Going to join a LCMS church.

[filosofer]

There are better translations than those. The NIV has a Reformed bend to it and God's Word, while a paraphrase of the Beck's Bible (which is also a paraphrase) is a rather clunky one. The LCMS now uses the English Standard Version for its liturgical and lectionary uses. A study Bible edition is in the works from CPH. Another very good translation is the NKJV which reads very similar to the King James without the archaic wording. It is also based somewhat on the Ecclesiatical Text. The NASB is also a good accurate translation, although it can be a bit of a chore to read because in many ways it mirrors the grammatical forms of the Greek and Hebrew.

As an LCMS pastor, I highly recommend the ESV.

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]
I remember when the Beck NT came out in 1963 (he was still working on the OT when he died in 1966, and it was published in 1976). It caused quite a stir. But keep in mind that Beck was a far superior linguist and Biblical scholar than most people at that time or today. As a pastor who was involved in evaluating and testing in congregations the original revision of Beck's translation in 1986-1994, known at the time as NET (New Evangelical Translation), as well subsequent revisions up to the publishing of God's Word in 1995, I disagree with your assessment of God’s Word translation.

In the change from the 1992 edition to the 1995 God’s Word publication I was frustrated with one specific area of NT translation, but I remember Dr. Robert Hoerber (St. Louis Sem. Greek and Latin professor, general NT editor of NET, translator for the NKJV, and editor of CSSB) commented that it was a perfectly acceptable translation. Regarding the OT, several of my suggestions (based on congregational use in worship and Bible study) were incorporated into it, which I think have made it better for oral reading. From the OT perspective, GW is better than most modern translations.

Regarding your statements concerning NAS and NKJV, I wholeheartedly agree with you. After spending many years with the KJV, I began using both translations (NAS since 1976 and NKJV since it first came out in NT in 1979).

Regarding the ESV, over the past two years, I have been evaluating it as a translation, paying particular attention to it as a study/teaching translation, an oral translation, and a liturgical translation. Initially I thought it was the best translation that met these requirements. But now I am reluctant to enthusiastically endorse it for those uses. It seems to be a Beta of a translation in terms of English style (even the NAS and NKJV are better than the ESV in most places). Sadly, it looks like the anticipated ESV Revision coming this year will not address several of the critical translation/stylistic problems.

In terms of accuracy, the ESV translation of John 20:23 stands out as plain wrong, worse than the NIV, and the NIV translation of that passage was rejected in the 1986 Catechism. The NKJV was used for that passage in the Catechism; in the proposed (but never adopted) Catechism last year to match the LSB, the ESV translation of this passage was not adopted, again using the NKJV.

Have I taught using ESV? Yes. Just like I have used NIV at various times over the past 30 years. But as it stands, ESV is not the best for the above three requirements. NKJV and NAS95 are better.

For people wanting the best approach to study, I suggest that they consider NAS/GW or NKJV/GW as the ideal combination.

As a final comment, having translated all of the NT and significant parts of the OT, I am realizing more and more how difficult good translation work can be. And if anything, I am more humbled by it than I was when I started many years ago.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

 

[Crankhandle]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]
I remember when the Beck NT came out in 1963 (he was still working on the OT when he died in 1966, and it was published in 1976). It caused quite a stir. But keep in mind that Beck was a far superior linguist and Biblical scholar than most people at that time or today. As a pastor who was involved in evaluating and testing in congregations the original revision of Beck's translation in 1986-1994, known at the time as NET (New Evangelical Translation), as well subsequent revisions up to the publishing of God's Word in 1995, I disagree with your assessment of God’s Word translation.

In the change from the 1992 edition to the 1995 God’s Word publication I was frustrated with one specific area of NT translation, but I remember Dr. Robert Hoerber (St. Louis Sem. Greek and Latin professor, general NT editor of NET, translator for the NKJV, and editor of CSSB) commented that it was a perfectly acceptable translation. Regarding the OT, several of my suggestions (based on congregational use in worship and Bible study) were incorporated into it, which I think have made it better for oral reading. From the OT perspective, GW is better than most modern translations.

Regarding your statements concerning NAS and NKJV, I wholeheartedly agree with you. After spending many years with the KJV, I began using both translations (NAS since 1976 and NKJV since it first came out in NT in 1979).

Regarding the ESV, over the past two years, I have been evaluating it as a translation, paying particular attention to it as a study/teaching translation, an oral translation, and a liturgical translation. Initially I thought it was the best translation that met these requirements. But now I am reluctant to enthusiastically endorse it for those uses. It seems to be a Beta of a translation in terms of English style (even the NAS and NKJV are better than the ESV in most places). Sadly, it looks like the anticipated ESV Revision coming this year will not address several of the critical translation/stylistic problems.

In terms of accuracy, the ESV translation of John 20:23 stands out as plain wrong, worse than the NIV, and the NIV translation of that passage was rejected in the 1986 Catechism. The NKJV was used for that passage in the Catechism; in the proposed (but never adopted) Catechism last year to match the LSB, the ESV translation of this passage was not adopted, again using the NKJV.

Have I taught using ESV? Yes. Just like I have used NIV at various times over the past 30 years. But as it stands, ESV is not the best for the above three requirements. NKJV and NAS95 are better.

For people wanting the best approach to study, I suggest that they consider NAS/GW or NKJV/GW as the ideal combination.

As a final comment, having translated all of the NT and significant parts of the OT, I am realizing more and more how difficult good translation work can be. And if anything, I am more humbled by it than I was when I started many years ago.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

Thanks for the wonderful insight! This will be most helpful. Thanks again!

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Thanks Filo-----I wish you had made comments over the last year on this forum when I had told people that the better of all the translations was Beck's AAT or, I guess now know as, God's Word. At that time people were ginving it a bad reception on thsi board and I don't know why.

Beck did a phenomenal job translating the ATT by himself and is applauded for his undertaking.

If I remember correctly the WELS publishing company is publishing it now. Maybe other people know who carries it or if it is also published somewhere else to.

 

[dinkime]

one of the beck kids (ok, he is a retired adult) attends my church (WELS) -- and his liscense plate reads BCK ATT (or something to that affect)


WELS is working on another translation from the original languages -- our church had the chance to "preview" 2 of the books & it looked really good so far!

 

[DaRev]

If I remember correctly the WELS publishing company is publishing it now. Maybe other people know who carries it or if it is also published somewhere else to.

The AAT is exclusively owned by Herman Otten and is published by his Christian News publisher. He used to give out free copies to all incoming sem students at St. Louis. I never got one because he didn't start doing that until my second year. It was basically a shameless self promotion on his part to try and convince the synod to use it instead of the ESV for the new hymnal lectionary. Needless to say, if they had used it, ol' Herm would have made a bundle of money.

Personally, I'm glad the synod never considered it.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Have you ever read his CN? Have you ever met with the man and talked to him or you you just passing on heresay? You rhetoric of him is unfounded. I know him and his whole family and brothers.

He is not anti sematic as some claim, All you would have to do is talk to him personally to find that out. I have read his post on that years ago and there isn't anything rascist about them. He just wanted people to take a more realistic look at it because the dispensational premillennialist were elevating the Jewsih community to the chosen and that everything they said had to be believed. He said to take a more balanced view and not be so biased.

Just becasue you support the Kieshnick/dictatorial regime and he backs the confessional aspect doesn't mean you have to attack him unwarrantedly.

 

[filosofer]

The AAT is exclusively owned by Herman Otten and is published by his Christian News publisher. He used to give out free copies to all incoming sem students at St. Louis. I never got one because he didn't start doing that until my second year. It was basically a shameless self promotion on his part to try and convince the synod to use it instead of the ESV for the new hymnal lectionary. Needless to say, if they had used it, ol' Herm would have made a bundle of money.

Personally, I'm glad the synod never considered it.

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]
Just to be clear about timing: Herman Otten was giving free AAT's to Sem students before I attended seminary, before he had the sole publishing rights to it, before the revision of AAT ever began in 1986, long before there was any talk of even trying to come out with an ESV.

I have met Herman and he seemed personable enough, pleasant even. He played an important role along with many others in the initial complaints about the inroads of higher criticism at the Sem(s!) in the late 1950's, and especially in the 1960's.

The best thing he could have done, though, would have been to shut down LN/CN in about 1979-1980. I found the LN/CN reporting and sources questionable at times. But then, again, [/FONT][FONT="Book Antiqua"]today [/FONT][FONT="Book Antiqua"]we have the internet to ...


In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

 

[DaRev]

Have you ever read his CN? Have you ever met with the man and talked to him or you you just passing on heresay? You rhetoric of him is unfounded. I know him and his whole family and brothers.

Yes, I have read it several times. I find it to be a self serving and often divisive in content and nature. The church receives a copy of it regularly. I glance through it (the Turret of the Times is the best part of it) and then immediately throw it away. I don't need my parishioners getting involved in all that. I have a hard enough time right now getting them to be Lutheran again.

He is not anti sematic as some claim, All you would have to do is talk to him personally to find that out. I have read his post on that years ago and there isn't anything rascist about them. He just wanted people to take a more realistic look at it because the dispensational premillennialist were elevating the Jewsih community to the chosen and that everything they said had to be believed. He said to take a more balanced view and not be so biased.

When did I ever say anything about anti-Semitism??!??!?

Just becasue you support the Kieshnick/dictatorial regime and he backs the confessional aspect doesn't mean you have to attack him unwarrantedly.

First of all, I am not a supporter of Jerry Keischnick. Second of all my comments about Christian News are not unwarranted. Third of all, I suggest you stop and think about what you are saying before you do so. Engaging ones tongue before his brain is in gear is a dangerous thing. I take offense at your personal attack.

I await your apology.

 

[DaRev]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]Just to be clear about timing: Herman Otten was giving free AAT's to Sem students before I attended seminary, before he had the sole publishing rights to it, before the revision of AAT ever began in 1986, long before there was any talk of even trying to come out with an ESV.

[/FONT]

Apparently it was a practice he had given up prior to 2001. It became a big deal when the synod announced it was considering the ESV and Otten's CN began this huge push for the AAT, even going so far as to misrepresent the publisher of the ESV. He really needs to get his fact straight before he prints them.

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]The best thing he could have done, though, would have been to shut down LN/CN in about 1979-1980. I found the LN/CN reporting and sources questionable at times. [/FONT]

I personally do not know of anyone who takes it seriously anymore. There was a time when it yielded a great amount of influence in the Synod, but it recent years it has become just wacky.

 

[DaRev]

Here is a decent article on the God's Word bible.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yes, I have read it several times. I find it to be a self serving and often divisive in content and nature. The church receives a copy of it regularly. I glance through it (the Turret of the Times is the best part of it) and then immediately throw it away. I don't need my parishioners getting involved in all that. I have a hard enough time right now getting them to be Lutheran again.



When did I ever say anything about anti-Semitism??!??!?



First of all, I am not a supporter of Jerry Keischnick. Second of all my comments about Christian News are not unwarranted. Third of all, I suggest you stop and think about what you are saying before you do so. Engaging ones tongue before his brain is in gear is a dangerous thing. I take offense at your personal attack.

I await your apology.

I did not say you said he was anti-semetic. I said some people say he is so there is no apology forthcomming and you can take all the offence you want. I don't like your condesending attitude.

 

[Studeclunker]

Revrend, you might consider not throwing bricks in a glass house...

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

And I will pray for you to DaRev since you are not a good representation of the LCMS clergy.......or any clergy.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

According to a link someone posted on here about the "God's Word" bible and the inherent problems then I will try and stay with the original Beck's AAT bible.

Looks like when the AAT Bible was handed over to the National Bible society they made a mess of it.

 

[DaRev]

I wish to offer a public apology to anyone who I may have offended by a recent post.
I have no excuse.

I pray for God's mercy and for yours.


Sincerely,
DaRev