Just how wrong is the #ESV Study Bible? Pretty Darn, even denying the central role of Christ like @AiG

Jesus Christ Crucifix

Jesus Christ Crucifix (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to Jason for bringing this to my attention, of just how awful the ESV Study Bible notes really are.

God’s act of creation is the foundation for the entire biblical history. - ESVSBGen 1:1

That there, folks, is just plain blasphemous.

Pretty sure that the New Testament says Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of this house of ours, a foundation laid on the Apostles and Prophets:

Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. (Eph 2.20 NLT)

There are plenty of other verses testifying to just how heretical the ESV SB really is at this point.

Sure, the ESV SB says “biblical history” (a foreign concept, really), but if Jesus is not the cornerstone, and the Apostles and Prophets are not the foundation of the Church and the Gospel, what “biblical history” is there? In other words, there is no “biblical history” for Christians without Jesus Christ. Jesus is where “biblical history” starts, and not Ken Ham.

Not to mention just how badly they get Genesis 1-11 wrong, as well as the over all idea of what Creation is according to Scripture…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (9,936 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, working on the use of Deuteronomy in the Fourth Gospel. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

2 thoughts on Just how wrong is the #ESV Study Bible? Pretty Darn, even denying the central role of Christ like @AiG

  1. The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. The foundation for history is not the same as the foundation for the church, and this complaint is about as pathetic and irrelevant as the ones spouted by the King James Only heretics. History requires the existence of time, so we need an “in the beginning” to even begin speaking of “history.” God’s creation comes through the divine Logos (Jn. 1.1-3), so your suggestion that Christ is being excluded in this comment is quite a stretch.

Leave a Reply, Please!