Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, taught what became known as the basic household codes in Greek and Hellenist culture.  The Aristotlian Household Codes addressed the husbands, instructing them to rule over their wives, over their children, and over their slaves.

The Household Codes in the Bible are strikingly different.  We see the wife being addressed first, and then the husband, and we see that the Bible teaches mutual submission in the marriage relationship.  For example:

"For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. "  -1 Cor. 7:4 NRSVue

"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God."  -1 Cor. 11:11-12 NRSVue

The Christian Household Code of Ephesians chapter 5 starts with verse 21, where it defines Christian and marital submission, and it ends with verse 33, where it summarizes in one word for each spouse, what that submission looks like in marriage.

Let's take a look at the Bible's definition of submission in marriage:

"And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."  Eph. 5:21 NLT 2013

Christians in general, as well as in marriages, are to submit (be subject) to each other.  The Greek word underlying "subject/submit" here, is hypotassō, which was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange troops in a military fashion under the command of a leader." In non-military use, it meant "to cooperate with, or to support."

We can see via context immediately, what type of "submit" is being used in Ephesians chapter five, as verse 21 says "submit to one another."  This cannot be in the military sense, else there is no leader, as they are both putting themselves under the authority of the other.  Therefore, the type of "submit" in the household codes is the non-military definition, which was to "support."  Christians are to humbly support one another.  

We also see that "submit" here must not mean "obey," as "obey" is used later in the Ephesians Household Code, when it says that children are to "obey" their parents, and the slaves were to "obey" their masters.  The husband and wife are to support (submit / be subject to) each other.

Ephesians chapter 5 verse 22 says to the wife:

"For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord."  Eph. 5:22 NLT 2013

The most reliable and oldest manuscripts do not have the word "submit" in the above verse.  From the Greek into English, it literally says "For wives unto your husbands as to the Lord."  This means that it is referring back to the verb "submit" in verse 21, which is a mutual submission of supporting one another, not a military submission of obeying someone.

I'm quoting the NLT 2013 here, because it carries the idea of mutual submission from verse 21, into "For wives this means" in verse 22, and "For husbands this means" in verse 25.  

Now let's take a look at verses 23-24:

"For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything."  Eph. 5:23-24 NLT 2013

Recall that verse 21 defined submission in the marriage as mutual - the wife submits to the husband, and the husband submits to the wife.

Notice in the above verse 23, it says "for a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church."  This passage is more literal and sensical in the NRSVue, where it says "for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, his body."

Did you see that it went from husbands and wives - plural, to singular?  "The husband / the wife."  This is because "the husband" is the original husband - Adam, and "the wife" is the original wife - Eve. This is further verified in verse 31.  It went back to the source, which parallels with where the above passage also says "as Christ is the head of the church." In the next verse, it goes back to plural - husbands and wives.

People tend to put a modern meaning to the symbolic word for "head," and that creates not only confusion in the churches, but sexism against women, which often leads to abuse.  In modern English, symbolic "head" means "authority or leader."  This is NOT what symbolic "head" meant in the ancient  Koine Greek at the time Ephesians (and all of the New Testament) was written.  

We MUST interpret the Bible by how it was understood by the original recipients.  At that time, symbolic head meant "source, beginning, origin of."  If we plug in "Adam" for "the husband," and "Eve" for "the wife," and "source" for "head" in verse 23, then we can see how the original recipients of the letter to the churches of Ephesus saw it:

"For Adam is the source of Eve just as Christ is the source of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

The Bible uses source language a LOT.  In both Testaments, we often see people symbolically called trees, and the question is where did the seed for you, the tree, come from? - If the seed/source is God, then you are a tree of God.  If the seed/source of your tree - you, is the world, then your spiritual source is worldly.

In the New Testament, we see several places where the Bible teaches Christ as the head - source of the church, and the church is the body.  The head nourishes the body, and in Grecian thought, the body grows from the head, and is its beginning - think of "the head of a river," or Rosh Hashanah - "head of the year."  

We see therefore that in verse 23 that as Adam was the (DNA) source of Eve, Christ is the source (beginning) of the church, which is the body (which originated from the head - Christ).  In verse 24, we see that the church supports Christ (the body holds up the head) and likewise, the wife is to support her husband, under the definition of mutual submission as laid out in verse 21.

Notice that the Ephesians 5 Household Code doesn't bother telling the wife HOW to submit to her husband, until the last verse in chapter 5.  Instead, most of this code is written to the husband, describing how he is to submit to his wife.

Recall from verse 21:

"And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."  Eph. 5:21 NLT 2013

and then in verse 25a, we see: "For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church..."  NLT 2013

This Household Code goes into great detail, describing exactly what the love of husbands to their wives should look like.  Husbands submit to their wives, by loving them the way Christ loves the church and gave Himself for it, and by loving their wives as they love themselves.

Why is it giving such deep detail to the husbands, as to how to love their wives?  This is because Ephesian culture at that time generally regarded women as about the same level as slaves - they had no rights, and were considered subhuman and non-intelligent.  Husbands often were in their 30s, marrying female children who just started puberty.  Of course these girls didn't seem intelligent.  They were not allowed to be educated, and they were children! 

It was common for husbands to rape their female slaves, go to prostitutes, and have homosexual relations.  They would take a wife only when it was time for them to sire an heir to their household.  Wives were not loved.

In the Ephesians 5 household code, it is saying that Christians are to support one another, and that includes the wife supporting her husband, and the husband supporting his wife, by loving her.

This Household Code doesn't tell us how the wife submits (supports) until the very last verse, where it summarizes the wife and husband relationship in Christ, as:

"So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."  Eph. 5:33 NLT 2013

Now we see that their mutual submission (supporting one another) - verse 21, is via the wife respecting her husband, and the husband loving his wife - verse 33.

Why "respect" from the wife to the husband?  If you were an uneducated female child, married off to a man in his 30s against your will, and were treated not much better than household slaves, would you respect your husband?  Not likely.  Therefore, Paul is bunking the sexist Aristotle Household Codes, by stating that the husband is to LOVE his wife, and the wife is to RESPECT her husband.

Ephesians chapter five is not at all espousing patriarchy.  In fact, verse 31 says:

"As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." -NLT 2013

This is the opposite of patriarchy.  In a patriarchy, the wife leaves her family for the husband.  In both the Old and New Testaments, we see the opposite.  The husband leaves his family for his wife.

Is the Bible condoning men marrying children?  Not at all.  The household code was written to how the cultural households were at that time, in that society.  As Christianity expanded, so did morality.  Men began marrying women, rather than children.  There are still other religions today that deem women as almost subhuman, and have men marrying children.  This is not so in Spirit-Filled Christianity.

Chapter 6 of Ephesians then goes into how the children and slaves are to be, in the household. Both are told to "obey."  Some question about the household slaves.  Is this saying that Christians are to have slaves, or that slavery is okay?  NO.  The household codes in the New Testament were written to Greek and Hellenist households at that time, and the common households generally had slaves.  A slave often was someone who was in debt, and sold themself to their debtor to pay the debt, or they sold their child as a slave to pay debt.

The Bible nowhere condones slavery, but the Bible also works within the culture of which it was written.  The first step of abolishing Grecian household slaves, was where the Bible teaches that the Masters were to care for them, and treat them right.  As Christianity spread, household slavery became a thing of the past, as Galatians 3:28 teaches:

"There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:28 NLT 2013

And as we see in the early church, in Romans chapter 16, it lists church leaders, teachers, and missionaries - and we see a mix of Jews, Gentiles, freed slaves, rich people, men, and women - all leaders of the early church, and all one in Christ.

Lesson Two

Lesson Three

Lesson Four

Lesson Five

Lesson Six

Lesson Seven

Lesson Eight

Lesson Nine

Lesson Ten

Lesson Eleven

Lesson Twelve

If we just read the Bible, not knowing who each book is addressed to, and what the culture was at the time, we can come away with some wrong, and wonky ideas, such as: polygamy, snake handling, patriarchy, etc.  When we apply the culture, time and audience, things make more sense, and we start to easily discern between Scriptural description, versus Scriptural prescription.  There is one more thing we need to add to this list, to really see the Scriptures clearly, and that is - What literary style is the writer using, and in which parts of the book? 

Most of the time we just automatically pick up the literary style, and get the general gist, and therefore don't need to label which style said passage is in, because it's already familiar to us, because we use the same styles in our communications.  However, there is a style that we don't generally use very often, but which was heavily used, especially in the New Testament Pauline Epistles, and that is the literary device known as "Diatribe Style."  

Historical Pauline Diatribe style was obvious to the original recipients of the epistles, and even to many generations after that, but to our generation, it can be hard to notice and recognize, because most of us no longer speak or write using that literary device.  A Scriptural Diatribe Style is when the author states something they disagree with or want to further expound on, such as quoting those they are addressing, or quoting a known poet, philosopher, teacher, or cultural law.  Often we can recognize when Paul was writing in a Diatribe Style, because in many cases he will say one thing, and then say the opposite.  For example:

--“All things are permitted for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are permitted for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything^. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body.--  1 Corinthians 6:12-13  NRSVue

Many Bible translations contain the quotes in the above passage, but this is largely agreed upon to be a Pauline Diatribe Style.  Paul here is quoting someone who teaches "all things are permitted for me."  He then responds not a direct opposite, but that that teaching was incorrect, as he says "but not all things are beneficial."  He quotes the same person again - "all things are permitted for me," and then expounds more on his correction of this incorrect teaching, by stating "but I will not be dominated by anything."

He then quotes someone who taught "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," and he points out in his response - "and God will destroy both one and the other."

Sometimes Paul may say something along the lines of "you said," but most of the time, he does not tell the reader when he is quoting someone, because the slogans he quotes were so well known to the original recipients that it would have been a redundancy to do such.  (Some Bible translations will add "you said," or similar, to help us see the diatribe in some of the cases.)

As we unearth more and more ancient writings, we see more slogans and quotes that Paul used in his Literary Diatribes, such as the following:

--Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Sober up, as you rightly ought to, and sin no more, for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.--  1 Corinthians 15:33  NRSVue

Many Bible translations don't have the quoted section above in quotes, but now more and more Bible versions are rightly adding the quotes, as we now know the source who said what's in the above quotes.  "Bad company ruins good morals" is Paul quoting the then-famous Greek poet named Menander.

While the above is more of a slogan than a diatribe, I included it here, because the larger picture is that we need to recognize when Paul is quoting someone, or is stating his own words.  For example, some cults have the false belief that "Christians" can get baptized in the name of a dead loved one, and they think this may posthumously save that dead one from hell.  This incorrect doctrine is derived from the following:

--Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour?-- 1 Corinthians 15:29-30

Is the above a diatribe or a slogan?  It is neither, but I included it here to show you how important pronoun antecedents are in the Bible in order for one to arrive at the proper conclusion.  Paul here is not saying that Christians were receiving baptism on behalf of the dead.  He is referring to how even certain people of other religions believe in resurrection, else they wouldn't be baptizing themselves on behalf of the dead - even though that does nothing, in actuality.  

We know this is the case, because Paul refers to "those people" in verse 29 - meaning not Christians, and then talks of "ourselves" in verse 30 - which are the Christians.

Often in some of the Pauline epistles, especially in 1 Corinthians, it appears that Paul states one doctrinal thing, and then says the exact opposite.  This rattles and confuses us, and leads to some denominations believing one side, while explaining away the other side.

An example of this is the following:

--"In your congregations" you write, "as in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak.  On the contrary let them be subordinate, as also says the law.  And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."  What, was it from you that the word of God went forth, or to you only did it come?--  1 Corinthians 14:34-36  -1924 Montgomery Translation

Did you notice the quotation marks in the above?  Most Bible translations don't include these quotation marks, but the above Montgomery Translation does.  This is because the above verses are a classic Diatribe Style.  This is like how some Bible versions will have the slogan in the earlier quoted 1 Corinthians 15:33 in quotation marks and other translations won't, yet it's a quotation, none-the-less.

Like with the quotation in 1 Corinthians 15:33 being found through ancient writing to be from the Greek poet Menander, we also know who originated the quotation in the above 1 Corinthians 14:33-34. This is quoting Cato the Elder, as recorded by Livy.  Cato and his contemporaries were having issue with women starting to make political statements and trying to change the culture.  There was a law that was put in place, which had stated that women had certain public and wealth restrictions.  While the law was being repealed, Cato fiercely fought for that law, trying to keep it in place.  This is the "law" that is referred to in the above Scripture passage.  The women were being told to stay quiet outside of their homes, and that if they had questions, to wait to ask their husbands back at home.

The Corinthian church had picked up on this then well-known teaching of Cato the Elder, and was trying to apply it to the church. 

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 isn't Paul prohibiting women from speaking in the church. Else, he'd be contradicting himself, as he teaches that women speak, pray, prophesy, teach, etc in the church, in such places as 1 Corinthians 11:5, 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and 27-30, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 31 and 39, Galatians 3:27-28, etc.  Paul here is quoting what the Corinthian church was teaching, based off of Livy's record from Cato the Elder.  In 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, Paul is defending women speaking in the church.  He quotes the Corinthian church, where they say "...let the women keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak.  On the contrary let them be subordinate, as also says the law.  And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."  Paul then responds to that by saying "What, was it from you that the word of God went forth, or to you only did it come?"  He then says in verse 39 - "So, my brothers and sisters, strive to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." (NRSVue)

Lest you think 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 being a Diatribe Style is a new concept, it is not.  The Montgomery Translation has the quotes in the proper places in those verses, and the Montgomery Bible Translation was translated in 1924.

Perhaps now, if you are a patriarchalist, you are screaming (hopefully only in your mind) 1 Timothy 2:12!

That, my friend, is not a diatribe style, as you may be rightly guessing, however it falls under culture and who 1 Timothy was written to.  If you read that verse directly in the Greek, you see that the "quiet" that the women were supposed to be was not cessation of speech, but to be peaceful and calm.  You'll also see that it's not saying that women can't teach men.  It's literally saying from the Greek that wives must not spiritually murder their husbands, as Eve did Adam (in context with the verses that follow verse 12).

Sit down and read all of 1 and 2 Timothy in one reading - they're not that long.  Did you notice that a major theme in those two epistles is that of stopping false teachings in the church in Ephesus? (That's where Timothy was.)  If women weren't allowed to teach men, then what of the woman Prisca/Priscilla, who taught Apollo, who was a male preacher in Ephesus, as recorded in the book of Acts.  Paul gives Prisca accolades, not a rebuke.  The stipulation in 1 Timothy 2:12 was specifically for the church in Ephesus at that time, that the women who were unlearned in the Scriptures (yet were generally very learned in what's now known as modern Wicca) were not to influence and spiritually mislead their husbands, as Eve did Adam.

How does this apply today?  It simply means - don't mislead people away from Christ.  Period.

Back on the topic of Diatribe Style, you may be wondering how to recognize a Diatribe Style on your own, since Bible translations are inconsistent in pointing them out, and even when a Bible version puts quotes in for one diatribe, they don't put quotes in the the next one, etc.  The answer is not profound, but rather obvious when you think it through to its conclusion: We'll often automatically pick up on the simple diatribes without having a problem, but the ones we are unsure of, are usually the ones that look like Paul is contradicting himself.  

Here's an example of what looks like Paul is contradicting Himself, but it is likely a Diatribe Style:

--⁴ "Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head, ⁵ but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled shames her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair, but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. ⁷ For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. ⁸ Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for the sake of woman but woman for the sake of man."  ¹⁰ For this reason a woman ought to have authority over her head: because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. ¹² For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God.-- 1 Corinthians 11:4-12 NRSVue The quotation marks and colon in red are my additions.

Notice that verses 4-9 seem to be saying that women have to cover their heads, because men are the image and reflection of God, but women are just the reflection of man, and that woman was made from and for man.  And then, in verses 10-12, we see what seems to be the opposite - woman's head is covered symbolically via her having authority over her own head, and the given reason is 'because of the angels.'  'Because of the angels' is referring to what Paul mentioned earlier in 6:3, which teaches that all Christians will judge angels in the future.  The above verse 10 is Paul pointing out that women have authority over themselves, just as men do.  As women, along with men, will be equally judging the angels in the future.  Then in verses  11+ Paul points out mutuality, stating that men and women are not independent of one another, and one woman came from one man (Eve from Adam) but since then, ALL men have come through women, but that it is irrelevant who came from who, because both genders came directly from God - thus confirming what Genesis teaches - that both men and women are created by God, in the image of God.

Some people will point to 1 Corinthians 11:3, which states the following:

--But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.--

While the above verse 3 isn't a diatribe, it is somewhat cultural.  In this case, it's important that we don't put a modern meaning to a symbolic word that had an entirely different meaning to the original recipients. The word I'm referring to here is the symbolic use of "head."  Today, symbolic "head" usually means authority - for example, someone may be the "head of the finance department."  That's the leader, or the one in authority.  That's NOT what symbolic "head" meant to the original recipients.  In the Koine Greek at that time, symbolic "head" meant source - where something came from.  This is why we see in verse 12 Paul stipulating how the source of both men and women is God.  The only place in this chapter where we have the word "authority," is in verse 10, where it states that women have authority over their own heads.  The 2011 NIV translates this the best from the Greek:

--It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head: because of the angels.-- NIV 2011 The colon in red is mine.

In conclusion, I hope you can see my point in this treatise, that we must interpret Scripture how the original recipients understood it.  If we don't, we can have wrong doctrines; many of which oppress people.  The Southern Baptist denomination being a case in point: The Southern Baptists, as opposed to the Northern Baptists, used to defend slavery.  Now they don't, however as of around 1998, the Southern Baptists use the same scriptures that they used to use to defend slavery, to defend their wrong patriarchal view, that women aren't allowed to teach men, have authority over men, or be pastors. 

Yet, pre-1998, many Southern Baptists were rightly mutualists, as the Bible teaches.  For example:

--As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.-- Galatians 3:27-28 NRSVue

--For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.-- 1 Corinthians 7:4 NRSVue

--For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but all things come from God.-- 1 Corinthians 11:12 NRSVue

--being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.-- Ephesians 5:21  NRSVue

--Wives, likewise, submit to your own husbands. Do this so that even if some of them refuse to believe the word, they may be won without a word by their wives’ way of life.--- Husbands, likewise, submit by living with your wife in ways that honor her, knowing that she is the weaker partner. Honor her all the more, as she is also a coheir of the gracious care of life. Do this so that your prayers won’t be hindered.--- 1 Peter 3:1 and 7 CEB

Did you notice that Easter this year is on March 31, but Passover isn't until next month?  How is it that people are celebrating Christ's resurrection one month before the anniversary of His death?  I explain what's really going on with that in the below video:

 This article will explore three main areas:

·        - Is the King James Bible the Best/Most Accurate?

·         -Translations That I Don’t Recommend, and Why

·        - Three Great Translations, and Choosing Which One(s) Work Best for You

Is The King James Bible the Best/Most Accurate?

I got saved at around 10pm, on November 18, 1995.  My friend led me to Christ at the kitchen table.  He told me to only read the King James Bible.  That was no problem for me, because the Bible I already had was a King James Bible.  I didn’t know there was any other kind. The only Bibles I had ever seen up to that point all said “King James” on the spine.

I read through the King James Bible several times, and then in 1999, I was watching a Christian television show, and a guest came on, and said that other Bible translations are corrupt, because they are missing verses.  I never paid attention to other Bibles, as I was still happily reading and re-reading in the same Bible I had when I got saved.

Then they put charts up on the screen, and this person claimed that translators of new versions are working for the devil, and removing important passages from the Bible.  On the chart, I saw verses from the KJV, and next to them, it showed parts or all of these verses missing from new translations.  I decided that I was okay, as I was already reading the KJV, and saw no reason to even look into the new translations.

Several years ago, the Lord lead me to the Young’s Literal Translation, and then a few years after that, He told me to start studying the Bible in the Greek, and go from there.

My life changed.

My gifting from the Holy Spirit of God is to teach and preach His Word to all people, of both genders, and all ages, but especially Christian adults who want to get deeper into the Word. Read the KJV, and it seems clear that women aren’t allowed to do that.  For years, I said “The Bible says that women aren’t allowed to be pastors.  If they were, I’d be one.” 

I am now an ordained minister.

What changed?  I studied the scriptures in the Greek.  There are many women pastors in the Bible, and Paul actually DEFENDS women preachers, but you don’t see this in the KJV.

What about the missing verses in the new Bible translations?  There aren’t any.  Many of these “missing verses” have been found to be absent in the older Bible manuscripts.  These passages were written into the margins as notes in later manuscripts, and some scribes mistakenly wrote those passages from the margins into the text. Many of the “missing verses” are actually repeats from other places in the Bible, where the scribe may have accidentally written it in there, because that’s how it was written earlier in the text.

If you are going to use “missing verses” as your smoking gun, then I’ve got news for you.  The KJV is missing words, passages, and full sentences.  Let’s take a look  at the Wycliff translation from 1382:

There are many more, but the above is enough of a sampling to show my point.

There are also words and phrases in modern versions which are missing in the KJV.  Such as:

 There are plenty more, but the above sampling suffices as an example.

As more and more older manuscripts have been found, we’ve been getting more accurate Bibles in the English. For example, the very old Dead Sea Scrolls corrected something that never made sense in the KJV, but now makes perfect sense:

There were no “children of Israel” at the Tower of Babel.  They didn’t exist yet.  But “the gods” existed, as God’s Divine Council.  This makes other passages make sense, such as Daniel 10:13.

A massive inaccuracy with the King James Bible is that it is translated in patriarchal language, making women think they aren’t equal to men. (Complementarianism is a red herring.)

I therefore cannot recommend the KJV as an accurate translation for one to read or study from.

Translations that I Don’t Recommend, and Why

Unfortunately, many translations hide many Women of God in the Scriptures, either because they don’t translate certain words at all, or they change female names to male ones, even though the manuscripts have the female names.  These versions will also add words that are not in the original languages, which change the meaning of important doctrines.  We’ll take a look at some of this below, and will alternate in using some of the troublesome translations:

There are literally hundreds of Scriptures I can show you, where women are hidden or removed from certain Bible translations.  The above was a mere minute sampling.  Versions that I’ve noticed remove women are: the King James Version, the New King James Version, the English Standard Version – probably the WORST – worse than the KJV, the Christian Standard Bible, The New American Standard Bible 1995 and 2020 and the older editions, the NIV 1984 and older editions, and many more.  The translations I just mentioned, and ones like them, I recommend you stay away from.  They are all translated with doctrinal slant towards certain denominations.

The above mentioned translations have also unfortunately lead to abuse within the church, specifically of mislead (or sometimes downright evil) patriarchal men, forcing women to do what they want – usually this is sexual in nature.  Women get raped or molested in the name of God, because of poor translations and bad men who use them to their advantage.  Below is a small sampling of two passages that are dangerous, when translated incorrectly. 

Three Great Translations, and How to Choose What’s Best For You

There are many great translations I can recommend, such as the International Standard Version, however the ISV (ISV 2.0) and many of these great versions are either not available in print form, or are very hard to find or get.   Therefore I’m going to recommend three translations that are superb, and fairly easy to get in print form, especially off of ChristianBook.com, or Amazon.com.

1)      Common English Bible - CEB.  This Bible is GREAT.  It is almost 100% gender accurate.  If you are looking for an easy to understand Bible, that converts measurements and distances into English equivalents, and instead of using formal churchy language, uses common words at about the reading level of a standard newspaper, then the CEB may be for you.

However, if you would like to have some more accurate terms, such as Deacon, instead of Servant, and Overseer instead of Supervisor, then you may want to try one of the other below translations.

2)      New International Version, 2011 edition – NIV 2011.  The 1984 NIV is horrible, but the 2011 edition is surprisingly great.  The NIV 2011 does a great job in more properly translating 1 Corinthians 11:10 and 1 Timothy 2:12, but it is only about 75% gender accurate.  Also, if you want to dive deep into things more about the sprit realm, such as the Divine Council, Sheol/Hades, and Shades, then you’ll want to try the next translation…

3)      New Revised Standard Version updated edition – NRSVue.  The NRSVue is a new translation, which first came out in electronic format in 2021, then began coming out in print in 2022/2023.  There are new study Bibles and more NRSVue Bibles coming out, or soon to come out.  According to Zondervan:

“With revisions based on new textual evidence, historical insights, and linguistic precision, the NRSVue delivers a translation of Scripture based on meticulous care for accuracy and readability.”

The NRSVue is a literal translation, and wonderfully done.  It is more academic than the CEB and the NIV2011, but it’s also the most accurate.

NOTE: Only the Common English Bible of the above three translations properly translates gender accurateness in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  Most Bible translations add the pronoun “he” and related in these chapters, in regards to church leaders, but there are NO masculine pronouns in those passages in the Greek.  The CEB stays true to the Greek, and doesn’t add to the word of God, by adding “he” where it isn’t in the Greek.

Hopefully one of the above translations has gotten your attention, and you are interested.  If you’re like me, you’ll use all three.  I love all of them, but I think my favorite is the NRSVue.