WELS Bible version switch

[ratchet30]

Did WELS decide which bible version to switch to yet? Which would you recommend? When they change does that mean each and every WELS local church have to change with them?

 

[DaRev]

Whilst I am not WELS, I would reccomend the ESV. There were a few LCMS professors who were involved in the translation of this version, and there were some WELS scholars who were involved with the formation of The Lutheran Study Bible which also uses the ESV.

My coupl' o pennies...

 

[seajoy]

From what I've heard....no decision has been made yet. I have not heard good reviews of the new NIV though. So I guess we are at a wait and see point right now.

 

[DaRev]

Pr. McCain from CPH has an excellent article on the problems with the new NIV 2011 on his blog.

Why the New NIV is Bad News for Lutherans | CyberBrethren-A Lutheran Blog

 

[alexnbethmom]

Pr. McCain from CPH has an excellent article on the problems with the new NIV 2011 on his blog.

Why the New NIV is Bad News for Lutherans | CyberBrethren-A Lutheran Blog

i just read that this morning - excellent, excellent article.....

 

[QuiltAngel]

I was just going to post that link too.

If you are looking for a Bible to use now, go with the ESV and even the CPH study Bible, The Lutheran Study Bible.

The Lutheran Study Bible - Hardback

 

[JTornado1]

I hope they'll switch to the American Translation by William F. Beck. The ESV is just a revision of the RSV. Beck's was an original translation directly from the Hebrew and Greek. It's also easier to read than the ESV.

 

[DaRev]

I hope they'll switch to the American Translation by William F. Beck. The ESV is just a revision of the RSV. Beck's was an original translation directly from the Hebrew and Greek. It's also easier to read than the ESV.

The ESV started with the RSV as a base, but is based upon the Hebrew OT (BHS) and the Greek NT (NA27).

I think the AAT would make a good youth Bible with it's modern, almost slang, expressions.

 

[filosofer]

It’s too bad that the latest revision of AAT (Beck) in 1988/1992, which went by the name New Evangelical Translation (NET) [in 1990], wasn’t continued in that same vein. The God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society, which was doing the revision, shifted in 1992 and eventually produced GW (God’s Word) in 1995. That 1992 New Testament was superb. The Greek editors were Kuske (WELS) and Hoerber (LCMS). While I understand the change in 1992 and Dr. Bunkowske as long time missionary brought a new perspective, the move also led to the change of key words like δικαιοσουνη (diakaiosoune) was now translated “God’s approval” rather than “righteousness.”

The AAT (Beck) is still a decent translation, but there are a few problems and a couple errors. Yes, I wrote to point them out over the past ten years, but I have never received any acknowledgment that it was even received or considered.

This illustrates the delicate balance between continuity of faith expression (KJV, RSV, ESV) and the need to communicate with those of the current world (meaning those under 35). I think ESV does not do well here. Yep, I have heard all the arguments, but I also have been in congregations where the ESV does not reach the people; try orally reading Ephesians 1:3-14 and see how well you do. And that is a critical passage to understand. Over the years I have found that people like the familiarity of the rhythm of a translation but do not always understand the text of that translation. I know, they should be in Bible class... you will not find anyone more dedicated to teaching the Bible.

While I use ESV in those churches that use it, it is not my own favorite personal choice. The NAS 95 is better in so many ways (verb rendering in NT, etc.). It is a little wooden, but no more so than the ESV. Actually HCSB is a decent translation, I think better than ESV (except for some liturgical phrasing).

I have not been a fan of NIV, although I have used it whenever a congregation has that translation. I just received the NIV 2011 (large print for old codgers!). In some selected passages it is an improvement over the NIV.

 

[DaRev]

The AAT (Beck) is still a decent translation, but there are a few problems and a couple errors. Yes, I wrote to point them out over the past ten years, but I have never received any acknowledgment that it was even received or considered.

I would be interested in hearing what the problems and errors are.
If you'd like you can PM or send an email.

I've often thought the AAT would make a good youth Bible text.

 

[ContraMundum]

This topic interests me....so here's two cents that may add to your discussion. It is advised by many Lutherans than one must be very careful with which edition of Beck's you get. The early ones are not very good.

An article from WELS.