i find it wonderful that these men can meet together and discuss such an important subject in such a godly and humble way, and of course doing everything through pray as well. Brilliant
Was thinking the same. Would love to just sit through that. Wow! I went to Theological College and we had many debates but never with the best of the best. My only question... Are they filled with the Holy Spirit and power of God. Are their personal lives on fire for Jesus? Do they have a beautiful loving relationship with Him? Do they live lives of upmost love and integrity towards God and others? I'm praying yes to all 🙏💕
I'm amazed, frankly, that a video such as this, exists at all! Thanks for posting it. I wonder if there are others like this, from this type of forum? It's quite interesting to see the folks involved, and to hear the thought process that goes along with the work. Also as supposed, I'm glad to see that they, as a collective, commit all that they did and are doing, to God.
This is very interesting, and I appreciate the attempt at openness, transparency, and the behind the scenes look at the process that ultimately results in the production of perhaps the best Bible version of our time.The ESV has grown within a short space of time, and I really believe that it is the Bible of the future.It is therefore only a matter of time before it surpasses the NIV, and ultimately the much respected, but sadly often idolized KJV.While I love and appreciate my ESV, I do not idolize it, and neither am I under any illusion that a perfect Bible exists anywhere on the face of the earth, so from time to time I also use the NKJV to compare, or just to get a different perspective.I use my ESV Bible for personal devotions, for study, for memorising, and as an Evangelist, I use it for ministry.Thank you LORD Jesus, thank you Crossway, and thank you to these fine gentlemen.
Just bought a pocket ESV. I also have 2 NIVs, a KJV, an NKJV, and my wife reads an HCSB. I'm using the ESV more and more (though I usually sit with more than one translation open just to cross reference). But I'm really liking the ESV, and it's making me want to buy a full size study version.
For those disputing about being a slave, not a slave, etc. Let the Scripture speak to us. Galatians 4:7 "So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God."
Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to bring scholars and biblical language experts across the cultural spectrum to determine this? Are there Semitic people in that group since we are dissecting a Greek rendering to what is really a Semitic faith?
i think it's so wonderful to see such humble and god-fearing men who devote so much time and attention in order to make sure that God's scriptures can be made available in every day language. God bless you men
I would’ve voted for the word “slave” if you read the Bible in its entirety you find that it is an honor to be a slave to Christ. You are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. If you take time to consider what that means than you realize that we cannot serve two masters. As far as the word slave having a bad history, it is not God that caused that but man. We should not alter the translation because of man’s sin.
Good to see a room full of good men wrestling with the meaning of words, in order to translate the Word in a way that is unambiguous for contemporary readers.
thelastroadrunner: Totally agree! No one has ever found a doctrinal error in the King James Version. But, then again, no one has ever found a doctrinal error in the New King James or the 1599 Geneva Bible either. The former is written in clearer contemporary language for today's reader who no longer speaks the Elizabethan English. And the latter is older than the King James Version and was translated by Reformers and early Puritans--many of whom suffered harsh persecution and even death in order to translate the inerrant Scriptures into English. Suffering persecution for translating the Hebrew and Greek texts into the language of their day is something the translators of the King James Version did not do. Just sayin'.
Anthony Reid QUOTE- "Totally agree! No one has ever found a doctrinal error in the King James Version. But, then again, no one has ever found a doctrinal error in the New King James or the 1599 Geneva Bible either." Example of doctrinal differences between the King James Bible and the NKJV- Acts 4.27 (KJV) - For of a truth against thy *holy child* Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (Deity of Christ expressed) Acts 4.27 (NKJV) - For truly against Your *holy Servant* Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together (Deity of Christ obscured) Example of historical difference between the King James Bible and the Geneva - 2nd Sam 21.19 (KJV) - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the *brother of Goliath* the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (David killed Goliath). 2nd Sam 21.19 (Geneva) - And there was yet another battel in Gob with the Philistims, where Elhanah the sonne of Iaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite slewe *Goliath* the Gittite: the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame. (David did not kill Goliath) Only one translation can have it right. David killed Goliath and Jesus is God's Child. The King James Bible is the inerrant Words of God in the English language.
+thelastroadrunner No doctrinal error compared to what? Don't get me wrong, the KJV is my favorite along with the NKJV. The KJV is a translation brother. It wasn't the first, not by far, and it was a government mandated Bible by a king who was a Mason (document fact. He is listed in Masonic register) and who had other questionable proclivities. The KJV has had many revisions and there are mis-translations in it as well along with parts of Revelation that were "translated" from a commentary of the time. The Textus Receptus itself had five versions of the manuscript alone. The word Easter is in the KJV once to this day (Acts 12:4) when it should say Passover. All I'm saying is that if God chose the KJV as His sole inherent and infallible word, there would have never been one single mistake in its ever, it wouldn't have originally contained the Apocryphal books as found in Catholic bibles and it would not have had masonic handshakes all over the pages in the woodcuts. Only the original manuscripts which were penned by the hand of man as God breathed out the words are inherent. No translation is infallible and inherent.
So sad to see these men assume the reader is and will remain uneducated. They help us put our world into the word of God instead of stating the word of God as inspired by God.
It'll be an honor to even just sit in and listen to them. Very inspiring. I'm a seminary student and I dream to become a Bible Scholar like them someday :) PS: btw, I agree with the majority vote. The right translation should really be Bond-servant :)
I see this is BBC , I cannot find online the full documentary or where this is from. I would love love a full length version. They should have the full recordings even in audio when they have done these committees to do a translation. It’s so fascinating and would be helpful of how they came to the choices they did
@terriergal English readers see the word "slave" (especially in the US) and assume it's talking about a permanent, racial relationship that generally involves abuse. That is the wrong impression. If the literal word gives people the wrong impression, it can be worthwhile to at least consider an alternative wording.
I think it’s sad to change the proper meaning simply because non believers who are ignorant in any basic understanding of historic words and also history in general. If they actually read the Bible and saw this they’d ask wow slaves? And any Christian would educate them as to what “slaves” were in OT and NT history.
@@Texasguy316 Every translation prioritizes multiple aims, such as clarity/ease of reading, liturgical flow (iambic pentameter), or other concerns. What matters is what goals a given translation prioritizes, and how well they achieve those goals. Overall, IMO, the ESV mostly achieves what it sets out to do.
I imagine if this was also the process that the KJV translators did back in 1611. I'm not a KJV-only person. I'm just trying to imagine if this was also the process they did in the past. Thanks for uploading
I think the best glimpse into a KJV translator process may be found in the notes of John Bios, who was a KJV translator and served in the final review committee. See www.amazon.com/Translating-King-James-Ward-Allen/dp/0826512461/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=translating+for+king+james&qid=1562117813&s=gateway&sr=8-1
You can also find the original 11-page preface of the 1611 KJV somewhere out there too, which I found awfully interesting and insightful. Humorously enough, the 1611 translator team completely debunks KJV-Onlyism (and any form of Onlyism) in their own preface. Here's a quote: "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God..."
The only thing that should be considered is what the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts say, not the views of our current culture. This is why it's important to study for ourselves what the traditional texts and especially how these texts were translated in other languages close to the times of their writing.
This is absolutely how it played out in 1611 (although fewer MacBooks back then. :) ) They were looking at Greek and Hebrew words and trying to find a best way to render it into English. When they had trouble, they looked to the Latin Vulgate for guidance, which is how we ended up with so many Latinate words, like "Calvary" and "Lucifer" in the kJV.
And this ladies and gentlemen is how newer translations water down the not-so-nice portions of the bible. "They had slaves, people treated as inheritable property, but we don't want people to get a negative image, so we're just gonna TWEAK what it says to servant so it looks better." If you have to re-edit a book (that you claim is the word of god) to make it appear morally acceptable, perhaps you should consider that this book is NOT the infallible word of god.
That’s a quite unfair characterization of this discussion. They’re wrestling through what slave meant in the ancient near East and the OT and weighing translation choices that will best convey THAT idea in a culture where the word slave has connotations that are contrary to the meaning of ebed in Biblical Hebrew. I think you may have a bias toward modern Bible versions that is hindering your ability to see what’s actually being said here.
I depend on Jesus Christ. I own different translations, and even the original scriptures Interlinear, but they don't save a human being, only Jesus does.
Ok, but what do you do with Romans 10? One cannot believe unless someone preaches. And what do they preach but the word of God? It is necessary for that word to be rightly translated, and I Ann thankful for textual critical scholars that will look into such things and make such decisions.
This is a great insight into Bible translation. That said, there is some concern that modern cultural notions may be having too much sway. I do know how difficult finding the correct balance can be, and I know Hebrew, for the record.
It isn't. The word עֶבֶד/δοῦλος can mean both things, depending on the context. They are debating how to translate it best, so that people understand the thrust of the text and not get bogged down by how they understand an English word in light of their own experiences/histories. It's only confusing why they are debating, when we start with the KJV's translation, and not the Greek and Hebrew.
I'd love to know the original source of this video; does anybody know where it came from? I see a BBC logo in the top left of the screen, and am hoping that that means it comes from a longer documentary I can Greek/Hebrew geekout over.
It is frightening to see this group of men (excellent representation of diversity, there, ESV) who know the languages and culture of the Bible gloss over this sensitive issue on the grounds of bad apologetics.
1:27 A remarkable argument here is made (knowing the outcome etc.), and it really does feel brave. Fascinating that the ESV did actually have 3 members voting against what became to be one of the main features of their rendering.
@@denleemel I'm not personally a huge fan of John Macarthur (because I disagree with his view on dispensationalism), but I think it wise to be hesitant in accusing anyone of "indoctrination" Historic Christians such as Spurgeon, Whitefield, John Bunyan, James Kennedy, Matthew Henry, Johnathan Edwards, the Puritans, and several of the KJV translators were Calvinists (and this is an extremely abbreviated list). Most importantly, the Bible is Calvinistic. Or, rather, Calvinism is Biblical. You disagree (which is okay, as long as we agree on the fundamentals). Which aspects of the doctrines of grace do you take issue with, brother/sister?
@@lukehumphrey7517 I agree with you. It amazes me how many people dislike Johnny Mac on the basis of his Calvinism when he is in fact a very good preacher and has been for decades.
MacArthur, by his own mouth, admitted to hiding his Calvinism from his church for decades so he could slowly build the foundation for the system without raising an alarm. Isn’t this fairly defined as indoctrination?
I too noticed: no women! What does melhhanson mean "Only because they are Christians." Since there were no women, we do NOT KNOW if or how the decision may have been impacted. And, YES, I do note committees that are all male. I am not shocked by it: it is all too common, but I am alternately infuriated, frustrated, & in many other ways not favorably impressed by it. Also, I DO read lists of translators. Often it's hard to tell sex by name. There ARE highly qualified women translators.
By Calvinists, for Calvinists indeed. Stil a decent translation. All translations have theological bias. Nobody has made a new translation simply to increase "readability"
and the word "star" is not separate. "morning star" is a singluar title. same as "light bearer" or "daystarr". which the translators showed plainly in the marginal note that they themselves published in the original 1611
I believe it's more important that we pursue what God means to tell us. Personally, it has been a great injustice not to realise that having Christ's eternal life in me means I am indisputably owned by Him making me His slave in every sense of the word. Its His power in me that leads me to life, what part of 'crucified with Christ' is not to understand? Luke 9:23 take up 'my' cross daily, if only I knew this from the start. Servant makes it sound like something I choose to do, sounds more like religion rather than life itself. What cost is there in something I can just put away when I choose, no wonder I'm a substance abuser, I keep believing I have a choice. At least a slave doesn't have choices. This was a very thought provoking video, thank you.
no i don't miss that point at all. just because I didn't mention that doesn't mean i don't appreciate it. please grow up and stop trying to be divisive
"For the average English reader..." God forbid we should actually teach them anything. Let's just cater to the lowest common denominator instead of bringing people up into a serious study of the Word. Yeah. That'll work. The Message, anyone?
I was looking for this comment. It seems the gentleman that made this comment was more worried about negative connotations than accurate translation. If you are a true Christian and read the Bible, you need to dig deeper, and this is a great example. We have people requesting changes for political correctness not biblical accuracy. The Bible even say, to STUDY to show thyself approved. This is what worries me the most about all these translations. How many changes are politically or culturally motivated. I have an ESV Bible, but not sure I can completely trust it.
They should let the readers comprehend and stop making interpretative nuances for on behalf of the readers. The problem with using multiple words for the same Greek or Heb word is that vast majority of readers will end up thinking that the bondservant is a separate term and category.
I'm not saying that at all, only that multiple perspectives are better than one. Much of the conversation in this video is about comparing the connotations of δουλος in the ancient world with "slave" in our modern context. Given our history, it's unsound to assume that the connotations of "slave" are the same for everyone. One translator mentioned what he thinks his black friends would think, but it would be better to have that perspective represented in person, not just by proxy.
I'm confused. Why does the first three-and-a-half minutes of the video deal with the Hebrew usage of words for "slavery" in the Old Testament, but the vote is for the use of "bond servant" over against "slave" in 1 Corinthians 7? Why even discuss the word "eved" when you are trying to translate "doulos?"
Anyone who is raised in America and has attended church once or twice will consider themselves Christians, very few actually follow Christ. Just as slavery has negative connotation in today's society (abuse, racism, forceful labor, etc.) so does the word "Christian." It has the connotation of hypocrite or holier-than-thou or fake. Christian is a term only found 2 to 3 times in the entire Bible whereas "follower" or "disciple" is found numerous times. I would rather be his follower and disciple
I think this conversation (which is quite interesting) would be enriched considerably by the presence of more people of color (esp. black scholars) on the translation committee-particularly given the word being discussed. And some of the committee members' remarks are problematic in this regard: I don't think it is because African-Americans are "less sensitive" than he is that they are comfortable translating words like ebed as "slave." It's actually because they are generally MORE sensitive than him to the underlying issues and positively WANT biblical teachings about slavery (esp. in the OT) to be more clearly reflected in translation-precisely because they are seen to offer a message of hope to their communities.
@melhhanson And that is one reason why you are not on this committee. 1 Tim. 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "
Ok, that's a bit more clear, sorry for jumping to conclusions, although i still don't think it's particularly necessary for the discussion to include one community for the sake of one word, as most people find slavery abhorrent anyway.
and if you look at what i said, you will see i included them in my "all scholars" :) they kept "lucifer" out of tradition from the tyndale bible (once again, tyndale even admitted he took the word from the latin vulgate, NOT the hebrew text) it was not a translation from the hebrew. because again, "lucifer" is NOT English.
@terriergal is a woman intellectually qualified enough, she shouldn't be on the committee. Of course, you are correct in saying that a woman would not help the committee any better just by being female, but if they are really good, why not? Just like I've seen quite a few excellent female professors of theology in many seminaries - and NOT the liberal, gay-and-female-pastors-permitting brand of theology, but very conservative and evangelical theology.
NRSV has the most diverse translation committee. Scholars from all sects of the Christian faith, and Jewish too. ESV is more like someone's Sunday School class translation committee.
wow, come on. some churches still believe the bible when it speaks of the women having equal but different roles in the church. i think it shows a sign of respect for God's word.
The prodigal story has nothing to do with the translation of the word "slave". We were slaves to sin, and now are slaves to Christ, which I am so thankful I can say. No doctrinal error whatsoever
to be honest I think a wise way of dealing with this kind of thing is to involve a number a listeners who also are part to the voting. say a 100 people they could do it online and after the discussion the vote could take place. This would keep the time and discussion down but also include more for the laymans perspective to be accounted for. Once you are a scholar you are. Its hard to go back to thinking like the layman. I vote bondservant. it makes sense to me because the word bondservant makes me look up the understanding of what was a bondservant. finding out that the time then was different than the time now. Gods way is Love and it helped me to learn that it was economical versus racial. It was hard for me to see my God agreeing with Slavery and what make those who bring into captivity captive
I don't think lay people should have a vote on a translation process; however, they may be called upon to provide feedback on contemporary words use in their native tongue.
I wish they would have left it as slave. They think that it was better to use a word that nobody actually uses and very few people even understand instead of MAYBE hurt some feelings that a word is actually used in the Bible. Yes, slavery in regards to Christ is permanent and if it were for him PURCHASING us with His blood, we would still be SLAVES to sin. There are plenty of offensive words in Scripture that they left in there. Ezekiel 16 talks about Israel's "whoring" instead of merely "straying" or "being unfaithful" or something else that's easier for people to handle. They left that "offensive" word in there though. I like the ESV, I just wish they hadn't messed up this word. It's kind of important.
Yeah I agree with you and so do 3 others in the panel who voted against the change. But.. With their superior language and historical knowledge and I hope all of their deep personal relationships with Christ, I pray this was the right decision. 🙏
I know Crossway makes some nice bibles. But after watching all these "which translation" debates, I end up sitting with a KJV, ESV, and NIV when I do my reading now lol
@terriergal I agree with you that men should have more authority than women, but I think that applies mainly to the church and the family. I don't consider this to be part of the formal church - this is for the most part an intellectual exercise, and the pronouncements are not strictly "authoritative" - pastors and bible studies still refer to the original Greek all the time. The people who should be in the committee are those most qualified, and I don't see a reason why if there
Why? It's hasn't got anything do with the history of black slaves. Not all black people were slaves and not all slave owners were white, are you saying that all white men are inherently racist and therefore cannot use any discernment concerning the issue of slavery?
Instead of focusing on this, focus on having a real relationship with Jesus! Do you KNOW him, and does he KNOW you? If not, he will say: "Depart from me, I never knew you" - God Bless.
Amen. But truth be told even Jesus used Scripture against the devil in the wilderness. Just like Jesus we have the beautiful Holy Spirit inside of us speaking to us, but we also need to know the Scriptures like the back of our hand. Jesus quoted Scripture so many times. When I read my Bible I feel it brings me into a deeper relationship with Him as I learn more about Him, what He did in the beginning to make everything in 6 days to what he did when He walked the earth, and to what He is going to do at the end of time. Blessings brother in Christ Jesus
The translators arrived at a good decision. I suspect some people prefer slave because of a theological bent or poor understanding of its nuance in modern english.
Why does it matter if there is a woman on the committee or not? Do you not trust them because they are all men? Would including a woman by necessity mean that you would get a better translation? My concern is not the sex of the members of the committee, but whether they are being prayerful about what they are discussing. Not to mention whether they handle the discussion within its proper context, and that they make a Spirit led and reasonable conclusion!
Sex is important. They hand selected all men and could not find a single “token” female Biblical scholar. That is telling in and of itself of where evangelical-ISM has landed. This video is proof of what it was like behind closed doors. A scandal in our modern day and age - for real.
These guys should read scripture with their hearts cause they are out of the box frustrating God's word. They are slaves to their denominations in this matter and probably think the average Christian needs them, we don't we have the Holy Spirit.
Starting to feel the same I'm not feeling the heart in this debate or the presence of God. But I pray God is there and working through them. If not in this video... Then may God come mightily in all of them.
It should have been rendered "slave" in my opinion. Taking people's "feelings" about that word into consideration over what the word actually says and means is the ultimate in political correctness and should have no place in a truly conservative and literal translation. This is where the study bible could spell it out for "every day average English readers". Relegate it to a footnote, render it as slave. It implies ownership, it is literally slave. Sad that they went the PC route on that one. Read John MacArthur's book Slave for insight into the debate.
I think it's better as "servant" because a servant's definition : A person who performs duties for others And i think we perform duties for the *Father* but I respect your opinion too, that we shouldn't let Politics interfere with the Scripture I.e Word of God
Why did they skip Romans 16:24 from the ESV, it is in the KJV : The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Tens of thousands of words are missing in this bible, especially those that deal with the Divinity of our Lord Jesus, e.g. acts 8:37 is missing. Check it out for your self 1Thes.5:21 The vast majority of the texts found (98%) endorse the KJV.
Those are ad hominem attacks and are judging his motives, which, seeing you are not God, cannot possibly know. He has been on the frontlines of christianity for 40 years and counting, and is one of the mightiest men of God alive today. You should be thanking him and praying for him, not condemning.
@physphilmusic Any Biblical woman who actually IS interested in these things would probably not be interested in being on the committee or in authority over men.
You aren't letting GOD define HIS word in HIS own terms. SLAVE is actually more intimate than a son. A roman could disown a son, but not a slave. same with the Father, HE can not disown us once we are HIS children by new birth.
Why the hell are people complaining about no women on this particular committee of the ESV? It's not surprising that guys study this stuff more. I live in a 3rd world country and know of several female translators who hold prominent positions in our national Bible translation committee. It's more of coincidence here.
Women and non white, international Bible Scholars absolutely should be at this table if the translators expect their textual decisions to be read with trust and confidence by the entire English speaking world of Christians … or are they re-writing Scripture for their own kind.
We need to conform to what the Biblical meanings were, not the MODERN, Politically correct meanings of the words...what they have become. GOD had "holy men of GOD" write what HE wanted. SLAVE is the Gk.word "doulos/doule-male,female" and differs from a SERVANT, Gk.diakonos, which is to a much lesser of a commitment to the one they serve. A "bondslave" was completely surrendered to the service of the Master(as we are to be to Messiah, Yeshua,his real name).In Hebrew,"ebed" is the equivilent.
interesting arguments here, but it seems clearly anachronistic to claim that anctient slavery was, in general, temporary and voluntary. This understanding on biblical slavery needs to be abandoned
Wow. Instead of going with the intent and culture of the original text, they are worried about how "slave" would be perceived presently in Western culture. What could go wrong with this?
Private message me and let me know the misquotes. But even in her misquotes if any what i mentioned to you is true about the man behind these translations. You can look this up online or through other sources. Its a very well documented fact.
A slave is a slave and that's part of our history and shouldn't be changed. A slave and a bondservant are two different things. Leave it alone! You don't change words in Gods book just to sell more copies!
"Hebrew could not be used in the last days because jews in power rejected Jesus" um what? what does that have to do with the language? That is idiotic reasoning... and has ZERO biblical support. same with why greek could not be used... are you serious?
Slave is the correct translation for the Greek doulos but the listener has to be instructed not to understand this is the context of of modern day contexts of slavery. It is the translators job to translate the scripture. It is the preachers job to explain the difference to the modern reader.
That "one man" Jerome was responsible for orginially using the word "lucifer" in Isa. 14:12... and he ALSO used the same word "lucifer" in 2 peter 1:19 for the word we have in english which is? "day star". So why do you say that unbeliever got it right in Isa. and that the KJV was right for using it, but you say he was wrong in 2 peter? Your ignorance of logic astounds me.
grab an original 1611 KJV, go look at Isa. 14:12... those 47 translators wrote a marginal note that says????? "or daystarr". so apparently, that liar is you sir. they saw daystar, and suggested it as an alternate reading. and daystar is simply another form of "morning star"
Then how do you interpret no man can serve 2 masters? You will serve one and not serve the other or slave for one and not slave for the other. In my opinion if I work at both Mc.Donalds and Burger King I will most likely quit a job to serve at one restaurant over the other for a higher pay, or would you slave meaning you give up your rights and put yourself under one authority throughout your whole life like being a slave to sin. If we are saves to evil, then we can be slaves for good.
Dr. Grudem explains this is a 2.5 hour conversation reduced to 4 minutes. What an awesome conversation, and what a privilege to get a peek into it!
i find it wonderful that these men can meet together and discuss such an important subject in such a godly and humble way, and of course doing everything through pray as well. Brilliant
this is the ultimate bible study class. is there more? they should record a whole make and brakedown of the text. I would watch that
Was thinking the same. Would love to just sit through that. Wow! I went to Theological College and we had many debates but never with the best of the best. My only question... Are they filled with the Holy Spirit and power of God. Are their personal lives on fire for Jesus? Do they have a beautiful loving relationship with Him? Do they live lives of upmost love and integrity towards God and others? I'm praying yes to all 🙏💕
Whether translating or just reading, we always need to guard against putting our own ideas into what the text says.
I'm amazed, frankly, that a video such as this, exists at all! Thanks for posting it. I wonder if there are others like this, from this type of forum? It's quite interesting to see the folks involved, and to hear the thought process that goes along with the work. Also as supposed, I'm glad to see that they, as a collective, commit all that they did and are doing, to God.
You might like the NET full notes edition, where the “notes” are translator notes. It’s quite the interesting read. It has pretty small font though.
@@KevinSavedByGrace interesting
This is very interesting, and I appreciate the attempt at openness, transparency, and the behind the scenes look at the process that ultimately results in the production of perhaps the best Bible version of our time.The ESV has grown within a short space of time, and I really believe that it is the Bible of the future.It is therefore only a matter of time before it surpasses the NIV, and ultimately the much respected, but sadly often idolized KJV.While I love and appreciate my ESV, I do not idolize it, and neither am I under any illusion that a perfect Bible exists anywhere on the face of the earth, so from time to time I also use the NKJV to compare, or just to get a different perspective.I use my ESV Bible for personal devotions, for study, for memorising, and as an Evangelist, I use it for ministry.Thank you LORD Jesus, thank you Crossway, and thank you to these fine gentlemen.
Amen
Just bought a pocket ESV. I also have 2 NIVs, a KJV, an NKJV, and my wife reads an HCSB. I'm using the ESV more and more (though I usually sit with more than one translation open just to cross reference). But I'm really liking the ESV, and it's making me want to buy a full size study version.
I can't wait until the LSB fully comes out at the end of 2021.
It's very interesting seeing the process.
This video is awesome. PLEASE post more videos from behind the scenes of the ESV translation committee!
For those disputing about being a slave, not a slave, etc. Let the Scripture speak to us.
Galatians 4:7 "So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God."
Wouldn’t it have been appropriate to bring scholars and biblical language experts across the cultural spectrum to determine this? Are there Semitic people in that group since we are dissecting a Greek rendering to what is really a Semitic faith?
Thank you God for what these men do!
This is amazing dialogue.
i think it's so wonderful to see such humble and god-fearing men who devote so much time and attention in order to make sure that God's scriptures can be made available in every day language. God bless you men
I hope it's true as you say 🙏
Jack Collins: a brilliant and incisive mind applied 110% to Biblical scholarship. Thanks, Jack.
Moody Theological Seminary MDiv student here. This was a great video to watch!
Good ol' Gordon Wenham; volumes of wisdom, no-one listens...
The real Jesus Christ. God himself. Jesus who came and took our place in hell by dying for us so that we might be saved in and through him.
? But He told the thief 'today you will be with me in paradise'.... hell isn't that
@@greatanswers410 that’s not what he said
I would’ve voted for the word “slave” if you read the Bible in its entirety you find that it is an honor to be a slave to Christ. You are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. If you take time to consider what that means than you realize that we cannot serve two masters. As far as the word slave having a bad history, it is not God that caused that but man. We should not alter the translation because of man’s sin.
It didn't seem like they took into account wether the reader knew the bible well or not. I do believe they talked about average English readers.
This is why pastors and teachers should be trained in Greek and Hebrew exegesis. No translation is perfect.
Good to see a room full of good men wrestling with the meaning of words, in order to translate the Word in a way that is unambiguous for contemporary readers.
The King James Bible is inerrant and is the Words of God in the English language. Nobody has ever found a doctrinal error in it.
thelastroadrunner: Totally agree! No one has ever found a doctrinal error in the King James Version. But, then again, no one has ever found a doctrinal error in the New King James or the 1599 Geneva Bible either. The former is written in clearer contemporary language for today's reader who no longer speaks the Elizabethan English. And the latter is older than the King James Version and was translated by Reformers and early Puritans--many of whom suffered harsh persecution and even death in order to translate the inerrant Scriptures into English. Suffering persecution for translating the Hebrew and Greek texts into the language of their day is something the translators of the King James Version did not do. Just sayin'.
Anthony Reid QUOTE- "Totally agree! No one has ever found a doctrinal error in the King James Version. But, then again, no one has ever found a doctrinal error in the New King James or the 1599 Geneva Bible either."
Example of doctrinal differences between the King James Bible and the NKJV-
Acts 4.27 (KJV) - For of a truth against thy *holy child* Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (Deity of Christ expressed)
Acts 4.27 (NKJV) - For truly against Your *holy Servant* Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together (Deity of Christ obscured)
Example of historical difference between the King James Bible and the Geneva -
2nd Sam 21.19 (KJV) - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the *brother of Goliath* the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (David killed Goliath).
2nd Sam 21.19 (Geneva) - And there was yet another battel in Gob with the Philistims, where Elhanah the sonne of Iaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite slewe *Goliath* the Gittite: the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame. (David did not kill Goliath)
Only one translation can have it right. David killed Goliath and Jesus is God's Child. The King James Bible is the inerrant Words of God in the English language.
+thelastroadrunner
No doctrinal error compared to what? Don't get me wrong, the KJV is my favorite along with the NKJV. The KJV is a translation brother. It wasn't the first, not by far, and it was a government mandated Bible by a king who was a Mason (document fact. He is listed in Masonic register) and who had other questionable proclivities. The KJV has had many revisions and there are mis-translations in it as well along with parts of Revelation that were "translated" from a commentary of the time. The Textus Receptus itself had five versions of the manuscript alone. The word Easter is in the KJV once to this day (Acts 12:4) when it should say Passover. All I'm saying is that if God chose the KJV as His sole inherent and infallible word, there would have never been one single mistake in its ever, it wouldn't have originally contained the Apocryphal books as found in Catholic bibles and it would not have had masonic handshakes all over the pages in the woodcuts. Only the original manuscripts which were penned by the hand of man as God breathed out the words are inherent. No translation is infallible and inherent.
This is the ultimate tap dance class
So sad to see these men assume the reader is and will remain uneducated. They help us put our world into the word of God instead of stating the word of God as inspired by God.
How translation IS interpretation.
It'll be an honor to even just sit in and listen to them. Very inspiring. I'm a seminary student and I dream to become a Bible Scholar like them someday :)
PS: btw, I agree with the majority vote. The right translation should really be Bond-servant :)
I see this is BBC , I cannot find online the full documentary or where this is from. I would love love a full length version. They should have the full recordings even in audio when they have done these committees to do a translation. It’s so fascinating and would be helpful of how they came to the choices they did
@terriergal English readers see the word "slave" (especially in the US) and assume it's talking about a permanent, racial relationship that generally involves abuse. That is the wrong impression. If the literal word gives people the wrong impression, it can be worthwhile to at least consider an alternative wording.
I think it’s sad to change the proper meaning simply because non believers who are ignorant in any basic understanding of historic words and also history in general. If they actually read the Bible and saw this they’d ask wow slaves? And any Christian would educate them as to what “slaves” were in OT and NT history.
@@Texasguy316 Every translation prioritizes multiple aims, such as clarity/ease of reading, liturgical flow (iambic pentameter), or other concerns. What matters is what goals a given translation prioritizes, and how well they achieve those goals. Overall, IMO, the ESV mostly achieves what it sets out to do.
I imagine if this was also the process that the KJV translators did back in 1611. I'm not a KJV-only person. I'm just trying to imagine if this was also the process they did in the past. Thanks for uploading
I think the best glimpse into a KJV translator process may be found in the notes of John Bios, who was a KJV translator and served in the final review committee. See www.amazon.com/Translating-King-James-Ward-Allen/dp/0826512461/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=translating+for+king+james&qid=1562117813&s=gateway&sr=8-1
You can also find the original 11-page preface of the 1611 KJV somewhere out there too, which I found awfully interesting and insightful.
Humorously enough, the 1611 translator team completely debunks KJV-Onlyism (and any form of Onlyism) in their own preface. Here's a quote:
"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God..."
@@lukehumphrey7517 thanks for the hint...quite helpful..this shows the deep knowledge of gods word and man of the 1611 KJv translators.
The only thing that should be considered is what the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts say, not the views of our current culture. This is why it's important to study for ourselves what the traditional texts and especially how these texts were translated in other languages close to the times of their writing.
This is absolutely how it played out in 1611 (although fewer MacBooks back then. :) ) They were looking at Greek and Hebrew words and trying to find a best way to render it into English. When they had trouble, they looked to the Latin Vulgate for guidance, which is how we ended up with so many Latinate words, like "Calvary" and "Lucifer" in the kJV.
These are probably just selected moments from a much longer discussion that may have covered both OT and NT passages.
And this ladies and gentlemen is how newer translations water down the not-so-nice portions of the bible. "They had slaves, people treated as inheritable property, but we don't want people to get a negative image, so we're just gonna TWEAK what it says to servant so it looks better." If you have to re-edit a book (that you claim is the word of god) to make it appear morally acceptable, perhaps you should consider that this book is NOT the infallible word of god.
That’s a quite unfair characterization of this discussion. They’re wrestling through what slave meant in the ancient near East and the OT and weighing translation choices that will best convey THAT idea in a culture where the word slave has connotations that are contrary to the meaning of ebed in Biblical Hebrew. I think you may have a bias toward modern Bible versions that is hindering your ability to see what’s actually being said here.
@@michaeldurso5005 well said ^
Grace and peace! ✌😎✌
I saw J I Packers interview about the ESV study Bible and immediately bought one.
updating to the edition that is out now
I depend on Jesus Christ.
I own different translations, and even the original scriptures Interlinear, but they don't save a human being, only Jesus does.
Ok, but what do you do with Romans 10? One cannot believe unless someone preaches. And what do they preach but the word of God? It is necessary for that word to be rightly translated, and I Ann thankful for textual critical scholars that will look into such things and make such decisions.
This is a great insight into Bible translation. That said, there is some concern that modern cultural notions may be having too much sway. I do know how difficult finding the correct balance can be, and I know Hebrew, for the record.
I find it amazing that the difference in the English words "slave" and "servant" are being debated in it's usage in the text.
It isn't. The word עֶבֶד/δοῦλος can mean both things, depending on the context. They are debating how to translate it best, so that people understand the thrust of the text and not get bogged down by how they understand an English word in light of their own experiences/histories. It's only confusing why they are debating, when we start with the KJV's translation, and not the Greek and Hebrew.
They even prayed. Amen
I'd love to know the original source of this video; does anybody know where it came from? I see a BBC logo in the top left of the screen, and am hoping that that means it comes from a longer documentary I can Greek/Hebrew geekout over.
when you look it up in the ESV study bible you will find an solid explanation in the preface page 21 that is
Wonder how they interpret Revelation 22.18-19
what are the names of the translators? would be interesting to know. thanks!
+thebigexegete
The video description says: "The debate includes Peter Williams, Gordon Wenham, Jack Collins, Wayne Grudem and Paul House."
@@HaecceitasQuidditas The old guy shown many times, but doesn't speak is J. I. Packer
It is frightening to see this group of men (excellent representation of diversity, there, ESV) who know the languages and culture of the Bible gloss over this sensitive issue on the grounds of bad apologetics.
Totally agree. The lack of diversity and sensitivity to that in this day and age is inexcusable.
1:27 A remarkable argument here is made (knowing the outcome etc.), and it really does feel brave. Fascinating that the ESV did actually have 3 members voting against what became to be one of the main features of their rendering.
The ones that rejected may have preferred "bondman", Darby Translation 1890
@im4Abalancedlife -- Correction: I guess it was RadiantStudios, not melhhanson that I quoted.
I love the esv. I have John MacArthur's esv study bible and since I've gotten it my understanding of scripture has gone up dramatically.
The John MacArthur Calvinist indoctrination Bible you mean.
@@denleemel I'm not personally a huge fan of John Macarthur (because I disagree with his view on dispensationalism), but I think it wise to be hesitant in accusing anyone of "indoctrination"
Historic Christians such as Spurgeon, Whitefield, John Bunyan, James Kennedy, Matthew Henry, Johnathan Edwards, the Puritans, and several of the KJV translators were Calvinists (and this is an extremely abbreviated list).
Most importantly, the Bible is Calvinistic. Or, rather, Calvinism is Biblical. You disagree (which is okay, as long as we agree on the fundamentals). Which aspects of the doctrines of grace do you take issue with, brother/sister?
@@lukehumphrey7517 I agree with you. It amazes me how many people dislike Johnny Mac on the basis of his Calvinism when he is in fact a very good preacher and has been for decades.
@@denleemel Haha
MacArthur, by his own mouth, admitted to hiding his Calvinism from his church for decades so he could slowly build the foundation for the system without raising an alarm. Isn’t this fairly defined as indoctrination?
Gehenna, Hades, tartarus, Sheol, hell. prime example. certainly leaves questions.
I too noticed: no women! What does melhhanson mean "Only because they are Christians." Since there were no women, we do NOT KNOW if or how the decision may have been impacted. And, YES, I do note committees that are all male. I am not shocked by it: it is all too common, but I am alternately infuriated, frustrated, & in many other ways not favorably impressed by it. Also, I DO read lists of translators. Often it's hard to tell sex by name. There ARE highly qualified women translators.
By Calvinists, for Calvinists indeed. Stil a decent translation. All translations have theological bias. Nobody has made a new translation simply to increase "readability"
and the word "star" is not separate. "morning star" is a singluar title. same as "light bearer" or "daystarr". which the translators showed plainly in the marginal note that they themselves published in the original 1611
I believe it's more important that we pursue what God means to tell us. Personally, it has been a great injustice not to realise that having Christ's eternal life in me means I am indisputably owned by Him making me His slave in every sense of the word. Its His power in me that leads me to life, what part of 'crucified with Christ' is not to understand? Luke 9:23 take up 'my' cross daily, if only I knew this from the start. Servant makes it sound like something I choose to do, sounds more like religion rather than life itself. What cost is there in something I can just put away when I choose, no wonder I'm a substance abuser, I keep believing I have a choice. At least a slave doesn't have choices. This was a very thought provoking video, thank you.
no i don't miss that point at all. just because I didn't mention that doesn't mean i don't appreciate it. please grow up and stop trying to be divisive
"For the average English reader..." God forbid we should actually teach them anything. Let's just cater to the lowest common denominator instead of bringing people up into a serious study of the Word. Yeah. That'll work. The Message, anyone?
I was looking for this comment. It seems the gentleman that made this comment was more worried about negative connotations than accurate translation. If you are a true Christian and read the Bible, you need to dig deeper, and this is a great example. We have people requesting changes for political correctness not biblical accuracy. The Bible even say, to STUDY to show thyself approved. This is what worries me the most about all these translations. How many changes are politically or culturally motivated. I have an ESV Bible, but not sure I can completely trust it.
They should let the readers comprehend and stop making interpretative nuances for on behalf of the readers. The problem with using multiple words for the same Greek or Heb word is that vast majority of readers will end up thinking that the bondservant is a separate term and category.
A shocking display of intellectual dishonesty.
Why is there an ESV on the table? I thought they were translating FOR the ESV.
They also do updates to the translation.
I'm not saying that at all, only that multiple perspectives are better than one. Much of the conversation in this video is about comparing the connotations of δουλος in the ancient world with "slave" in our modern context. Given our history, it's unsound to assume that the connotations of "slave" are the same for everyone. One translator mentioned what he thinks his black friends would think, but it would be better to have that perspective represented in person, not just by proxy.
Agreed. The lack of diversity in presence and voice at this table is a glaring and prejudicial oversight. Huge mistake guys!
I'm confused. Why does the first three-and-a-half minutes of the video deal with the Hebrew usage of words for "slavery" in the Old Testament, but the vote is for the use of "bond servant" over against "slave" in 1 Corinthians 7?
Why even discuss the word "eved" when you are trying to translate "doulos?"
Because 'doulos' is the Septuagint translation for 'eved'.
Anyone who is raised in America and has attended church once or twice will consider themselves Christians, very few actually follow Christ. Just as slavery has negative connotation in today's society (abuse, racism, forceful labor, etc.) so does the word "Christian." It has the connotation of hypocrite or holier-than-thou or fake. Christian is a term only found 2 to 3 times in the entire Bible whereas "follower" or "disciple" is found numerous times. I would rather be his follower and disciple
I think this conversation (which is quite interesting) would be enriched considerably by the presence of more people of color (esp. black scholars) on the translation committee-particularly given the word being discussed. And some of the committee members' remarks are problematic in this regard: I don't think it is because African-Americans are "less sensitive" than he is that they are comfortable translating words like ebed as "slave." It's actually because they are generally MORE sensitive than him to the underlying issues and positively WANT biblical teachings about slavery (esp. in the OT) to be more clearly reflected in translation-precisely because they are seen to offer a message of hope to their communities.
This is fascinating.
Lucifer means bright and morning star and is found not only in revelation but also in Job when the shining ones all sang together.
Where is this from?
@melhhanson And that is one reason why you are not on this committee.
1 Tim. 2:12-14 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "
Ok, that's a bit more clear, sorry for jumping to conclusions, although i still don't think it's particularly necessary for the discussion to include one community for the sake of one word, as most people find slavery abhorrent anyway.
and if you look at what i said, you will see i included them in my "all scholars" :) they kept "lucifer" out of tradition from the tyndale bible (once again, tyndale even admitted he took the word from the latin vulgate, NOT the hebrew text) it was not a translation from the hebrew. because again, "lucifer" is NOT English.
@terriergal is a woman intellectually qualified enough, she shouldn't be on the committee. Of course, you are correct in saying that a woman would not help the committee any better just by being female, but if they are really good, why not? Just like I've seen quite a few excellent female professors of theology in many seminaries - and NOT the liberal, gay-and-female-pastors-permitting brand of theology, but very conservative and evangelical theology.
NRSV has the most diverse translation committee. Scholars from all sects of the Christian faith, and Jewish too. ESV is more like someone's Sunday School class translation committee.
wow, come on. some churches still believe the bible when it speaks of the women having equal but different roles in the church. i think it shows a sign of respect for God's word.
The prodigal story has nothing to do with the translation of the word "slave". We were slaves to sin, and now are slaves to Christ, which I am so thankful I can say. No doctrinal error whatsoever
to be honest I think a wise way of dealing with this kind of thing is to involve a number a listeners who also are part to the voting. say a 100 people they could do it online and after the discussion the vote could take place. This would keep the time and discussion down but also include more for the laymans perspective to be accounted for. Once you are a scholar you are. Its hard to go back to thinking like the layman. I vote bondservant. it makes sense to me because the word bondservant makes me look up the understanding of what was a bondservant. finding out that the time then was different than the time now. Gods way is Love and it helped me to learn that it was economical versus racial. It was hard for me to see my God agreeing with Slavery and what make those who bring into captivity captive
I don't think lay people should have a vote on a translation process; however, they may be called upon to provide feedback on contemporary words use in their native tongue.
cameras ready and action... stop again.... it has to look as if they are hours and hours working.... they look so fresh no sweat no red eyes...pfff
I wish they would have left it as slave. They think that it was better to use a word that nobody actually uses and very few people even understand instead of MAYBE hurt some feelings that a word is actually used in the Bible. Yes, slavery in regards to Christ is permanent and if it were for him PURCHASING us with His blood, we would still be SLAVES to sin. There are plenty of offensive words in Scripture that they left in there. Ezekiel 16 talks about Israel's "whoring" instead of merely "straying" or "being unfaithful" or something else that's easier for people to handle. They left that "offensive" word in there though. I like the ESV, I just wish they hadn't messed up this word. It's kind of important.
Yeah I agree with you and so do 3 others in the panel who voted against the change. But.. With their superior language and historical knowledge and I hope all of their deep personal relationships with Christ, I pray this was the right decision. 🙏
I know Crossway makes some nice bibles. But after watching all these "which translation" debates, I end up sitting with a KJV, ESV, and NIV when I do my reading now lol
@terriergal I agree with you that men should have more authority than women, but I think that applies mainly to the church and the family. I don't consider this to be part of the formal church - this is for the most part an intellectual exercise, and the pronouncements are not strictly "authoritative" - pastors and bible studies still refer to the original Greek all the time. The people who should be in the committee are those most qualified, and I don't see a reason why if there
Why? It's hasn't got anything do with the history of black slaves. Not all black people were slaves and not all slave owners were white, are you saying that all white men are inherently racist and therefore cannot use any discernment concerning the issue of slavery?
Instead of focusing on this, focus on having a real relationship with Jesus! Do you KNOW him, and does he KNOW you? If not, he will say: "Depart from me, I never knew you" - God Bless.
Amen. But truth be told even Jesus used Scripture against the devil in the wilderness.
Just like Jesus we have the beautiful Holy Spirit inside of us speaking to us, but we also need to know the Scriptures like the back of our hand. Jesus quoted Scripture so many times.
When I read my Bible I feel it brings me into a deeper relationship with Him as I learn more about Him, what He did in the beginning to make everything in 6 days to what he did when He walked the earth, and to what He is going to do at the end of time.
Blessings brother in Christ Jesus
Amazing video.
The translators arrived at a good decision. I suspect some people prefer slave because of a theological bent or poor understanding of its nuance in modern english.
Why does it matter if there is a woman on the committee or not? Do you not trust them because they are all men? Would including a woman by necessity mean that you would get a better translation? My concern is not the sex of the members of the committee, but whether they are being prayerful about what they are discussing. Not to mention whether they handle the discussion within its proper context, and that they make a Spirit led and reasonable conclusion!
Sex is important. They hand selected all men and could not find a single “token” female Biblical scholar. That is telling in and of itself of where evangelical-ISM has landed. This video is proof of what it was like behind closed doors. A scandal in our modern day and age - for real.
These guys should read scripture with their hearts cause they are out of the box frustrating God's word. They are slaves to their denominations in this matter and probably think the average Christian needs them, we don't we have the Holy Spirit.
Starting to feel the same I'm not feeling the heart in this debate or the presence of God. But I pray God is there and working through them. If not in this video... Then may God come mightily in all of them.
It should have been rendered "slave" in my opinion. Taking people's "feelings" about that word into consideration over what the word actually says and means is the ultimate in political correctness and should have no place in a truly conservative and literal translation. This is where the study bible could spell it out for "every day average English readers". Relegate it to a footnote, render it as slave. It implies ownership, it is literally slave. Sad that they went the PC route on that one. Read John MacArthur's book Slave for insight into the debate.
I think it's better as "servant" because a servant's definition :
A person who performs duties for others
And i think we perform duties for the *Father* but I respect your opinion too, that we shouldn't let Politics interfere with the Scripture
I.e Word of God
Why did they skip Romans 16:24 from the ESV, it is in the KJV : The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Tens of thousands of words are missing in this bible, especially those that deal with the Divinity of our Lord Jesus, e.g. acts 8:37 is missing. Check it out for your self 1Thes.5:21
The vast majority of the texts found (98%) endorse the KJV.
I just checked mine and they have it..
Those are ad hominem attacks and are judging his motives, which, seeing you are not God, cannot possibly know. He has been on the frontlines of christianity for 40 years and counting, and is one of the mightiest men of God alive today. You should be thanking him and praying for him, not condemning.
@physphilmusic Any Biblical woman who actually IS interested in these things would probably not be interested in being on the committee or in authority over men.
You aren't letting GOD define HIS word in HIS own terms. SLAVE is actually more intimate than a son. A roman could disown a son, but not a slave. same with the Father, HE can not disown us once we are HIS children by new birth.
Ephesians 5:1 is gonna be a struggle for you, then.
Why the hell are people complaining about no women on this particular committee of the ESV? It's not surprising that guys study this stuff more. I live in a 3rd world country and know of several female translators who hold prominent positions in our national Bible translation committee. It's more of coincidence here.
Women and non white, international Bible Scholars absolutely should be at this table if the translators expect their textual decisions to be read with trust and confidence by the entire English speaking world of Christians … or are they re-writing Scripture for their own kind.
We need to conform to what the Biblical meanings were, not the MODERN, Politically correct meanings of the words...what they have become. GOD had "holy men of GOD" write what HE wanted. SLAVE is the Gk.word "doulos/doule-male,female" and differs from a SERVANT, Gk.diakonos, which is to a much lesser of a commitment to the one they serve. A "bondslave" was completely surrendered to the service of the Master(as we are to be to Messiah, Yeshua,his real name).In Hebrew,"ebed" is the equivilent.
interesting arguments here, but it seems clearly anachronistic to claim that anctient slavery was, in general, temporary and voluntary. This understanding on biblical slavery needs to be abandoned
Wow. Instead of going with the intent and culture of the original text, they are worried about how "slave" would be perceived presently in Western culture. What could go wrong with this?
Wrong. They’re trying to ensure that their translation accurately conveys the intent and culture of the original text.
i'm 14. this is what i watch for fun.
Private message me and let me know the misquotes. But even in her misquotes if any what i mentioned to you is true about the man behind these translations. You can look this up online or through other sources. Its a very well documented fact.
her book has been shown to have extreme bias and misquotes all over the place and not a credible source
Amazing
why are there only white men in this room talking about “slaves”
A slave is a slave and that's part of our history and shouldn't be changed. A slave and a bondservant are two different things. Leave it alone! You don't change words in Gods book just to sell more copies!
In modern English, a slave is considered a permanent forced laborer. This is NOT accurate to the Hebrew meaning in context.
"Hebrew could not be used in the last days because jews in power rejected Jesus" um what? what does that have to do with the language? That is idiotic reasoning... and has ZERO biblical support. same with why greek could not be used... are you serious?
Slave is the correct translation for the Greek doulos but the listener has to be instructed not to understand this is the context of of modern day contexts of slavery. It is the translators job to translate the scripture. It is the preachers job to explain the difference to the modern reader.
That "one man" Jerome was responsible for orginially using the word "lucifer" in Isa. 14:12... and he ALSO used the same word "lucifer" in 2 peter 1:19 for the word we have in english which is? "day star". So why do you say that unbeliever got it right in Isa. and that the KJV was right for using it, but you say he was wrong in 2 peter? Your ignorance of logic astounds me.
So we’re interpreting the bible to suit the American agenda????
grab an original 1611 KJV, go look at Isa. 14:12... those 47 translators wrote a marginal note that says????? "or daystarr". so apparently, that liar is you sir. they saw daystar, and suggested it as an alternate reading. and daystar is simply another form of "morning star"
Then how do you interpret no man can serve 2 masters? You will serve one and not serve the other or slave for one and not slave for the other. In my opinion if I work at both Mc.Donalds and Burger King I will most likely quit a job to serve at one restaurant over the other for a higher pay, or would you slave meaning you give up your rights and put yourself under one authority throughout your whole life like being a slave to sin. If we are saves to evil, then we can be slaves for good.