NIV, NLT, CSB, or ESV

[FaithT]

Which Bible is best for Lutherans? I have an NIV which I use most often but am looking for something with both a pretty cover, easy to keep clean and as true to the original translation as possible, while being modern English and easy to read.
I don’t want a version which is paraphrased, but is translated. Today I found a company that makes some stunning Bibles, in the NLT, CSB and ESV called Hosanna Revival. Suggestions?

PS sorry, I originally posted this is the creation/theistic forum by mistake. Can moderator delete it from the wrong forum, please?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A number of us in our Lutheran Church Canada parish, including our pastor are using the ESV Catholic Edition.

CATHOLIC edition you might scoff, but think about it. LCMS/LCC have adopted the ESV as our current standard translation; our Lutheran Study Bible is ESV... as is our stand alone translation of the Apocrypha. While not a Study Bible, it is easily in hand and uncluttered for day to day use.

I like mine, a lot.

 

[Trusting in Him]

The best translation of the bible for you is the one which makes the original teaching of the bible most available to you in your own langage and your own understanding. All these bible translations are available for you to access and compare on the internet. While I understand why you are saying why you are looking for the one that is best for Lutherans, I would suggest to you that this should not be to much of a focus for you.

I think that it is much better to have the bible which presents what is said in the original languages in the most accurate form in you own language. We don't need other people telling us how to think, when we can allow God to do that for us. How does looking for a bible with a particular doctrinal bias help us to grow unhinded in God. It is not true that we can not think for ourselves and discover God's truths for ourselves.

Choose the version which creates the greatest desire for you to want to study His word for yourself!

 

[Daniel9v9]

I don't think we need to be overly contentious about Bible translations. All the major ones are generally fine, but given that many Lutherans use the ESV, it may be easier in some ways to conform to that. I use the ESVUK myself, and though it's a little clunky, overall, I still find it good.

Maybe I can mention that if you do like the NIV, you may be able to get your hands on the old NIV Lutheran Study Bible. It's called the Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV, and is published by Concordia Publishing House.

 

[FaithT]

I don't think we need to be overly contentious about Bible translations. All the major ones are generally fine, but given that many Lutherans use the ESV, it may be easier in some ways to conform to that. I use the ESVUK myself, and though it's a little clunky, overall, I still find it good.

Maybe I can mention that if you do like the NIV, you may be able to get your hands on the old NIV Lutheran Study Bible. It's called the Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV, and is published by Concordia Publishing House.

I already ordered an artificial leather ESV with my name on it from Christianbook.com. It’s not as feminine as the Hosanna Revival Bible but I think it’ll be easier to keep clean and it won’t include The Sinner’s Prayer, which I think for some reason Lutherans disapprove of. I also ordered a pretty case from Amazon.
I’ll continue to use my NIV because it’s a Study Bible so I can refer to it when I need the study notes, but my primary Bible will be my new ESV.

 

[FaithT]

@Daniel9v9
Why don’t Lutherans approve of The Sinners Prayer? Some posters mentioned that on another forum.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@Daniel9v9
Why don’t Lutherans approve of The Sinners Prayer? Some posters mentioned that on another forum.

While there is not a lot intrinsically wrong with the Sinner's prayer, it often is advocated by groups that promote decision theology. There is also concern that it could become a substitute for confession and absolution.

 

[Daniel9v9]

@Daniel9v9
Why don’t Lutherans approve of The Sinners Prayer? Some posters mentioned that on another forum.

Yes, what @MarkRohfrietsch said above. Maybe to expand on it a little:

The Sinner's Prayer comes out of an Arminian theological framework, which is to say that while we wouldn't reject it entirely, it is distinctly Baptist-Charismatic in that it encourages a personal decision for Jesus. Scriptures, however, talk about Jesus saving us. That is, we don't choose God, but God chooses us. And He works through means of His Word and gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist. So while we can commend the prayer's heart for repentance and faith in Jesus, we also recognise that this idea of inviting Jesus into our hearts in the sense that it is taught in Arminian theology is something that is foreign to historical Christianity, the Lutheran faith, and to the Scriptures themselves.

If it's helpful, think about the Exodus. Where exactly does the idea that the people should invite God into their hearts fit? It simply doesn't, because the text is about God saving the people through humans and means, and this is still true today, and in a sense even more so, for Christ is the culmination of the Old Testament promises.

Having said this, if a Bible contains the Sinner's Prayer in the back, I don't think we have to be contentious about it. It's fine. Where I would caution people is when it comes to Bible commentaries, such as the Scofield Bible, and paraphrase Bibles, such as the Message Bible (MSG), which do teach, to be plain, false doctrine. On the flipside, it can be useful to own and compare several Bibles and commentaries, providing they're serious enough. (So this would still disqualify the MSG! )

Anyway, the ESV is decent, so that's a good pick!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, what @MarkRohfrietsch said above. Maybe to expand on it a little:

The Sinner's Prayer comes out of an Arminian theological framework, which is to say that while we wouldn't reject it entirely, it is distinctly Baptist-Charismatic in that it encourages a personal decision for Jesus. Scriptures, however, talk about Jesus saving us. That is, we don't choose God, but God chooses us. And He works through means of His Word and gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist. So while we can commend the prayer's heart for repentance and faith in Jesus, we also recognise that this idea of inviting Jesus into our hearts in the sense that it is taught in Arminian theology is something that is foreign to historical Christianity, the Lutheran faith, and to the Scriptures themselves.

If it's helpful, think about the Exodus. Where exactly does the idea that the people should invite God into their hearts fit? It simply doesn't, because the text is about God saving the people through humans and means, and this is still true today, and in a sense even more so, for Christ is the culmination of the Old Testament promises.

Having said this, if a Bible contains the Sinner's Prayer in the back, I don't think we have to be contentious about it. It's fine. Where I would caution people is when it comes to Bible commentaries, such as the Scofield Bible, and paraphrase Bibles, such as the Message Bible (MSG), which do teach, to be plain, false doctrine. On the flipside, it can be useful to own and compare several Bibles and commentaries, providing they're serious enough. (So this would still disqualify the MSG! )

Anyway, the ESV is decent, so that's a good pick!

Thanks for the addendum to my post; very well stated!!

 

[Trusting in Him]

I have noticed various scripture quotes from the ESV at various times and quite like what I have seen. Whilst I have seen some versions quoted which do not greatly appeal to me, although I do not own a copy of the ESV, it is a version that I would consider buying for myself. I think that it helps a lot to have a bible which you are comfortable with.

 

[FaithT]

I have noticed various scripture quotes from the ESV at various times and quite like what I have seen. Whilst I have seen some versions quoted which do not greatly appeal to me, although I do not own a copy of the ESV, it is a version that I would consider buying for myself. I think that it helps a lot to have a bible which you are comfortable with.

I really like my new Bible except there isn’t much room to take notes I still love it though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

@Daniel9v9
Why don’t Lutherans approve of The Sinners Prayer? Some posters mentioned that on another forum.

Others have already given good answers. It is basically rooted in a wrong understanding of salvation, and puts the emphasis on human action rather than God's action. If I recall correctly, the Sinner's Prayer goes back to the American evangelist Billy Sunday who taught "God has done His part, now you must do your part". That's cooperationism: God does X, but that's not enough, now we have to do stuff too. That flies in the face of a proper understanding of grace: God does it all. Even faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8), none of this is by our works (Ephesians 2:9).

Now, is there anything wrong with praying to God, admitting that we are sinners and that we need Him? Absolutely not. But that's not how we "get saved". Just like there's nothing wrong with praying that the Lord reign in our hearts, but again that's not how we "get saved". We should live with a heart of repentance, that's why we confess our sins. We should seek the Lord daily, for His strength and mercy.

What I'd recommend is a totally different kind of "Sinner's Prayer", and that's the prayer of the penitent tax-collector in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The publican, or tax-collector, prays, "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner." Just as we should pray "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" In the same way that the only real altar call is the invitation to come and receive Christ in His Supper.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FaithT]

Yes, what @MarkRohfrietsch said above. Maybe to expand on it a little:

The Sinner's Prayer comes out of an Arminian theological framework, which is to say that while we wouldn't reject it entirely, it is distinctly Baptist-Charismatic in that it encourages a personal decision for Jesus. Scriptures, however, talk about Jesus saving us. That is, we don't choose God, but God chooses us. And He works through means of His Word and gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist. So while we can commend the prayer's heart for repentance and faith in Jesus, we also recognise that this idea of inviting Jesus into our hearts in the sense that it is taught in Arminian theology is something that is foreign to historical Christianity, the Lutheran faith, and to the Scriptures themselves.

If it's helpful, think about the Exodus. Where exactly does the idea that the people should invite God into their hearts fit? It simply doesn't, because the text is about God saving the people through humans and means, and this is still true today, and in a sense even more so, for Christ is the culmination of the Old Testament promises.

Having said this, if a Bible contains the Sinner's Prayer in the back, I don't think we have to be contentious about it. It's fine. Where I would caution people is when it comes to Bible commentaries, such as the Scofield Bible, and paraphrase Bibles, such as the Message Bible (MSG), which do teach, to be plain, false doctrine. On the flipside, it can be useful to own and compare several Bibles and commentaries, providing they're serious enough. (So this would still disqualify the MSG! )

Anyway, the ESV is decent, so that's a good pick!

What about the NLT? I’m now wondering if I should’ve ordered that instead. But I think it, too has The Sinner’s Prayer, which I don’t want.

 

[Daniel9v9]

What about the NLT? I’m now wondering if I should’ve ordered that instead. But I think it, too has The Sinner’s Prayer, which I don’t want.

I'm sorry to say I don't know much about the NLT. Maybe someone else can advise.

Skimming through it online now, I suspect it may be creeping into the paraphrase territory of the MSG. It's nowhere as silly as the MSG, but it's perhaps the NIV would be better. Just for comparison's sake, you can have a look at the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6:9-13:

ESV
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

NIV
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

NLT
Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us today the food we need,
and forgive us our sins,
as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
And don’t let us yield to temptation,
but rescue us from the evil one.

Note: The addition of the word "soon" isn't wrong, exactly, but it changes the meaning somewhat in that it gives the appearance that God's kingdom is only some future promise, when in fact it comes to us both right now and in the future.

Now, to comedy hour:

MSG
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


Note: ???????????????!!!!!

 

[FaithT]

I'm sorry to say I don't know much about the NLT. Maybe someone else can advise.

Skimming through it online now, I suspect it may be creeping into the paraphrase territory of the MSG. It's nowhere as silly as the MSG, but it's perhaps the NIV would be better. Just for comparison's sake, you can have a look at the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6:9-13:

ESV
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

NIV
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

NLT
Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.
Give us today the food we need,
and forgive us our sins,
as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
And don’t let us yield to temptation,
but rescue us from the evil one.

Note: The addition of the word "soon" isn't wrong, exactly, but it changes the meaning somewhat in that it gives the appearance that God's kingdom is only some future promise, when in fact it comes to us both right now and in the future.

Now, to comedy hour:

MSG
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.


Note: ???????????????!!!!!

Ok that MSG is just weird.

 

[Trusting in Him]

What about the NLT? I’m now wondering if I should’ve ordered that instead. But I think it, too has The Sinner’s Prayer, which I don’t want.

The NLT is not a proper translation, but instead is just a paraphraise. Why would anyone who is serious about following the word of God, want anything which is less than an accurate representation of the word of God. An accurate translation of the word of God is necessary for a full understanding of the truth and doctrine!

 

[FaithT]

Ok that MSG is just weird.

Good, I chose the right one!

 

[FaithT]

Yes, what @MarkRohfrietsch said above. Maybe to expand on it a little:

The Sinner's Prayer comes out of an Arminian theological framework, which is to say that while we wouldn't reject it entirely, it is distinctly Baptist-Charismatic in that it encourages a personal decision for Jesus. Scriptures, however, talk about Jesus saving us. That is, we don't choose God, but God chooses us. And He works through means of His Word and gifts of Baptism and the Eucharist. So while we can commend the prayer's heart for repentance and faith in Jesus, we also recognise that this idea of inviting Jesus into our hearts in the sense that it is taught in Arminian theology is something that is foreign to historical Christianity, the Lutheran faith, and to the Scriptures themselves.

If it's helpful, think about the Exodus. Where exactly does the idea that the people should invite God into their hearts fit? It simply doesn't, because the text is about God saving the people through humans and means, and this is still true today, and in a sense even more so, for Christ is the culmination of the Old Testament promises.

Having said this, if a Bible contains the Sinner's Prayer in the back, I don't think we have to be contentious about it. It's fine. Where I would caution people is when it comes to Bible commentaries, such as the Scofield Bible, and paraphrase Bibles, such as the Message Bible (MSG), which do teach, to be plain, false doctrine. On the flipside, it can be useful to own and compare several Bibles and commentaries, providing they're serious enough. (So this would still disqualify the MSG! )

Anyway, the ESV is decent, so that's a good pick!

Yay! I’m glad I chose the right one before spending money on it.

 

[FaithT]

Now I’m second guessing myself, again.

 

[tampasteve]

Now I’m second guessing myself, again.

You don't have to use just one translation. I routinely use more than one, they help clarify passages and you can often get a better idea of the text. Generally I advise to get one (at least!) from different text families. So, if you have the ESV, maybe get a NKJV (assuming you don't care for the KJV style of language).