st century, that we can not always easily separate what is holy and what is cultural. We also miss some of the nuances that are in scripture. Any translation will loose some detail, but if we stay focused on the purpose of the practice, we can find ways to apply it in our culture.

And all teachers share what they have been taught. We all learn and teach. Even staying silent will not take away your ability to teach someone if they can observe you also. Learning by example.

And lastly, the EO supported slavery 2000 years ago. SO not everything accepted back then can be used to set practice today. This is why Jesus told the Disciples what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven. He knew they would have to figure things out as they went.
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-
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-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23807
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 »

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.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23807
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:Do you know if that is why MCUSA dropped the practice? I remember visiting a couple Mennonite Churches in Holmes where I was the only one wearing a covering (or in one case, there was one other woman covering)- assuming this would have been MCUSA
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.

We can see how that played out in the present day situation in MC USA.
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 »

Josh wrote:
Valerie wrote:Do you know if that is why MCUSA dropped the practice? I remember visiting a couple Mennonite Churches in Holmes where I was the only one wearing a covering (or in one case, there was one other woman covering)- assuming this would have been MCUSA
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.

We can see how that played out in the present day situation in MC USA.
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?
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: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-)
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.
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
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.

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?
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.
Post Reply