New King James Wide Margin Reference Bible NKJV Leather
Check out that recently ended auction. It's pretty good for a bonded leather Bible---it reminds me of an Oxford KJV interleaved that went for $500. I remember squinting at the somewhat shadowy picture of it, and wondering vaguely why someone would pay that much money for a Bible with some blank paper in it. It looked nice, but not $500 nice, at least, in my opinion.
OK, so was this NKJV Bible really worth $318? The short answer is no. A bonded leather wide margin Bible, insert your favorite translation (except of course, the TNIV, which causes Rick Mansfield much grief) is worth around $35 to $40. Add genuine leather cover, and you're looking at the very least fifty, and the price just climbs from there.
The long answer, and one that I think is interesting, is that there were four different people, all willing to pay over $100 dollars to own a wide margin Bible in their favorite/preferred translation. 3 of those bidders went over $200.
Now, it must be added that this Bible is out of print, or, as booksellers put it, OOP. Thomas Nelson didn't slap a retail of three hundred dollars on this Bible. 2000 pages of text with fat margins to scribble in, even with a fako-bako leather cover just isn't worth it. But...it was, to several people.
I think that there's a interesting tension between the fact that Thomas Nelson stopped printing the Bible, presumably because of low sales, and the fact that several people are willing to pay that much over the original price tag (which, unfortunately, I do not know)
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Women, Last Names, and Feminism
I've seen this brought up several times in a debate. Whether someone is squabbling over the TNIV, or debating egalitarianism vs patriarchy, any women who has dared to keep her own last name is immediately pegged.
She has "noticeably" kept her own last name. It's mentioned in a tone pregnant with meaning, hands coming up to shield whispering mouths. For someone who doesn't attach any evil meaning to a woman keeping her own name, it looks distinctly silly and malicious.
If I wanted to do exegesis the way that I've seen it done many times, I could come up with an argument that CLEARLY SHOWS that MEN should TAKE THE LAST NAME OF THEIR WIFE. Anyone who doesn't is obviously showing their unwillingness to obey the clear teaching of Scripture. Here it is
Why Men Should Take their Wife's Last Name
Genesis 2:24 ESV Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
As is so clearly illustrated in this text, the man is leaving his father and mother. He's going to become the spiritual priest of his own home, and bring his wife under his covering {interjecting: that sounds wrong} thus forming a new family unit.
However, people don't like to take the Bible the way that the Bible is. They like to make it fit their societies, and what they want it say. They have "itching ears." I'm just giving you some background here, so you'll understand why I condemn the practice of women taking the last name of their husband.
When a man keeps his last name, it's a symbol of his connection to his old family. It's a sign of dependence, not autonomy. He's forced to stay connected, in a perverse way, to his old family, making a weird conglomeration of two households--with him and his father forming a wrong two headed priesthood.
The MAN is to LEAVE. It is NEVER said that women leave their families. When she keeps her last name, it's a symbol of female dependence and need for connection and support. When a man takes his wife's last name, he's simply severing his connection with his own family, and showing his Christ-like acknowledgement of the fact that his wife just needs more emotional shoring up than he does.
In conclusion, I have clearly proven that men should take their wives's last names. Anyone who disagrees with me is a godless liberal who is discarding orthodox doctrine. Anyone who agrees with me is one of the godly remnant, who are holding fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Thank you.
She has "noticeably" kept her own last name. It's mentioned in a tone pregnant with meaning, hands coming up to shield whispering mouths. For someone who doesn't attach any evil meaning to a woman keeping her own name, it looks distinctly silly and malicious.
If I wanted to do exegesis the way that I've seen it done many times, I could come up with an argument that CLEARLY SHOWS that MEN should TAKE THE LAST NAME OF THEIR WIFE. Anyone who doesn't is obviously showing their unwillingness to obey the clear teaching of Scripture. Here it is
Why Men Should Take their Wife's Last Name
Genesis 2:24 ESV Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
As is so clearly illustrated in this text, the man is leaving his father and mother. He's going to become the spiritual priest of his own home, and bring his wife under his covering {interjecting: that sounds wrong} thus forming a new family unit.
However, people don't like to take the Bible the way that the Bible is. They like to make it fit their societies, and what they want it say. They have "itching ears." I'm just giving you some background here, so you'll understand why I condemn the practice of women taking the last name of their husband.
When a man keeps his last name, it's a symbol of his connection to his old family. It's a sign of dependence, not autonomy. He's forced to stay connected, in a perverse way, to his old family, making a weird conglomeration of two households--with him and his father forming a wrong two headed priesthood.
The MAN is to LEAVE. It is NEVER said that women leave their families. When she keeps her last name, it's a symbol of female dependence and need for connection and support. When a man takes his wife's last name, he's simply severing his connection with his own family, and showing his Christ-like acknowledgement of the fact that his wife just needs more emotional shoring up than he does.
In conclusion, I have clearly proven that men should take their wives's last names. Anyone who disagrees with me is a godless liberal who is discarding orthodox doctrine. Anyone who agrees with me is one of the godly remnant, who are holding fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Thank you.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
My Beef with the TNIV
I just couldn't believe it when I saw it. How could the TNIV do this? Could any honest person with a knowledge of Greek actually justify this unwarranted tampering with the text?
OK, OK, I'm being a little silly here. But I really wish that the TNIV would simply put brackets around contested passages like the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Now, they've put the entire passages into italics, and this is NOT good news for this lil lady's eyes.
Away with the italics!
OK, OK, I'm being a little silly here. But I really wish that the TNIV would simply put brackets around contested passages like the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Now, they've put the entire passages into italics, and this is NOT good news for this lil lady's eyes.
Away with the italics!
(Warning, this is!) A Poem
I love our rhythm
we fall in beside each other; mellow.
There is an even tenor to all our ways.
I love your small smiles
that blossom under my sunshine
No one else can see
how beauty full you are
I love - the idea of love
and the untenable longings that quiver
between us: we will never
be satisfied. There will be
an ache behind our contentment.
You will never understand how I love -
the way I can never exhaust you as a subject.
I’ll always be able to describe the way
you lean your cheek into your hand, the soft
and supple flesh escaping around white,
concentrated fingertips; your frown of concentration.
The subtle shift of light in your eyes
as you drop the Wall Street Journal
and turn your eyes to me
shining.
We will not go to work today.
We will breath in hazy sunlight.
Under this whole wide sky
we’re the only ones ready
to rise to meet God in the air.
Yeah. I really love the way we spin out
onto reality’s finest edge, the black ice.
I love the way you make it the best thing in the world
to go crashing through.
Swept away.
And I’ll spend all day telling you this
and you will smile and nod.
Both of us will send messages
with our fingertips, delicately
catching
at paper-thin air.
we fall in beside each other; mellow.
There is an even tenor to all our ways.
I love your small smiles
that blossom under my sunshine
No one else can see
how beauty full you are
I love - the idea of love
and the untenable longings that quiver
between us: we will never
be satisfied. There will be
an ache behind our contentment.
You will never understand how I love -
the way I can never exhaust you as a subject.
I’ll always be able to describe the way
you lean your cheek into your hand, the soft
and supple flesh escaping around white,
concentrated fingertips; your frown of concentration.
The subtle shift of light in your eyes
as you drop the Wall Street Journal
and turn your eyes to me
shining.
We will not go to work today.
We will breath in hazy sunlight.
Under this whole wide sky
we’re the only ones ready
to rise to meet God in the air.
Yeah. I really love the way we spin out
onto reality’s finest edge, the black ice.
I love the way you make it the best thing in the world
to go crashing through.
Swept away.
And I’ll spend all day telling you this
and you will smile and nod.
Both of us will send messages
with our fingertips, delicately
catching
at paper-thin air.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Pigma Micron---Perfect Bible/Moleskine Pen
Isn't it perfectly hideous and marvelous at the same time? I picked up a Pigma Micron yesterday, size 03, and have been perfectly thrilled with it. I've used it in my fire engine red TNIV, and despite the fact that the paper is very thin (to keep the Bible under an inch thick) there has been NO bleed through. Yes, there's 'ghosting'--you can see it on the other side, but no ugly blotches, or anything. I expect it would be even better with higher quality paper.
It writes very smoothly, giving you the sensation of writing with an ordinary gel or Pilot pen (I call them "inky pens" although that is perfectly idiotic, considering that every pen is inky) without any of those sudden, uncomfortable scratchy feelings, or blots on your finger-tips. Although, since this gives me a delightfully self satisfied feeling (the ink blots) I may pick up my spluttery Pilot once in awhile.
It looks exactly like the type of pen that will last FOREVER. I certainly hope that it shall. (It writes very well in a Moleskine, by the way, it's pure, smooth, ecstasy.)
Saturday, April 7, 2007
One Buck Short--or, Buying God
Three times today, someone was just one buck short.
I put back the packet of pens, too impatient to take the time to pick up the extra dollar that I needed.
I tapped my foot as I waited to purchase my one pen, and watched the man ahead of me deal ot a handfull of wrinkled tens and fives.
"Just one more," said the cashier pleasantly.
He put down a wrinkled one.
My friend came from the store, frustration written over her face. She held an unpaid bill in one hand.
"You dropped a dollar when I gave you that envelope to hold," she said "Give me a dollar."
I pulled a crushed dollar from my pocket, and handed it over.
Naturally, fiendish person that I am, I had to cannabalize a series of concidences to make an interesting blog post, but at least I admit my guilt.
I picked up a brilliantly red TNIV today, and my pen was a Pigma Micron, sacred pen, at least according to many people. It is a beautiful Bible, and it will certainly shine among the dignified navys, burgundies, powdered blues, dull gold and browns of my Bible collection. However, as I rummaged about for my Borders card, I questioned myself.
Was I searching for some Holy Grail Bible, some magically perfect volume---was I buying a Bible, or buying God? Or, buying my way to God? Buying some experience---"as the Borders register rings, a deep God experience from heaven springs?"
I don't just buy God through Bibles. Sometimes, I buy God through Bible study. When I turn over the pages of my wide margin Bible, and the colourful notations speak of my smug, self-serving Bible study, I fairly scream to myself "Wow! You've really bought God this time---look at that hard work!"
It's much easier for me to buy God than to speak with God. Because then, he's a person, and I'm too impatient to deal with people.
But I have a problem. I have to buy God every day. If I didn't...I'd come up short. I'd lose everything that I'd been working for. My god feeling, my self-righteousness. I'm pretty sure that's what Philippians 3 is about. I'm not quite as plain as Paul is, it's hard for me to grasp what it's about when I figure out that my self-righteousness doesn't mean anything. So, I come to God, and say this:
"Father, I know that I can't earn you. But I still try. In fact, I feel self-righteous when I tell you all of this. I feel smug that I realize that I'm hopeless. I feel smug that I admit my smugness. It pretty much ends up being a big advert for me, me, me. I'm sorry. Forgive. Help me. Really, really help me. Thanks for listening to lame prayers."
Faith is believing that.
I put back the packet of pens, too impatient to take the time to pick up the extra dollar that I needed.
I tapped my foot as I waited to purchase my one pen, and watched the man ahead of me deal ot a handfull of wrinkled tens and fives.
"Just one more," said the cashier pleasantly.
He put down a wrinkled one.
My friend came from the store, frustration written over her face. She held an unpaid bill in one hand.
"You dropped a dollar when I gave you that envelope to hold," she said "Give me a dollar."
I pulled a crushed dollar from my pocket, and handed it over.
Naturally, fiendish person that I am, I had to cannabalize a series of concidences to make an interesting blog post, but at least I admit my guilt.
I picked up a brilliantly red TNIV today, and my pen was a Pigma Micron, sacred pen, at least according to many people. It is a beautiful Bible, and it will certainly shine among the dignified navys, burgundies, powdered blues, dull gold and browns of my Bible collection. However, as I rummaged about for my Borders card, I questioned myself.
Was I searching for some Holy Grail Bible, some magically perfect volume---was I buying a Bible, or buying God? Or, buying my way to God? Buying some experience---"as the Borders register rings, a deep God experience from heaven springs?"
I don't just buy God through Bibles. Sometimes, I buy God through Bible study. When I turn over the pages of my wide margin Bible, and the colourful notations speak of my smug, self-serving Bible study, I fairly scream to myself "Wow! You've really bought God this time---look at that hard work!"
It's much easier for me to buy God than to speak with God. Because then, he's a person, and I'm too impatient to deal with people.
But I have a problem. I have to buy God every day. If I didn't...I'd come up short. I'd lose everything that I'd been working for. My god feeling, my self-righteousness. I'm pretty sure that's what Philippians 3 is about. I'm not quite as plain as Paul is, it's hard for me to grasp what it's about when I figure out that my self-righteousness doesn't mean anything. So, I come to God, and say this:
"Father, I know that I can't earn you. But I still try. In fact, I feel self-righteous when I tell you all of this. I feel smug that I realize that I'm hopeless. I feel smug that I admit my smugness. It pretty much ends up being a big advert for me, me, me. I'm sorry. Forgive. Help me. Really, really help me. Thanks for listening to lame prayers."
Faith is believing that.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Why can't Preachers Preach like Gerard Manley Hopkins Writes?
If preachers could preach like Gerard Hopkins (A Jesuit priest who converted to Catholicism against his parents wishes, he said he could not read their letters twice, they were so terrible) then you might have more people listening. He sounds more thrilled with God than anyone I know.
God's Grandeur
by Gerard Manley Hopkins
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
God's Grandeur
by Gerard Manley Hopkins
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Nope, Mark Driscoll
Mark Driscoll, in discussing the ESV...
The ESV upholds the complementarian nature of gender in Scripture.Unbeknownst to the average Bible-reading Christian, there is a great debate raging in academic circles about the language of gender and how it relates to biblical translation.
It must be pointed out that, in its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a push against Scripture. For example, Scripture states that God made us “male and female” (for example, Genesis 1:27). Consequently, in God’s created order, there is both equality between men and women (because both are His image-bearers) and distinction (because men and women have differing roles). This position is called complementarianism and teaches that men and women, though equal, are also different in some ways and therefore function best together in a complementary way, like a right hand and left hand
Actually, Mark, complementarianism--what a stupid word! And I mean in an artistic sense, that is a very ugly word, like egalitarianism, which is saved by the fact that is actually means what the word suggests--- says that for some reason, even though the left hand can do exactly what the right hand can do, we should forbid the left hand from doing it.
Mark, you're a bit like the Catholic nuns who didn't allow my left handed father to write with his left hand, because it was "unnatural." Complementarianism does NOT teach that men and women are different---it simply forces them to conform to their definition of different. And, if you happen to be a female who fits better into their male position, than you, like a left hand, are forbidden to do what you can do. NOT because you are different, because you're actually not that different from their definition of male. But because you are the Left Hand. Only, and simply, because you are the Left Hand.
This should be admitted. You see, because everyone acknowledges that women can be effective leaders. What is debated is whether they SHOULD be effective leaders, of men as well as other women. Bad example. Especially when you have ambidextrous people who use their hands...equally...oh dirty word!
The ESV upholds the complementarian nature of gender in Scripture.Unbeknownst to the average Bible-reading Christian, there is a great debate raging in academic circles about the language of gender and how it relates to biblical translation.
It must be pointed out that, in its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a push against Scripture. For example, Scripture states that God made us “male and female” (for example, Genesis 1:27). Consequently, in God’s created order, there is both equality between men and women (because both are His image-bearers) and distinction (because men and women have differing roles). This position is called complementarianism and teaches that men and women, though equal, are also different in some ways and therefore function best together in a complementary way, like a right hand and left hand
Actually, Mark, complementarianism--what a stupid word! And I mean in an artistic sense, that is a very ugly word, like egalitarianism, which is saved by the fact that is actually means what the word suggests--- says that for some reason, even though the left hand can do exactly what the right hand can do, we should forbid the left hand from doing it.
Mark, you're a bit like the Catholic nuns who didn't allow my left handed father to write with his left hand, because it was "unnatural." Complementarianism does NOT teach that men and women are different---it simply forces them to conform to their definition of different. And, if you happen to be a female who fits better into their male position, than you, like a left hand, are forbidden to do what you can do. NOT because you are different, because you're actually not that different from their definition of male. But because you are the Left Hand. Only, and simply, because you are the Left Hand.
This should be admitted. You see, because everyone acknowledges that women can be effective leaders. What is debated is whether they SHOULD be effective leaders, of men as well as other women. Bad example. Especially when you have ambidextrous people who use their hands...equally...oh dirty word!
Why the ESV Bible Will/Won't Succeed.
By succeed I mean that it is consistently used by a significant number of people...a Bible that's taken for granted the same way that a KJV or an NIV is.
Why the ESV Bible Will Succeed
1. Because the ESV has managed, by hook or crook, to connect with many critical people.
Critical people are pastors, authors, bloggers. Bloggers love the ESV. Bloggers LOVE the ESV. And if they don't, their dissenting posts rahing for the TNIV, NASB, whatever, simply fade into blogdom oblivion...unless, of course, someone says that the TNIV could be better than the ESV. Then, stand back!
2. The ESV blog.
This is very, very smart. This is the future of how people will get all of their news. Their generous habit of mentioning those who blog about their Bible has to help.
3. Those funky, crazy, hip covers.
The Journaling Bible, in my mind, personifies Crossways' grasp on what people like, what looks pleasing and snazzy to the modern eye. They just draw attention.
4. Its position, real or imagined, as an alternative to Mother-God translations of the Bible. Its position, true or untrue, as an alternative to brain-softening "dynamic equivalent" versions. The way that it's posed as the youthful, cool young child of the outdated, archaic NASB...but it still comes with all the classic words and phrases.
5. The fact that it is a good translation, in many aspects.
I have no trouble using a myriad of versions, but I find that the ESV manages to help carry the flow of a Biblical passage. The ands, buts, therefores---it helps to mantain a connectedness that I haven't really found in "easier" translations, which tend to break the Bible into smaller bites.
Why the ESV Bible Will Not Succeed
1. Crossway.
I'm really sorry, but when people who love your translation are begging you to sell it to another publisher because you're doing such a shoddy job, you need to sit up. Crappy bindings, lousy paper, lousy layout, the ridiculously small print in the Journaling Bible---people want to love their Bible for years, not have it collapse after one. That, as I've heard, is not uncommon.
2. Its opposition, real or imaginary, against the TNIV.
Look, brag about your translation all you want, but when one of your most prominent translators (WayneGrudemcoughcough) is on an all out campaign to destroy another Bible, you're going to get mixed up in it. Modern people are going to think that you're stupid when your biggest concern is that some nuance of essential maleness is lost when you say "people" instead of "men." They don't give a damn, and you come off sounding like a fuddy-duddy.
3. ESV, the Red-Headed Stepchild of the Bookstore
I think that it was on Dan Edelen's blog ceruleansanctum.wordpress.com, that the ESV first got this title. I have to agree. In all of the bookstores that I have visited, the only ESV that I see are some Tru-Tone thinlines, hidden in boring black and silver boxes, an ugly Battlezone Bible, or some beat up paperbacks. The only exception is the imposing Reformation Bible, which, by its very title, possess a limited market. Meanwhile, every other version has cheaper, more visible, and just MORE on the shelf.
4. The fact that it's a literal translation
People want to give their children something that they can understand. People want to be sure that the Bible they're sharing with a non-church person will make sense to them. The fact that the ESV retains classic terms, such as propitation, are great for the churchese speaking Christian. Not for those who just want to know what the hell this book is trying to say.
5. The fact that it's not used in many study Bibles
Right now, there's the Reformation study Bible. And the children's Bible, which looks very nice. Meanwhile, we have NO
ESV Open Bible
ESV Life Application
ESV Thompson Chain
ESV Women's Bible
ESV Men's Bible
ESV Teen's Bible (other than the 3Story)
ESV Study Bible(which I understand is coming soon)
ESV by Cambridge publishers
Lots of great covers, but they're all basically text editions.
So there you have it. Five reason why the ESV will, or will not succeed. Anyone have more suggestions?
Why the ESV Bible Will Succeed
1. Because the ESV has managed, by hook or crook, to connect with many critical people.
Critical people are pastors, authors, bloggers. Bloggers love the ESV. Bloggers LOVE the ESV. And if they don't, their dissenting posts rahing for the TNIV, NASB, whatever, simply fade into blogdom oblivion...unless, of course, someone says that the TNIV could be better than the ESV. Then, stand back!
2. The ESV blog.
This is very, very smart. This is the future of how people will get all of their news. Their generous habit of mentioning those who blog about their Bible has to help.
3. Those funky, crazy, hip covers.
The Journaling Bible, in my mind, personifies Crossways' grasp on what people like, what looks pleasing and snazzy to the modern eye. They just draw attention.
4. Its position, real or imagined, as an alternative to Mother-God translations of the Bible. Its position, true or untrue, as an alternative to brain-softening "dynamic equivalent" versions. The way that it's posed as the youthful, cool young child of the outdated, archaic NASB...but it still comes with all the classic words and phrases.
5. The fact that it is a good translation, in many aspects.
I have no trouble using a myriad of versions, but I find that the ESV manages to help carry the flow of a Biblical passage. The ands, buts, therefores---it helps to mantain a connectedness that I haven't really found in "easier" translations, which tend to break the Bible into smaller bites.
Why the ESV Bible Will Not Succeed
1. Crossway.
I'm really sorry, but when people who love your translation are begging you to sell it to another publisher because you're doing such a shoddy job, you need to sit up. Crappy bindings, lousy paper, lousy layout, the ridiculously small print in the Journaling Bible---people want to love their Bible for years, not have it collapse after one. That, as I've heard, is not uncommon.
2. Its opposition, real or imaginary, against the TNIV.
Look, brag about your translation all you want, but when one of your most prominent translators (WayneGrudemcoughcough) is on an all out campaign to destroy another Bible, you're going to get mixed up in it. Modern people are going to think that you're stupid when your biggest concern is that some nuance of essential maleness is lost when you say "people" instead of "men." They don't give a damn, and you come off sounding like a fuddy-duddy.
3. ESV, the Red-Headed Stepchild of the Bookstore
I think that it was on Dan Edelen's blog ceruleansanctum.wordpress.com, that the ESV first got this title. I have to agree. In all of the bookstores that I have visited, the only ESV that I see are some Tru-Tone thinlines, hidden in boring black and silver boxes, an ugly Battlezone Bible, or some beat up paperbacks. The only exception is the imposing Reformation Bible, which, by its very title, possess a limited market. Meanwhile, every other version has cheaper, more visible, and just MORE on the shelf.
4. The fact that it's a literal translation
People want to give their children something that they can understand. People want to be sure that the Bible they're sharing with a non-church person will make sense to them. The fact that the ESV retains classic terms, such as propitation, are great for the churchese speaking Christian. Not for those who just want to know what the hell this book is trying to say.
5. The fact that it's not used in many study Bibles
Right now, there's the Reformation study Bible. And the children's Bible, which looks very nice. Meanwhile, we have NO
ESV Open Bible
ESV Life Application
ESV Thompson Chain
ESV Women's Bible
ESV Men's Bible
ESV Teen's Bible (other than the 3Story)
ESV Study Bible(which I understand is coming soon)
ESV by Cambridge publishers
Lots of great covers, but they're all basically text editions.
So there you have it. Five reason why the ESV will, or will not succeed. Anyone have more suggestions?
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles
Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles
Ye gods!
If only I knew that they'd chosen a bigger font! Blind people can't read a 7.5 font!
And then to wrap the whole package in those lucious bindings!
I HATE CROSSWAY! WAHHHHHH!
Ye gods!
If only I knew that they'd chosen a bigger font! Blind people can't read a 7.5 font!
And then to wrap the whole package in those lucious bindings!
I HATE CROSSWAY! WAHHHHHH!
Monday, April 2, 2007
Drool. New Calfskin Thinline ESV
Coming Soon: Cowhide Leather Thinline Bible
Now, if more every Bible publisher could just jot down a note about this..... This IS droolworthy.
Now, if more every Bible publisher could just jot down a note about this..... This IS droolworthy.
Thank God for Priscilla!
"We're shocked, really."
The TNIV committee last week issued a statement, defending their inclusion of the story of Priscilla, found in Acts 18:25-27, in which Priscilla and her husband took aside a young preacher, Apolles, and instructed him further about the gospel.
"It's not a passage contested by anyone," one translator complained "It seems to be part of a larger attack concentrated on the TNIV. This is irrational."
However, Wayne Grudem, in his recent article on the subject, stated that "It's a clear example of feminism biasing the work of the translators. The Bible clearly says that a woman isn't supposed to teach a man. Therefore, without any manuscript evidence, I'm declaring this passage a spurious inclusion by early feminists attempting to enlarge the God given role of women---to support, affirm, and encourage the leadership of men. I'm sure that the evidence will turn up someday. Meanwhile, the TNIV is lending support to a radical feminine agenda by giving credence to this---this screed!"
opinion-minion
Note: Although it has been rumored that future editions of the ESV will omit this passage, it has not yet been confirmed by Crossway or Wayne Grudem, whose fans are now advancing upon a certain blog writer
The TNIV committee last week issued a statement, defending their inclusion of the story of Priscilla, found in Acts 18:25-27, in which Priscilla and her husband took aside a young preacher, Apolles, and instructed him further about the gospel.
"It's not a passage contested by anyone," one translator complained "It seems to be part of a larger attack concentrated on the TNIV. This is irrational."
However, Wayne Grudem, in his recent article on the subject, stated that "It's a clear example of feminism biasing the work of the translators. The Bible clearly says that a woman isn't supposed to teach a man. Therefore, without any manuscript evidence, I'm declaring this passage a spurious inclusion by early feminists attempting to enlarge the God given role of women---to support, affirm, and encourage the leadership of men. I'm sure that the evidence will turn up someday. Meanwhile, the TNIV is lending support to a radical feminine agenda by giving credence to this---this screed!"
opinion-minion
Note: Although it has been rumored that future editions of the ESV will omit this passage, it has not yet been confirmed by Crossway or Wayne Grudem, whose fans are now advancing upon a certain blog writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)