WELS' bible translation

DaRev · Jul 21, 2013

The Bible is the inspired word of God, without error, and the source and norm of all teaching in the Church. This is why the Scriptures are the most important thing. The church Fathers and traditions are not inspired and not without error. They can never be taken as a source or norm of Christian teaching. They can serve as an example, but never the source or norm. This is why Confessional Lutheransim emphasizes the original language texts in our seminaries, and why pastors teach and preach based upon them. English translations are just that - translations. Evangelicals don't emphasize the original languages but rely on someone else's interpretation of them. That's not how Confessional Lutheranism works.

Shane R · Jul 21, 2013

DaRev said:
They can never be taken as a source or norm of Christian teaching. They can serve as an example, but never the source or norm.

How do you reconcile that statement with the churches subscription to the ecumenical creeds? The creeds represent a norm of Christian teaching.

DaRev · Jul 21, 2013

shanethetheologian said:
How do you reconcile that statement with the churches subscription to the ecumenical creeds? The creeds represent a norm of Christian teaching.

The source and norm of the creeds is Scripture. They are normed by Scripture. There's nothing in the creeds that is not expressly taught in Scripture.

bach90 · Jul 22, 2013

shanethetheologian said:
As one who attended Lutheran churches faithfully for about three years and turned to Orthodoxy I would like to offer this insight: Perhaps what the confessional Lutheran churches need is not a fresh translation of the Bible, but a fresh look at the Fathers and church tradition.

I still respect the confessional Lutherans, but I see them slowly drifting to Evangelicalism. I don't think the Bibles are what is making the difference in that respect.

I've only seen the interest in Patristics increase over the past few years.

DaRev said:
The Bible is the inspired word of God, without error, and the source and norm of all teaching in the Church. This is why the Scriptures are the most important thing. The church Fathers and traditions are not inspired and not without error. They can never be taken as a source or norm of Christian teaching. They can serve as an example, but never the source or norm. This is why Confessional Lutheransim emphasizes the original language texts in our seminaries, and why pastors teach and preach based upon them. English translations are just that - translations. Evangelicals don't emphasize the original languages but rely on someone else's interpretation of them. That's not how Confessional Lutheranism works.

I feel like when we say the Bible is "without error" we're using a slogan that doesn't mean what we think it means.

I definitely disagree, rather strongly, that Lutheranism is moving towards Evangelicalism. You have a fair number of Evangelicals actually moving into the Liturgical churches lately, if anything. The biggest problem I see in the LCMS, the number one issue, is the fact that there are individual congregations which ignore our practice of closed Communion. This is a huge, huge, deal for a lot of reasons which I won't get into here.

twin.spin · Jul 28, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
Confessional Lutheran churches aren't headed for Evangelicalism. We're trying to avoid that very thing by looking at other translations. It is a majority of the Evangelical movements that seek to de-genderize the bible and take out key components, such as women not being ordained.

The Fathers and church tradition don't define the bible, the bible defines the Fathers and church tradition.

So if that is true ... and one of the complaints against the NIV11 is just that ( de-genderize the bible ) and has been offically not endorsed by the LCMS and the ELS ... then what does that say about WELS by their lack of removing itself from it

it's only a matter of time when WELS is no longer a confessional Lutheran church
WELS will be a mini LCMS
lack of leadership in the WELS

PreachersWife2004 · Jul 29, 2013

twin.spin said:
So if that is true ... and one of the complaints against the NIV11 is just that ( de-genderize the bible ) and has been offically not endorsed by the LCMS and the ELS ... then what does that say about WELS by their lack of removing itself from it

[*]it's only a matter of time when WELS is no longer a confessional Lutheran church
[*]WELS will be a mini LCMS
[*]lack of leadership in the WELS

I'm not sure that not condemning a book would take a synods confessional status from them. WELS is confessional for her beliefs, not what version of the bible she uses.

I can't see the WELS ever being s mini version of the LCMS, mainly *because* our leadership is set up differently than LCMS. Convention is this week and I imagine they'll address the issue of the translation there.

Not ready sure what you expect. A synod isn't going to be rash in a decision like this.

twin.spin · Jul 29, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
I'm not sure that not condemning a book would take a synods confessional status from them. WELS is confessional for her beliefs, not what version of the bible she uses.

I can't see the WELS ever being s mini version of the LCMS, mainly *because* our leadership is set up differently than LCMS. Convention is this week and I imagine they'll address the issue of the translation there.

Not ready sure what you expect. A synod isn't going to be rash in a decision like this. .

First off, Maybe ... maybe not.
We ain't talking about some "book". During the hymnal debate, I made the distinction that no hymnal is inspired and so it was nothing more than "a book". However, I stated that when it comes to the Bible, that is the very soul of a church's identity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reflecting as to the blance .. I've chosen to retract it. Sorry for any misunderstandings or hurt feelings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant by a mini-LCMS is that as it currently exists, unless one knows intimately the local church, a person just doesn't know what you're geting.

As far as the translation: the convention results was what I expected.

Studeclunker · Sep 8, 2013

You know, I started this thread and neglected to follow it. Sorry, life gets in the way sometimes.

About the Beck version of the Bible, would he consent to the WELS 'adjusting' it?

My mother used to say we wear underwear for the same reason one should generally keep thier opinions to themselves; good manners. After all, not everyone looks good in a string bikini.

Thus, not everyone's opinions are best displayed in public.

Sadly, I don't follow that sage advice often enough.

It still escapes my understanding how anyone could get any copyright on the Bible. It's such a pity that Christ and his kingdom take a back seat to profit and parochial control.

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts on this. Whatever the WELS decides to do, they will do with or without my consent. So I suppose I'll just have to live with it.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 8, 2013

I personally own several 1984 NIV bibles and I will continue to use them until they fall apart. When I have questions about translations, I know who to ask.

It's clear that a lot of WELSers are split on how to deal with the situation. It will be interesting to see how we proceed over the next couple of years. I have to wonder, though...was it this big of a deal to switch from KJV to NIV?

For the record, I also have a KJV bible, which really is my preferred bible when I'm simply reading for guidance. But it is hard to "study" from, for me anyway.

Studeclunker · Sep 10, 2013

Coming from a somewhat British background and with a mother who was an English major in college, KJV is a piece of cake for me. That said, I do prefer the NKJV version, NIV I detest.

filosofer · Sep 10, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
It's clear that a lot of WELSers are split on how to deal with the situation. It will be interesting to see how we proceed over the next couple of years. I have to wonder, though...was it this big of a deal to switch from KJV to NIV?

In a way it wasI was in LCMS at the time, and the change in LCMS was paved by the use of RSV since the mid to late 1950s. But in my home congregation, we still used KJV when I was in confirmation (1961-2). For WELS the challenge was to determine whether to go with NIV (LCMS) or NKJV (ELS).

I think there is a difference on why the church bodies went with a certain translation. For the LCMS, it was financial. They had pulled out of the LBW project and began to produce their own hymnal (LW). By the time they got to production finalization LCA and ALC refused to let LCMS to use the joint Psalm texts. Hence LCMS had to find a translation in a hurry (1979-1980). NKJV had just been produced, but NIV was gaining traction. Zondervan offered to let LCMS use the NIV copyright free for the hymnal. Thus, NIV was the choice. Of course, all other materials LCMS had to pay royalties. So, Zondervan did not suffer by not having royalties on hymnals.

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 10, 2013

The more I hear about Zondervan, the more it makes me ill how much they seem to have profited on God's word. (I realize it's probably not solely Zondervan, but they are the ones I myself have done the most business with!)

Studeclunker · Sep 11, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
The more I hear about Zondervan, the more it makes me ill how much they seem to have profited on God's word. (I realize it's probably not solely Zondervan, but they are the ones I myself have done the most business with!)

My point exactly!

twin.spin · Sep 11, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
The more I hear about Zondervan, the more it makes me ill how much they seem to have profited on God's word. (I realize it's probably not solely Zondervan, but they are the ones I myself have done the most business with!)

More than NPH ?

PreachersWife2004 · Sep 11, 2013

twin.spin said:
More than NPH ?

More than NPH what?

I don't see them clamoring to try to make money off a bible copyright.

Striver · Sep 12, 2013

I hope you folks don't mind a non-Lutheran's two cents here.

I want to preface this with saying that I've kept up with the WELS search for a better translation, and in many ways the process has been admirable because it's not a knee-jerk reaction that I have seen many churches and denominations make.

I grew up with the KJV, but as I got old I shifted to the NKJV and eventually the ESV. I read both the NIV ('84 and '11) as well as the NLT. I also like the HCSB.

One of the things that I used to write off is the charge that certain companies are profiting from the Bible. It sounds bad at one level, but it also is simply representative of the system that we are involved with. In the end, I found the idea that we could simply collectively stop purchasing a Bible as a way to ensure it remains properly translated.

However, I've begun to pay attention in the sphere of translations, and I find what is going on with the NIV, NRSV and NKJV to be interesting. All three versions are owned by HarperCollins (HC owns Thomas Nelson and Zondervan). IMHO, they're simply trying to devise a new marketing strategy for the three Bible brands.

The NKJV is sort of the conservative choice. If you note the site, it appeals to an older demographic. They're still marketing it, but they've seemingly dropped back the marketing even in the Christian publications and such. The folks who buy it will buy it, but it will probably never enjoy popularity like the NIV and ESV do.

The NIV, IMHO, was shifted a little leftward on the literal-dynamic spectrum on purpose. It is meant to take up the role of the most popular, middle translation. It couldn't be too much like the NKJV, and the middle point has shifted a little as our younger generations mature.

On the "left" is the NRSV. IMHO, the NRSV has the potential to be the best version - to me it's often what the ESV should have been in terms of readability, but it makes a few critical translation choices that severely limit its popularity and acceptance amongst the average evangelical.

The NKJV was pressured by the introduction of the ESV. If you research, a number of folks made that change. It's never going to be updated because it appeals to the people it appeals to.

The NIV was pressured by the introduction of the ESV, HCSB, and NLT. The HCSB is a direct replacement of the NIV. It uses traditional language, and moves perhaps just a short step rightward towards formal equivalence. The ESV obviously is a couple steps more formal. The NLT actually threatens the NIV because it does the common language thing better than the NIV, it makes some of the gender language updates, but it really falls on the conservative side of the most controversial.

The NRSV is being pushed a bit harder now. The mainline denominations recently introduced the CEB which is a cross between the NLT and NIV, but with the mainline theology slant.

I'm really rethinking my position on Bibles. The HCSB, ESV and NLT seem to be the safer options because they're own by denominations or "church-first" organizations like Tyndale. The problem I have is that the ESV was obviously rushed out (3 revisions in 12 years of existence), the HCSB basically came about because of the NIV costs. At the end of the day, the profit motive drives all versions to some degree. On its own, that's not a bad thing. However, it leaves us with this muddled world of too many options.

I really do wish we could all get behind a Protestant version used across at least most churches.

twin.spin · Sep 12, 2013

PreachersWife2004 said:
More than NPH what?

I don't see them clamoring to try to make money off a bible copyright.

That's good to know that they sell every Bible at cost .... I do wish that I could my free copy of the NIV 11 translation like our pastor did.

Did your husband get his free copy?

filosofer · Sep 12, 2013

twin.spin said:
That's good to know that they sell every Bible at cost .... I do wish that I could my free copy of the NIV 11 translation like our pastor did.

Did your husband get his free copy?

[FONT=”Georgia”]
Interesting. I didn’t know pastors got free copies. As a pastor I bought my copy the old fashioned way, with cash. :wave:

[/FONT]

twin.spin · Sep 12, 2013

filosofer said:
[FONT=Georgia]Interesting. I didnt know pastors got free copies. As a pastor I bought my copy the old fashioned way, with cash. [/FONT]

Are you a WELS pastor and had to pay full retail ... no pastor discount?

Personally, IMO God is the only one who has copyright claim to God's Word.
Which is why IMO the KJV will be the only translation that will be always available to world's end.

The problem is not so much Zondervan but the copyright law itself which handi-cap's the vast majority of people.

I believe the WELS look at this simply incorrectly .... WELS should not have viewed this as translation process but as the way the KJV scholars did in 1611.
The 1611 KJV scholars (according to University of Pennsylvania Press) used 61% of existing English translations, indicating that only 39% KJV was original. That means the KJV was more of the "eclectic approach" than what people realize.

Then that version should have been under this instead of a copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

filosofer · Sep 12, 2013

twin.spin said:
Are you a WELS pastor and had to pay full retail ... no pastor discount?

Personally, IMO God is the only one who has copyright claim to God's Word.
Which is why IMO the KJV will be the only translation that will be always available to world's end.

The problem is not so much Zondervan but the copyright law itself which handi-cap's the vast majority of people.

I believe the WELS look at this simply incorrectly .... WELS should not have viewed this as translation process but as the way the KJV scholars did in 1611.
The 1611 KJV scholars (according to University of Pennsylvania Press) used 61% of existing English translations, indicating that only 39% KJV was original. That means the KJV was more of the "eclectic approach" than what people realize.

Then that version should have been under this instead of a copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License

No, not a WELS pastor, TAALC (I serve a congregation and also serve as president of our seminary and teach in the seminary). But I am friends with several WELS pastors and served congregations which were test congregations for the NET from 1986-1992. So I corresponded with the editors (Kuske-WELS and Hoerber-LCMS); they were both cordial and encouraging when I sent revision suggestions. Since then the most gracious responses I have received over the past 27 years of examining translations has been from the HCSB translation team and Baker Academic, publishers of GW, and WELS pastors interacting with me.

The major change in Bible publishing occurred in the late 1800’s when publishing companies took over the task from church bodies. That is the current environment we live in, unfortunately.

Yes, I would like to see a translation that used Creative Commons licensing. I think the digital era will dramatically change in this regard. We are not quite there yet, but the digital revolution in the last 20 years will certainly affect Bible publishing as well as textual criticism, etc.

WELS' bible translation

Well-Known Member

Priest

Well-Known Member

Evangelical Catholic

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

by his wounds we are healed

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

Senior Member

by his wounds we are healed

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

by his wounds we are healed

Senior Member

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

by his wounds we are healed

"There is still hope."

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

Senior Veteran

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

Senior Veteran

Similar threads