WELS Bible Version Change

[ratchet30]

I'd like to see more opinions on what the WELS members believe should be the next Bible version. I believe they should go with the NIV 2010 since the WELS has used an NIV edition for decades now. It would still be familiar with many of the congregants, especially the younglings when using 2010 despite certain changed renderings. I understand their is a concern with the messianic prophecies and gender neutral language but like the synod said, each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. I also believe the district conventions should vote on the issue next summer rather than wait for the next biennium. It'll be dragging out this issue too long. As you can see just starting with the WELS has made me out to be an expert Hope to hear from you.

 

[twin.spin]

I have several thoughts..


"each translation has its strengths and weaknesses" .....


no doubt (theoretically speaking for those who can't recognize it as such) that was probably the same thought when the committee looked into the Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Matthew Bible, Bishop Bible, Coverdale\Great Bible, Geneva Bible and others.........which that committee produced the KJV.

• FYI: the KJV is only 39% original...the balance is wording from other fore mentioned Bibles that existed at the time.
  • source Literary Linage of the KJV -- Charles Butterworth (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941)

I don't believe it is a good policy to have discernment of "strengths and weaknesses" being known by the selected few. Supposedly the NIV 2010 is 2 for 1 (improvement vs worse). A translation of God's Word shouldn't be acceptable like a batting average.

IMO... the answer is obvious.

1. God doesn't to Zondervan
2. That it's time for a Bible revival like what King James saw the need for in his time.

If that means we produce a Bible and dare not associate the name "Lutheran" or "WELS" to it ...then do it.

The average pew warmer shouldn't rely on for discernment when it comes to the very accuracy of God's Word.

 

[Zecryphon]

Read this link:

The unedited comments of NIV 2011 reviewers | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

This report details the strengths and weaknesses of the NIV 2011 or NNIV. There are some very concerning changes that were made. Some in the WELS say "these changes can be taught around or explained in study notes, so they're not a big challenge," but why should we have to teach around a weakening of God's Word? Shouldn't the translation, whatever it is, properly reflect what we believe? I'll post two passages that strike me as quite troublesome if this version were adopted.

Gen 6:6 This passage poses a particular challenge for the translator because in the anthropomorphism
(& 6:7) a Hebrew word that often indicates human repentance is attributed to God. Much could be said about this, but I will limit myself to this observation: The NIV 2011 translation (The LORD regretted…”) as compared to NIV 1984 (“The LORD was grieved…”) is more open to misunderstanding, i.e., that God makes mistakes, that he second-guesses himself, etc.

1 Timothy 2:12:

2:12 – from silent to quiet – in the context it’s not quietness that is being called for, otherwise quiet teaching and quiet exercise of authority would be OK.

These are two examples of changes in the NNIV that I am not comfortable with as they would undermine the teaching of the WELS. The whole report is 49 pages and I plan to read it thoroughly this week.

 

[Melethiel]

I vote for ESV.