Christian Headcovering Or Veil ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I thought yall might find this interesting.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jKWpnf12Q

[StMark]

o boy here we go again

you just had to open this can of worms didn't you scott

[Scott Hutchinson]

I'm kinda bored.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here ST.Mark she might have a single sister.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJKeXaJC2Ts

[jdm05]

I was raised in the Apostolic Assembly and disliked wearing a veil. As soon as church was over, I yanked my veil off and stuffed it in my purse. When I got older I stopped wearing a veil. Some people made comments but I did not care. I could not undestand why the married women had to wear black veils and the unmarried women had to wear white veils only. But too each their own.

[Michael The Disciple]

I was raised in the Apostolic Assembly and disliked wearing a veil. As soon as church was over, I yanked my veil off and stuffed it in my purse. When I got older I stopped wearing a veil. Some people made comments but I did not care. I could not undestand why the married women had to wear black veils and the unmarried women had to wear white veils only. But too each their own.

But did you believe that Jesus wanted you to wear it? Thats whats important. The Bible says nothing about the color of the veil.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I respect other's convictions,and I did not post these to ridicule anyone.
I don't see this like the veil wearers do,but hey if you have a conviction stay with it.
JDMO5 welcome to AFF.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is another view.http://actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm

[RandyWayne]

I was raised in the Apostolic Assembly and disliked wearing a veil. As soon as church was over, I yanked my veil off and stuffed it in my purse. When I got older I stopped wearing a veil. Some people made comments but I did not care. I could not undestand why the married women had to wear black veils and the unmarried women had to wear white veils only. But too each their own.

I could have so much fun if I went there.... (and were a woman).

I would probably wear a "veil" like this:
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii146/mamarokka/image634976x.jpg

[jdm05]

But did you believe that Jesus wanted you to wear it? Thats whats important. The Bible says nothing about the color of the veil.

That's exactly what I would bring up all the time. The bible does not say what color veil to wear but that's what we were taught. I don't believe that is what Jesus wanted me to wear. That was my argument with others, if the bible says you have to wear a veil, then why do not the UPC women or any other religion wear veils? I did not ever feel convicted when I did not wear a veil at church. Then I was told out of respect I should wear one AND was given a white veil to wear. I said no thank you. They made me feel like I was being rebellious, but I wasn't. I just did not like being forced to do it.

Thanks Scott for the welcome!!!

[Michael The Disciple]

Was it the Apostolic Assembly Of The Faith In Christ? Or was it an independent group? There are not many (hate to put it this way) "White" Churches that practice this.

I personally believe Paul taught that when Women PRAY OR PROPHESY in public they are to cover with a veil or scarf of some kind. I wish an Apostolic group around here taught this truth.

[ChristopherHall]

I believe the language is rather clear. In addition early Christian writings on this subject also express an understanding closer to the literal meaning of the text's language. Let's look at I Corinthians 11:2-16 in the ESV for a little clarity,

Paul commends the Corinthian church for maintaining Apostolic "traditions",

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul explains the rule of headship,

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul addresses males wearing head coverings in prayer,

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Paul addresses women and head coverings in prayer. Notice that if she prays without her head covered it is "as if she were shaven." This simple statement clearly distinguishes being uncovered from a woman having her head shaven. Both are apparently a shame...

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

In the following verses Paul states that if a woman will not cover her head in prayer she should cut her hair short. Again the covering and hair length is compared and distinguished from one another. (Two subjects being compared.) Since it is a shame to cut off her hair, it serves as a proper example that she should be covered.

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

Paul explains that a man should not cover his head seeing that he is in the image of Christ. For a man to be covered, it would indicate that he is under an authority other than Christ...but a woman is under her husband's authority...

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Paul illustrates that a head covering serves as a symbol of a woman's submission to her husband. However she is to be honored for each gender is in need of the other.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Now to underscore Paul's initial point (verses 5 and 6) he draws an illustration from nature and presents it to the Corinthians. A woman should be covered, even nature teaches us this for it has given a woman her hair as a natural covering (Hair is not a symbol of authority as is the actual head covering referenced in verses 5,6, and 10). Paul indicates that practice and nature both agree....

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Here Paul states that this practice is a universal practice throughout the churches of God...

16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Early Christian writings indicate that Christian practice asked that a woman wear a head covering while in worship and prayer. Conservative Christian practice (both Modalist and Trinitarian) throughout the centuries indicates that this was the norm until the mid to late 1800's.

The question isn't so much as to what Paul was talking about, for the text appears to be plainly comparing two subjects head covering and hair. The question is has culture changed so drastically that this custom is no longer applicable or should this be a permanent part of Christian practice?

It should also be noted the issue is public disgrace or shame, not so much "sin". The reason that this was considered "shameful" was because in Corinth and throughout Asia Minor the cult of Isis was relatively common. In this cult the women worshiped the pagan goddess by letting down their hair and ecstatically calling upon the goddess. During many of these pagan rituals gross sexual perversions also took place. Any resemblance to this practice was indeed a shame. Not to mention a man covered as was customary for women was wearing that which pertained to a woman. A woman uncovered was considered immodest and/or in rebellion from male authority.

Such was never considered a damnable sin but rather an issue of Christian practice and decency.

Many women have found deep spiritual blessings in accepting this practice. I've discovered their meek and humble spirits speak volumes as they seek true Biblical womanhood.

The real question is...does it apply today?

[Michael The Disciple]

I believe the language is rather clear. In addition early Christian writings on this subject also express an understanding closer to the literal meaning of the text's language. Let's look at I Corinthians 11:2-16 in the ESV for a little clarity,

Paul commends the Corinthian church for maintaining Apostolic "traditions",

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul explains the rule of headship,

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul addresses males wearing head coverings in prayer,

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Paul addresses women and head coverings in prayer. Notice that if she prays without her head covered it is "as if she were shaven." This simple statement clearly distinguishes being uncovered from a woman having her head shaven. Both are apparently a shame...

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

In the following verses Paul states that if a woman will not cover her head in prayer she should cut her hair short. Again the covering and hair length is compared and distinguished from one another. (Two subjects being compared.) Since it is a shame to cut off her hair, it serves as a proper example that she should be covered.

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

Paul explains that a man should not cover his head seeing that he is in the image of Christ. For a man to be covered, it would indicate that he is under an authority other than Christ...but a woman is under her husband's authority...

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Paul illustrates that a head covering serves as a symbol of a woman's submission to her husband. However she is to be honored for each gender is in need of the other.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Now to underscore Paul's initial point (verses 5 and 6) he draws an illustration from nature and presents it to the Corinthians. A woman should be covered, even nature teaches us this for it has given a woman her hair as a natural covering (Hair is not a symbol of authority as is the actual head covering referenced in verses 5,6, and 10). Paul indicates that practice and nature both agree....

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Here Paul states that this practice is a universal practice throughout the churches of God...

16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Early Christian writings indicate that Christian practice asked that a woman wear a head covering while in worship and prayer. Conservative Christian practice (both Modalist and Trinitarian) throughout the centuries indicates that this was the norm until the mid to late 1800's.

The question isn't so much as to what Paul was talking about, for the text appears to be plainly comparing two subjects head covering and hair. The question is has culture changed so drastically that this custom is no longer applicable or should this be a permanent part of Christian practice?

It should also be noted the issue is public disgrace or shame, not so much "sin". The reason that this was considered "shameful" was because in Corinth and throughout Asia Minor the cult of Isis was relatively common. In this cult the women worshiped the pagan goddess by letting down their hair and ecstatically calling upon the goddess. During many of these pagan rituals gross sexual perversions also took place. Any resemblance to this practice was indeed a shame. Not to mention a man covered as was customary for women was wearing that which pertained to a woman. A woman uncovered was considered immodest and/or in rebellion from male authority.

Such was never considered a damnable sin but rather an issue of Christian practice and decency.

Many women have found deep spiritual blessings in accepting this practice. I've discovered their meek and humble spirits speak volumes as they seek true Biblical womanhood.

The real question is...does it apply today?

A good expanation of Pauls teaching. And yes its for today. Communion is in the same chapter and most believe it is still valid.

[jdm05]

Was it the Apostolic Assembly Of The Faith In Christ? Or was it an independent group? There are not many (hate to put it this way) "White" Churches that practice this.

I personally believe Paul taught that when Women PRAY OR PROPHESY in public they are to cover with a veil or scarf of some kind. I wish an Apostolic group around here taught this truth.

It was the Apostolic Assembly of The Faith In Christ or Assemblia Apostolica de La Fe en Cristo Jesus.

[jaxfam6]

Veils are a tradition not a biblical teaching. The words used in the scripture is a generic word for covering up until he tells them that a woman's hair is given to her in place of a covering. Then he actually uses the word for a cloth not a generic word. Not that I feel a woman is wrong is she veils herself but I feel that her hair was given to her for that purpose. So as long as her hair will cover her head and wrap around she is fine. Guess you could say I have my opinion that if her hair is shorter than her shoulders than maybe she should veil. If longer than her shoulders than it is up to her but she doesn't have to. But then again just my opinions and thoughts upon studying the words

[ChristopherHall]

I've heard of an interpretation that makes sense that I'll share here.

The key is verse 5....

I Corinthians 11:5 (ESV)
5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Let's define, "her head".

1 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

In Paul's day the cultural mores were such that if a woman were to attend public gatherings without a veil of sorts she would be regarded as an immodest woman. This would clearly dishonor her "head" or husband. So Paul admonished these women to wear their veils in addition to their long hair so that their husbands not be dishonored by them appearing immodest in public.

It could be argued that the "head covering" isn't required in our society but the principle of a woman being modest so as to not dishonor her husband publically is. The issue that comes into question is...how is modesty defined in one's cultural context? If living in an Eastern country where head coverings still apply, the principle would back up head coverings. If in a culture where head coverings do not apply, but perhaps a wedding band would, the principle would back up wearing a wedding band so as not to appear to be a loose woman and thereby dishonoring a woman's head or husband.

Just something I thought I'd include here.

For a while my wife wore something in her hair every time she was on the platform. It was something that we led our family into doing voluntarily. But as time passed I realized that the head covering wasn't so much the issue...the issue was deeper. Paul was calling women to honor their husbands through modest appearance in public.

[jaxfam6]

I've heard of an interpretation that makes sense that I'll share here.

The key is verse 5....

I Corinthians 11:5 (ESV)
5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Let's define, "her head".

1 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

In Paul's day the cultural mores were such that if a woman were to attend public gatherings without a veil of sorts she would be regarded as an immodest woman. This would clearly dishonor her "head" or husband. So Paul admonished these women to wear their veils in addition to their long hair so that their husbands not be dishonored by them appearing immodest in public.

It could be argued that the "head covering" isn't required in our society but the principle of a woman being modest so as to not dishonor her husband publically is. The issue that comes into question is...how is modesty defined in one's cultural context? If living in an Eastern country where head coverings still apply, the principle would back up head coverings. If in a culture where head coverings do not apply, but perhaps a wedding band would, the principle would back up wearing a wedding band so as not to appear to be a loose woman and thereby dishonoring a woman's head or husband.

Just something I thought I'd include here.

For a while my wife wore something in her hair every time she was on the platform. It was something that we led our family into doing voluntarily. But as time passed I realized that the head covering wasn't so much the issue...the issue was deeper. Paul was calling women to honor their husbands through modest appearance in public.


I think you finally got it. =)

modest appearance as well as modest in actions and attitude. That goes for men as well also.

[StMark]

But did you believe that Jesus wanted you to wear it? Thats whats important. The Bible says nothing about the color of the veil.


My Grandmother immigrated to America. She was old school
Catholic to the Max and wore a long lace veil

The Veils that the Apostolic Assembly wear comes from
catholicism

[Michael The Disciple]

I've heard of an interpretation that makes sense that I'll share here.

The key is verse 5....

I Corinthians 11:5 (ESV)
5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Let's define, "her head".

1 Corinthians 11:3 (ESV)
3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

In Paul's day the cultural mores were such that if a woman were to attend public gatherings without a veil of sorts she would be regarded as an immodest woman. This would clearly dishonor her "head" or husband. So Paul admonished these women to wear their veils in addition to their long hair so that their husbands not be dishonored by them appearing immodest in public.

It could be argued that the "head covering" isn't required in our society but the principle of a woman being modest so as to not dishonor her husband publically is. The issue that comes into question is...how is modesty defined in one's cultural context? If living in an Eastern country where head coverings still apply, the principle would back up head coverings. If in a culture where head coverings do not apply, but perhaps a wedding band would, the principle would back up wearing a wedding band so as not to appear to be a loose woman and thereby dishonoring a woman's head or husband.

Just something I thought I'd include here.

For a while my wife wore something in her hair every time she was on the platform. It was something that we led our family into doing voluntarily. But as time passed I realized that the head covering wasn't so much the issue...the issue was deeper. Paul was calling women to honor their husbands through modest appearance in public.

Sorry you gave up the truth.

[jaxfam6]

My Grandmother immigrated to America. She was old school
Catholic to the Max and wore a long lace veil

The Veils that the Apostolic Assembly wear comes from
catholicism

And your grandmothers did't?

The AAFCJ is almost all Latino, of course the veil is a carry over from Catholicism.

The veil worn by any 'Christian' group is a carry over from them.

[JN Anderson]

Wearing a material headdress is not relevant for New Testament women. It can be a decision of conscious though. In actuality, it is given secondary status to natural hair as the divinely given characteristic for women.

[Sam]

...
Such was never considered a damnable sin but rather an issue of Christian practice and decency.

Many women have found deep spiritual blessings in accepting this practice. I've discovered their meek and humble spirits speak volumes as they seek true Biblical womanhood.

The real question is...does it apply today?

In the United States in 2008, long or short hair on a woman, or a veil on a woman is not a moral issue. In some other countries, it is. In my opinion, how the hair/veil thing applies depends on where (geographically and socially) you are.

[Michael The Disciple]

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

I've studied this out and I go to an assembly that used to practice the headcovering for the women and I have had the opportunity to study this out with the pastor of the assembly I now attend, very much indepth, and as for the second headcovering video that some posted from youtube, I have written back and forth with that woman concerning the headcovering principle.
Michael the Disciple, your saying that others have simply "given up on this truth" is short-sighted. I admire anyone that has given serious consideration to 1 Cor. 11:1-16, regardless of the conclusion they have come to, because it is not an easy text to decipher, and when I thought I had it figured out I certainly didn't.
Bro. Hall, I noticed you used the ESV in your post, and from my study of the text, paraphrases can be deceiving, especially on verse 16. The Greek is of course the best, but as for myself I only know a few key words in the Greek, and I only have the Strongs to back me up. However, I would use a translation my pastor has (which name I can't remember now) which has the text in the Greek, and each word has it's most literal meaning in the English below each Greek word, which can make the passage sound strange in the English, but it's helpful, especially with verse 16. "We have no SUCH custom" (arguing of contention in the universal church over headcovering) and not "We have no OTHER custom" (meaning no other custom, but that all the women must cover their heads in the church) is the most literal understanding in my studying of the text.
This was such a big issue for me because the preacher that convinced me of the oneness message was also a headcovering preacher, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps and men like him, who all taught headcovering, so when I came across people that didn't practice headcovering or had stopped teaching it, I thought AT BEST they would just squeak by into Heaven. When I finally got a better understanding on this whole topic, it helped a lot, and the Church is a lot bigger and diverse in my mind than it was before. There are wrong teachings on this topic, of course, but none that have to cause division or contention, and none that will make or break anyone's salvation. When I come across brethren that are headcovering, I don't start a debate about it with them, and since I'm a brother it's not something I have to worry about, the only time it can become an issue for me is if my opinion is asked, and it's often not asked if I keep my mouth shut.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

[TCSQ]

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

THANK YOU!

[jaxfam6]

The veils worn by Catholic Women are a carry over from the New Testament Apostolic Church.

Do we know fopr a fact that early church women wore veils? Other than what we know of Jewish tradition. They did not see fit to impose veils on the Gentile women. (along with a few other things they decided were not important to impose also) That seems to me to say that it really isn't impotant. No heaven or hell thing here. If someone wears one fine if not fine. IMO Believe me I really searched this out and read it and prayed about it for a long time. When I finally come to an understanding of it well that is something NO ONE can take from me.

[Traci]

Here is another view.http://actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm

This was actually some very good reading and the best explaination I have come across in all my 40 years of being in or around the UPC (raised in-no longer in).

[PraiseHymn]

That's exactly what I would bring up all the time. The bible does not say what color veil to wear but that's what we were taught. I don't believe that is what Jesus wanted me to wear. That was my argument with others, if the bible says you have to wear a veil, then why do not the UPC women or any other religion wear veils? I did not ever feel convicted when I did not wear a veil at church. Then I was told out of respect I should wear one AND was given a white veil to wear. I said no thank you. They made me feel like I was being rebellious, but I wasn't. I just did not like being forced to do it.

Thanks Scott for the welcome!!!

FYI The Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith teach that women should cover their heads (veil or hat) we are a very large black apostolic organization...larger than the AAOCFCJ. We broke away from the PAW back in 1919 because we believed I the veil and no second marriages with a living divorced spouse while the PAW begged to differ (oh and we don't ordain women pastors) Bible Way World Wide wears the veil too as well as other organizations in Europe and abroad..trust me you were not alone.

However we don't require certain colors for the married or unmarried.

[ChristopherHall]

Bro. Hall, I noticed you used the ESV in your post, and from my study of the text, paraphrases can be deceiving, especially on verse 16. The Greek is of course the best, but as for myself I only know a few key words in the Greek, and I only have the Strongs to back me up. However, I would use a translation my pastor has (which name I can't remember now) which has the text in the Greek, and each word has it's most literal meaning in the English below each Greek word, which can make the passage sound strange in the English, but it's helpful, especially with verse 16. "We have no SUCH custom" (arguing of contention in the universal church over headcovering) and not "We have no OTHER custom" (meaning no other custom, but that all the women must cover their heads in the church) is the most literal understanding in my studying of the text.
This was such a big issue for me because the preacher that convinced me of the oneness message was also a headcovering preacher, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps and men like him, who all taught headcovering, so when I came across people that didn't practice headcovering or had stopped teaching it, I thought AT BEST they would just squeak by into Heaven. When I finally got a better understanding on this whole topic, it helped a lot, and the Church is a lot bigger and diverse in my mind than it was before. There are wrong teachings on this topic, of course, but none that have to cause division or contention, and none that will make or break anyone's salvation. When I come across brethren that are headcovering, I don't start a debate about it with them, and since I'm a brother it's not something I have to worry about, the only time it can become an issue for me is if my opinion is asked, and it's often not asked if I keep my mouth shut.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Bro. Alex,

You might want to look into the ESV. The ESV follows the school of formal equivalence regarding translation.

Here's a bit about it from the website:


http://www.esv.org/about/other.translations

How is the ESV Different from Other Translations?

All Bible translations seek to faithfully communicate God’s Word. But, depending on translation philosophy and purpose, significant differences are evident when comparing Bible translations.

There are two main kinds of Bible translations. The first is commonly referred to as (1) “word-for-word” (or “formal equivalence”) translation, the second as (2) “thought-for-thought” (or “dynamic equivalence”) translation. The main difference between these two translation philosophies is that the first one places the primary emphasis on what the words of the original say and mean (in their context), while the second one places the primary emphasis on the main thought or idea in the phrases of the original.

As an “essentially literal” translation, the ESV is committed to the principle of “word-for-word” translation, as the translation philosophy that most accurately conveys the Bible’s own understanding that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), or as Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).

This page explains how the ESV differs from eight of the most widely used Bible translations and paraphrases. You may also want to compare the ESV with selections from many of the translations discussed here.

King James Version (KJV) – The ESV Translation Team holds a deep respect for the work of the KJV translators as well as for the immeasurable impact this Bible has had on the English language and the English-speaking world for centuries. Though the KJV Bible is appreciated greatly for its literary beauty, much of the KJV language is now archaic and hard to understand. Also, the KJV was based on only a few original language manuscripts that were available 400 years ago. The ESV’s translators, however, had the advantage of access to much earlier manuscripts and the most up-to-date scholarly research. The result is that the ESV carries forward the KJV’s literary beauty and the essentially literal translation legacy, based on the best original language manuscripts. The ESV also retains the classic theological terms found in the King James Version, which modern translations often do not retain—terms such as “grace,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “propitiation,” which are central to Christian doctrine.

New International Version (NIV) – Unlike the ESV, the NIV is a “dynamic equivalence” translation, though it is on the more conservative end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum. Thus the NIV focuses primarily on translating thoughts and ideas rather than translating the meaning of each word. While this translation philosophy emphasizes readability, readability can be achieved only at the expense of the word-for-word precision and consistency of an essentially literal translation. The NIV also lacks the historical legacy carried forward by the ESV.

Today’s New International Version (TNIV) – The TNIV (published in full in February 2005), like the NIV, is a dynamic equivalence translation, focusing primarily on thoughts and ideas rather than the literal meaning of each word. Further, the TNIV has adopted a “gender inclusive” translation philosophy resulting in thousands of gender language changes as compared to the NIV. In contrast, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture.

New Living Translation (NLT) – The NLT is on the looser end of the dynamic equivalence spectrum, describing itself as a “thought-for-thought” rather than a “word-for-word” translation. The NLT was intentionally translated at a junior high reading level. Also, the NLT has avoided using theological terms, and has adopted a “gender inclusive” translation philosophy similar to that of the TNIV. As with other “thought-for-thought” translations, the NLT emphasis on readability is achieved at the expense of word-for-word precision and consistency.

New King James Version (NKJV) – The NKJV translation philosophy is quite similar to that of the ESV. The NKJV, however, is not based on the earlier Bible manuscripts used by the ESV and by almost every other modern Bible translation. The ESV also benefits from translation work that was completed more recently than the work on the NKJV (2001 vs. 1982) and that was carried out by a much more extensive team of international evangelical Bible scholars.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) – The HCSB calls its translation philosophy “optimal equivalence.” Thus the HCSB sometimes follows a “word-for-word” and sometimes a “thought-for-thought” approach, as decided by the HCSB translators for any given text. The HCSB also differs from the ESV in that the HCSB is not part of the historic KJV translation stream.

The Message –The Message is a paraphrase, rather than a translation. As a paraphrase, The Message expresses the ideas and thoughts of the original Bible languages in a loose, informal, and unconventional way. The result is often fresh and arresting, but at the expense of close correspondence to the original words of Scripture, and at the expense of consistency and precision in rendering theological language.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) – The NASB is a strictly literal translation, making it highly accurate. However, the NASB’s commitment to strictly literal translation often results in wording that sounds awkward. The ESV translators, while striving for accuracy and faithfulness to the original texts, also made clarity of expression and literary excellence high priorities. The language of the ESV, therefore, often flows more naturally than that of the NASB.

On this site you can watch a really good video on the ESV translation:

http://www.esv.org/churches/church.video.2005

I've checked it against several Greek commentators and it's pretty accurate.

[comeasyouare]

For my view go here: http://studyholiness.com/doc/Headcovering_blog.pdf