What bible do you guys like?

[filosofer]

I'm kinda stunned and dissapointed that you are encouraging the use of the word "Yahweh" in a Bible translation. It alienates Jewish readers and assumes a little too much about the Divine Name. The RCC did not allow the JB to be used in liturgy for that very reason and as a result the NCB (a good translation, btw) was produced which revised the Divine Name out of the JB for liturgical use. A good way to stem the revision and Bible cash-cow tide. The KJV translators also understood the problems it poses.

Just to update this, I am still thinking about this. I have been in dialog with WELS pastors about this issue of the use of Yahweh, I have come to see that the confusion of switching back and forth is not solved by using Yahweh. Thus, I would recommend going back to using LORD in all texts, and will recommend that to HCSB.

I despise the HCSB. It might be reasonably accurate, but it sounds too colloquial and American when you read it. Words like "Can't" or "don't" and "moron" (yep- it's there, Matt 5:22) is just too slang for me. Reading the Sermon on the Mount in that translation makes it sound like Jesus is preaching from the stage of an American tv show. You're just waiting for the f-bomb. It guts all dignity out of the text and is unsuitable for liturgical use or serious study.

It's sad that modern money-spinning translations seem so desperate to justify their existence. The fact is: there's too many translations now. Our culture and language just doesn't need or justify more versions and more revisions of versions. Personally, unless there's heresy involved, I would not give them another reason to justify another money-making revision.

The Greek word is μωρός (in transliteration moron). Consistency of translation would with Matthew 23:17 uses μωρός and HCSB translates it as “fool.”

In terms of American colloquial, that may be a problem. Personally in reading, I don’t mind contractions, but in oral reading (which I have been doing for 40+ years) contractions are actually harder to read. So, when we use HCSB, I still read “I can not” rather than “I can’t.”

 

[Arcangl86]

In terms of American colloquial, that may be a problem. Personally in reading, I don’t mind contractions, but in oral reading (which I have been doing for 40+ years) contractions are actually harder to read. So, when we use HCSB, I still read “I can not” rather than “I can’t.”

I was thinking about this, and I think my conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. I think for liturgical and public use you want a bible written in a higher register, but I can see value in using a lower register for personal use.

 

[ContraMundum]

Just to update this, I am still thinking about this. I have been in dialog with WELS pastors about this issue of the use of Yahweh, I have come to see that the confusion of switching back and forth is not solved by using Yahweh. Thus, I would recommend going back to using LORD in all texts, and will recommend that to HCSB.

Amen. As an aside to tell your WELS colleagues, it may be a point to mention that the use of Yahweh also serves as a further barrier to spreading the Gospel to people who find the use of the Divine Name a stumbling block. (eg. it's hard enough trying to convince them that the tag "Lutheran" isn't an endorsement of Luther's anti-semitic phase, so why add to the troubles?)

The Greek word is μωρός (in transliteration moron). Consistency of translation would with Matthew 23:17 uses μωρός and HCSB translates it as “fool.”

Good point, but μωρός carries with it an implication that "moron" doesn't. In our current English vernacular, "moron" implies stupidity or intellectual deficiency. However the Greek also has some currency towards moral imperfection, even impiety. So I think to use "moron" is actually also inaccurate. If in fact μωρός is a Greek word used for the Hebrew מרה (marah- to rebel) than unbelief and impiety towards God is also the intended meaning.

An interesting point may be that in Jewish literature we find this rule: "it is forbidden a man to call his neighbour by a name of reproach...everyone that calls his neighbour "a wicked man", shall be brought down to hell;''

Worthy of thought.

In terms of American colloquial, that may be a problem. Personally in reading, I don’t mind contractions, but in oral reading (which I have been doing for 40+ years) contractions are actually harder to read. So, when we use HCSB, I still read “I can not” rather than “I can’t.”

Well stated.

 

[jonathan1971]

Hey filosofer,

Do you think Lutherans loose something of what they are by using modern translations?

The reason I ask is this. I've read and been told that when Luther translated the bible into German he kept the law gospel distinction between the old and new testament. I also know that the reformed, from the very beginning, never had such a distinction between them. Calvin was always talking about covenants and saw them through out scripture.

Do we run the risk of losing that distinction by using reformed bibles?

 

[ContraMundum]

Hey filosofer,

Do you think Lutherans loose something of what they are by using modern translations?

The reason I ask is this. I've read and been told that when Luther translated the bible into German he kept the law gospel distinction between the old and new testament. I also know that the reformed, from the very beginning, never had such a distinction between them. Calvin was always talking about covenants and saw them through out scripture.

Do we run the risk of losing that distinction by using reformed bibles?

The question should always be "what does the text say?", not "which translation serves best to preserve our tradition?" You would agree, right?

 

[filosofer]

Hey filosofer,

Do you think Lutherans loose something of what they are by using modern translations?

The reason I ask is this. I've read and been told that when Luther translated the bible into German he kept the law gospel distinction between the old and new testament. I also know that the reformed, from the very beginning, never had such a distinction between them. Calvin was always talking about covenants and saw them through out scripture.

Do we run the risk of losing that distinction by using reformed bibles?

Greetings. Two things:

1. Luther’s law-Gospel distinction and nothing to do with old and new testament. Rather, each testament had Law and Gospel passages. Thus, this is a false dichotomy. Luther also saw the covenants (berith in Hebrew, diatheke in Greek), but looked at the covenant as promise in the Old Testament and fulfillment in the New Testament. You can see/hear this most clearly in the Words of Institution, when we as Lutherans traditionally use “testament” not “covenant.

2. Translation has two focal points: what does the original text mean in the original context, and how can that be translated into the receptor language and carry the same language. One of the fallacies of the extreme post-modern approaches to literature, linguistics, and translation is that it doesn’t matter what the original author wrote/meant/intended, it only matters what the reader brings to the text. That essentially loses any ability to communicate, even among people today.

When Luther translated the Greek and Hebrew texts, his goal was to write in such a way that the common person could read/hear and understand in everyday language. He avoided the academic terminology, while still retaining the meaning of the original. That is a such a difficult task. In that sense, Luther’s translation is in many ways closer to God’s Word (GW) translation than it is KJV/ESV, etc. Now, by that I do not mean that GW is ideal... I would like to see them change the translation of dikaisoune from “God’s approval” to “righteousness.” But 20 years of my protests to the translation team has had no effect; my congregations had served as test congregations from 1987 to 1995, and then 19 years of urging the change.... But I digress.

One of the problems with the more traditional translations is that they do not have good oral capability. The KJV for its era was excellent, but ESV is not so good in this regard. Try orally reading some of the OT passages or Pauline paragraphs and then determine what people actually hear. Surprisingly the NAS is a little better in this regard than ESV.

A problem with the Reformed influence in translation has to do with word choices in critical texts. The NIV in 1 Peter 3:21 is a classic example. The way it is translated makes it appear to say something that the Greek does not. And I have heard and read pastors claim that there are two stages of symbolism involved (Ark, Baptism, Salvation), which the Greek does not in any way contended. But the Reformed use of “symbol” provokes such poor understanding. That is also why we stress that the original language texts are the source and determiner of doctrine, not any translation.

Well, enough I have a funeral... and two more near death. Translation is important, but life and death even more so

 

[jonathan1971]

thanks filo

 

[jonathan1971]

The question should always be "what does the text say?"

That's my point. What does the text say? I believe the reformed can't leave well enough alone. Since they are always reforming they tend to reform their bibles to better reflect their doctrine.

They've done it with the Lord's Supper and with Baptism.

 

[ContraMundum]

That's my point. What does the text say? I believe the reformed can't leave well enough alone. Since they are always reforming they tend to reform their bibles to better reflect their doctrine.

They've done it with the Lord's Supper and with Baptism.

Ever read Beck's "Lutheran" translation? Real blunders in parts.

...ok ok....let me be straight to the point. Believe it or not, there are actually Reformed people with brains. Big, capable brains in fact. In fact the translators of probably every Bible you own (and trust to some degree) are probably going to be Reformed in some way or another. But here's a fact you may not know about the Reformed- some think the Lutherans have been guilty of the same things some Lutherans accuse them of- biased interpretation, liberal application of the Bible, the originators of liberal theology etc etc.

So yes, it's back to what does the text say. But blaming the "Reformed" for doing translations you don't agree with begs the question- what does the text say...and if you're wrong....do you change or not? Best to drop the religious labels and get back to the Bible, IMHO.

 

[jonathan1971]

"Ever read Beck's "Lutheran" translation? Real blunders in parts."

Really....and what parts would those be?


"Best to drop the religious labels and get back to the Bible, "

That's what I'm trying to do. Thanks for the advice though. I'll let you have the last word.

 

[JTornado1]

My church uses the ESV. I personally prefer the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version and the earlier Berkeley Version. I also like the American Standard Version of 1901, the Ronald Knox translation, and the NASB.

 

[ContraMundum]

"Ever read Beck's "Lutheran" translation? Real blunders in parts."

Really....and what parts would those be?

I've long since banished Beck's AAT to the bottom of my Bible list and I don't recall the details. However, I found this article a fair assesment:

Beck's 'Bible in the Language of Today' (1976)

"Best to drop the religious labels and get back to the Bible, "

That's what I'm trying to do. Thanks for the advice though. I'll let you have the last word.

Sorry- I thought you were not trying to drop religious labels. You did ask "Do you think Lutherans loose (sic) something of what they are by using modern translations?"

It looked more religious than textually based to me. Sorry if I misunderstood.