I got the information from Judaism 101: Signs and Symbols under “yarmulke”.

“In all good conscience and common sense, I must conclude that the Almighty is more concerned with cutting away the covering on my heart than he is with what’s on my head or not on my head.”

Great summary point, Greg!

Lin,
Thanks for the link!  I will want to copy the debate and read through the thoughts as I have time.

Don,
Very logical thoughts about why one would want to use the ESV with comps.

I have just finished a week of post production work on the first DVD in the 2 DVD set on the Trinity.  I am exhausted from the long hours, but so grateful to see the project come together.  The text, music, pictures, etc all come together to make a powerful statement that I think will be very helpful for a lot of people.  The next couple of days I want to catch up on my cleaning, preparation for a couple of weeks of R & R and writing articles and comments on my blog.  Thanks everyone for being so patient with me during this process.  I believe that the final product will be well worth the effort that I have put into this project.

I will have more to say later when my exhaustion leaves!

As an egalitarian, I use the ESV for 2 things:
1. To detect weaknesses in the non-egal position.
2. To sometimes quote as it cannot be accused of egal bias and is mostly pretty good, except they make all the choices they can in a non-egal way.
As a general rule, whoever REQUIRES ESV is probably non-egal, as using that translation easily is more than half way home to non-egalism.

This debate http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/ is fascinating about male only elders. While I do not agree with CD Host on every single point, he makes some very important points about the ESV translation that have bothered me for a while now.

Great thoughts.  This is also my conclusion from the text and the context.

That was well-worded.  Yes, I too believe that Paul’s answer was brilliant.  The married woman was caught between a rock and a hard place because she had two “heads”.  If her husband was a Jewish unbelieving man, it would be a very bad thing to force her to remove her veil.  It would have to be her decision on when was the proper time to be free from her veil.  Paul never gave the authority to her husband for the decision on whether she would wear the veil or not.  The decision was squarely on her shoulders.  This ruling alone giving the woman the authority to make the decision should remove any doubt that Paul believed that a woman was under the husband’s authority.

It was a shock to me too to see that the translators had imported words that brought their bias into the translation.  The more I studied from the original text and less with the translations, the more shocked I became.  These texts were the ones that had caused me to be prejudiced against women just like many others were.  They had made me feel that it was a inferior thing to be a woman.  It was a very freeing thing to understand that it wasn’t Paul or God who was biased against women.

Check out the quotes below:

“What may at first have been a modest etiquette grew into a scrupulous rule. Some aggadic sources began to interpret this custom as a sign of woman’s shame and feeling of guilt for Eve’s sin,[6] while the rabbis compared exposure of a married woman’s hair to the exposure of her privy parts (and forbid the recital of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman).[7]

[6] Gen, R, 17:8; Er, 100b and Rashi;

[7] Ber 24a

See http://jhom.com/topics/hair/woman.html