SBC Seminaries' First Ladies' Stern Warning About MVs

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jerome, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    Bible commentary for ladies urges readers to be wary of modern Bible versions:

    Seminary Presidents' Wives Edit Commentary

     
  2. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    Hmm... Here's my understanding of the story of Esther, in regard to submission:

    ---
    The king was having a 180-day feast with guests and friends and, when he was "merry with wine", ordered his wife, Vashti, to appear before he and his male guests without a veil (which was considered dishonorable), so that everyone could see her beauty. Vashti was scandalized by the command and she refused to obey.

    Because of her refusal to do something which she considered immoral, the king's advisors got together with the king and pointed out that if the king didn't do something about it, other women might get the idea that they could refuse commands from their husbands - that women wouldn't know their place! So they stripped Queen Vashti of access to the king, sent out word to all the kingdom that every man is "master of their own house", and came up with a plan to replace the Queen with someone younger, beautiful and more compliant.

    They gathered beautiful young women from all over the kingdom for a new harem for the King, gave them beauty treatments and training in the services of a harem. Mordecai had an orphaned niece that he was raising that was very beautiful, and she was selected to be part of the new harem. Esther became very popular with the man who was in charge of the harem and she received preferential treatment. After a time, each of the young women were sent to the king's chambers to spend the night "auditioning" for the role of Queen. After they had had they opportunity to spend the night with the king, she did not have another opportunity to return unless the king was delighted with her and asked for her by name. Esther delighted the king more than all of the other women, so she eventually became the new Queen.

    When Esther learned of Haman's plot to destroy to Jewish people, she had access to the king to foil Haman's plot because she took part in the king's harem scheme.
    ---

    The lesson of the story, as I understand it, is that God can work within a very twisted and immoral system to get His will accomplished through messed-up people. I find it hard to believe that anyone who would claim to be a follower of Christ would find the king's actions an acceptable guide to how men and women should relate. I certainly wouldn't vilify Vashti and/or condemn Esther for their roles since they were essentially playthings of the men. And I definitely wouldn't use this story as a guide as to how women should be submissive to men.

    Just because something is recorded in scripture doesn't mean it is intended as a positive guide for us to emulate... especially the actions of a pagan king.
     
  3. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a different take on the submission in Esther.

    Esther was initially defiant towards Mordecai when he told her the plan to save her people because she feared she would be killed, but Mordecai told her that if she didn't cooperate, God would send another in her place, so she submitted to God.

    She also submitted when she called the meeting between her husband and Haman and herself when she prepared a nice meal, dressed herself beautifully, and talked to him softly and undemanding. She submitted to her husband's authority.

    That's my take.
     
    #3 Amy.G, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2012
  4. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    So does this mean that the SBC is creeping towards JUST accepting their own bible translations, the HCSB, as being "official?"
     
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Oh I absolutely think institutionally the SBC is doing this...but this is just another pretext for doing so.
     
  6. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    That's a very good point!

    That may be what they may be what they are actually referring to instead of the broader story of Esther's journey to become Queen since I have not actually read what they have written. However, I think the relationship between the king and Esther is not something that we should hold as a standard for Christian women since the King used his wives (and harem) as playthings, not human beings created in the image of God. This text should not be treated as prescriptive of how the relationship between husband and wife SHOULD be, but instead how women might choose to act if they find themselves caught in a relationship with a man who treats them poorly.

    What I can't figure out is how the dreaded inclusive "Modern Translations" change the meaning of the story of Esther.
     
    #6 Baptist Believer, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  7. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    I happen to think HCSB is fine, as use it second most to my NASB, but why not just come out and adopt it as being the Official SBC version for church and curriculum!
     
  8. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is complete bunk. Those ladies (of course, speaking the opinions of their husbands) are completely out of left field.
     
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Yep! What will be really interesting is to see how MVs have changed Esther and then compare it to the scholarship behind the HCSB.

    Well this is exactly what we were expecting the Patterson regime to produce when they got installed at SWBTS. Didn't think they'd go as far as the "homemakers' degree" but this is potentionally as outlandish.
     
  10. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,836
    Likes Received:
    115
    **(rabbit-chasing time, sorry to the OP)

    I LIKE Queen Vashti. :thumbs: I say more power to her.

    I like Esther even more. I don't see her as "submitting" to her husbnd. I see her as submitting to a narcissistic king who just happens to be her husband. Everybody submitted to him.

    I don't read Esther to learn about wifely submission. I read Esther to read about obedience to God.
     
  11. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said the king was a good guy. Plenty of us know what it's like to be married to.....well....insert not so nice word. But God still calls us to be submissive unless our husbands want us to do something disobedient to God. The bible doesn't say "wives submit yourselves to your own husbands....unless he's a real jerk."

    I'm not defending the actions of the women who wrote the new commentary as I've not read it and can't comment on it. I was merely commenting on what I see as the possible submission in the story of Esther.


    As far as the MV's being feminist, maybe they're talking about the notes in study bibles? I don't see how the text is unless they're referring to the gender inclusive bibles.
     
  12. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    That's right. He was not a good guy. This was not a Christian marriage either. Nor was it a Jewish marriage... except that Esther was Jewish. Essentially, a pagan king thought she was the best in the harem and selected her to be the queen. There's no indication that I can see that she had much of a choice about anything. Furthermore, she didn't have the option of confronting the king about his reprehensible behavior like a Christian wife should do, when necessary.

    Yep. Marriage can be tough. I know that from personal experience.

    Vashti (although we have no indication that she believed in the God of Israel), was asked to do something she apparently believed was immoral. She refused.

    Esther was selected to be a sexual plaything for the king, with the possibility of becoming the queen if she turned out to be his favorite. (This is clearly outside the bounds of Christian morality.) She did not resist, although given the circumstances, I can't condemn her because she clearly did not have much of a choice and the culture was very different back then.

    That's true. However, the Bible clearly states, "Submit yourselves one to another" (Ephesians 5:21), which includes both husbands and wives, and then goes on to show how that works in verses 2:22-3:9 with husbands giving themselves up for their wives, wives submitting themselves to their husbands, parents submitting themselves to their children (being gentle with them/not making them angry people), children submitting themselves to their parents, slaves submitting themselves to their masters and masters submitting themselves to their slaves (remembering that they are not superior to their slaves and God will judge them according to how they recognize that fact in attitude and action).

    In this passage in Ephesians, Paul is not trying to set up a new social order that is contrary to the existing one in the Roman work, but instead transform it by making the nature of the relationships one of love, respect and mutual submission. Sometimes you hear critics of Christianity point out that Paul didn't abolish the cultural practice of some Christians holding slaves. That's true. But what he did was to completely undermine the practice by putting the slave and the master on equal footing in the relationship. (He even wrote the letter to Philemon urging Philemon to release his slave for the sake of the gospel.)

    Same here, but I scratching my head to figure out how they could get much of a relevant exposition of the virtues of submission out of the Book of Esther, when the situation was clearly VERY different than anything most women in the Western World would ever encounter.

    Imagine how this passage might be used to keep a child bride of a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist cult leader from trying to escape her situation. Would the ladies who wrote this commentary demand that the child bride (who had no real say in the marriage - just like Esther) should be submissive to their husband in everything? Or would they try to help her leave that relationship?

    I know how I would counsel someone in that situation. I don't use a pagan or pre-Christian context of marriage and view of women as the pattern for Christian marriage.
     
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Everyone,

    I realize it's a free country and all but let's all try to be good little Baptists and not talk bad about others. I happen to like the Pattersons. They love Jesus, it shows, and that's good enough for me. BTW, I have a little confession to make. Sometimes I sneak into my wife's nightstand to read the Women's study Bible notes when preparing a little family Bible study/discussion time. Good stuff in there. My wife's comes with the NKJV. Does the HCSB also have it? As for the feminist agenda in the biblical arena, it does seem to be a battleground, does it not?

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  14. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    The only person I have been talking bad about is the Persian King Ahasuerus, the king mentioned in the Book of Esther who treated women like playthings.

    I don't know the Pattersons personally, although they live less than two miles from my home and we have had mutual friends. But we are talking about doctrine here, not personalities. "Loving Jesus" is no cover for bad doctrine.

    There probably is good material in there. What is strange to me is that you feel the need to sneak around when you want to read what a woman thinks about scripture. Women (just like men) can be fine expositors of scripture and men shouldn't be afraid to publicly cite the opinions and scholarship of women.

    It is a battleground, and there's quite a bit of misrepresentation on both sides of the issue. Until both sides start dealing with the issues honestly and respectfully, there will be no progress.
     
  15. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    In another thread you attacked his character so stop pretending you are only talking about doctrine.
     
  16. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    The question is did they wear hats while composing this commentary?
     
  17. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    The only one wearing a "head covering" in this photo is Yassir Arafat (Is that Mrs. Patterson grinning over Arafat's shoulder as hubby shakes the terrorist's hand?)

    From Mrs. Patterson's own interweb site:

    Now how many Bible translation authorities/commentators on Esther actually have experience like that in a Middle Eastern palace?
     
  18. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,629
    Likes Received:
    45
    More:

    Druze Leaders Host SBC Seminary Administrators in Israel
     
  19. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    Are you going to continue stalking me around BaptistBoard attacking me by making allegations about what I allegedly said in other threads?

    Now I stand behind what I have said in other places, but the way you are presenting it here, completely out of context - using it as a basis to say I am being dishonest - forces me to document the claim you are making and let others decide for themselves who is credible:

    In the thread discussing inerrancy...

    You tied the doctrine of inerrancy tightly to doctrine, a position I happen to agree with. But I pointed out that the Patterson-Pressler coalition in the SBC did not seem to advocate that position during what became known as the "Conservative Resurgence."

    You assured me that the Patterson-Pressler coalitions views on inerrancy were the same as yours (which extends inerrancy only to doctrine).

    I explained why I held my view, based on personal experience, my reading on the subject, and my involvement in both the "conservative" and "moderate" camps during the big SBC fight. But I also agreed with you that Patterson may well actually believe the same thing because "I know Patterson routinely publicly maintains certain positions while actually doing something else when the spotlight is not on him." Then I linked to posts that documented this assertion.

    You responded with a Hillary Clinton-esque belief that what I had said was a distortion of "the left", even though all of the sources I referred to in those posts were primary sources from Southwestern Seminary, from books by Earle Ellis, and an essay written by a prominent Southwestern professor in good standing with Dr. Patterson that was featured prominently at Earle Ellis' funeral (which I attended). Moreover, I personally knew Earle Ellis and had discussed these things with him.

    Instead of dealing with the documentation, you took something else I referred to regarding inerrancy, claimed that I 'knew within my own heart that I have nothing to stand on' and then claimed that I was assassinating the character of someone else (specifically Patterson), that I have nothing to stand on.

    I then responded to the proposition that what I had posted was some sort of left wing attack on Patterson by getting very specific about one issue that you can easily verify online (with links to sources).

    Less than six minutes later (barely enough time to look at the sources, so there's a good chance they were not even examined), you simply repeated the claim that I had "to work to assassinate the character" of Patterson, that I have no reasonable ground to stand on. Again, instead of dealing with the documentation, you attacked me. (What does that say about you, according to your own standard?)

    Frustrated by you unwillingness to engage with the documentation, I pointed out that you seem to think that "reporting what is true = character assassination." Then I try to move away from the Patterson question because it is fairly irrelevant to the original question.

    In my last post on the subject, I asked whether you have a problem with posting links to articles and books or if you're just upset that someone can document things that you don't want to deal with.

    But you're not content to leave it at that, you are so upset/obsessed that someone has pointed out an inconsistency in Dr. Paige Patterson that you have to chase me around BaptistBoard claiming that I'm assassinating someone else's character.

    Weird.

    I'm not pretending. I have no beef with Dorothy Patterson, although I tend to disagree with her on a number of points of doctrine. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a single place in this thread where I have stepped away from discussing doctrine, EXCEPT for this post.
     
  20. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have now just told a lie about me as well as about what you have done. Repentance is in order.
     

Share This Page

Loading...