The fundamental building blocks of the kingdom are relationships. Not programs, systems, or productivity. But inconvenient, time-consuming, intrusive relationships. The kingdom is built on personal involvements that disrupt schedules and drain energy. When I enter into redemptive relationships with others, I lose much of my capacity to produce desired results with a minimum expenditure of energy, time, money, or materials. In short, relationships sabotage my efficiency. A part of me dies. Is this perhaps what our Lord meant when He said we must lay down our lives for each other?
R.D. Lupton. Theirs Is The Kingdom.
In this insightful piece, Dan Dewitt points out the coming identity crisis for conservative evangelicals.
To see the author’s original post with further explanation, go here.
Revelation demands response. Neutrality is not an option upon hearing the revelation of God. To come into contact with the reality of God’s revealed will and choose to remain neutral is in actuality a choice to actively rebel.
I love the ESV. I remember when I was first introduced to the ESV in 2001. It has become my favorite Bible translation and has done a great service to English speaking Christians. However, as I have interacted with the text, I am finding more and more places where the formal equivalence translation philosophy is actually obscuring the meaning altogether. The following article by Mark Strauss is fantastic in highlighting the errors in the ESV. I do hope that the folks at Crossway would consider a future revision so as to make the text more clearly understood for the sake of the church.
Why the English Standard Version (ESV)
Should not become the Standard English Version
How to make a good translation much better
Mark L. Strauss
Bethel Seminary San Diego
(this paper may be reproduced and distributed in complete form without written permission from the author)
I need to say first of all that I like the English Standard Version (ESV). After all, the ESV is a moderate
revision (about 6% I believe) of the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952), which itself was done by very
competent scholars. Like the New Revised Standard Version (also a revision of the RSV), the ESV generally
makes good exegetical decisions. Both the ESV and NRSV also significantly improve the gender language
of the RSV.
So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders
claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for
adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of
archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is
produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration
for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV, NASB,
NKJV, NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard
Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”
This paper is a constructive critique of the ESV and an encouragement for its committee to make a good
translation much better by doing a thorough review and revision of its English style and idiom. Critical
questions we will ask include: (1) Does this translation make sense? (2) If comprehensible, is it obscure,
awkward or non-standard English? Would anyone speaking or writing English actually say this?
Read the entirety here: Why the ESV should not be the standard English Bible.