WELS Convention Coverage

[Zecryphon]

Here is a link to the ongoing web coverage of the WELS convention happening this week:

WELS Live - live streaming video powered by Livestream

 

[Zecryphon]

Does anyone have any comments or thoughts they'd like to share? Is anyone watching the coverage? I've seen a little bit of it, but being at work while the convention is going on makes continuous watching impossible.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

Does anyone have any comments or thoughts they'd like to share? Is anyone watching the coverage? I've seen a little bit of it, but being at work while the convention is going on makes continuous watching impossible.

I just saw your link and went to the site, but they are at lunch. I leave for work myself soon so won't see much of it. Anything good going on earlier?

 

[ratchet30]

I've been watching the daily wrap up videos. My biggest concern is the budget (is WELS doing well financially?) and the reports on adopting a different translation.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I've been watching the daily wrap up videos. My biggest concern is the budget (is WELS doing well financially?) and the reports on adopting a different translation.

I didn't get to watch much. The part I did see was talk of putting together a list of possible translations to vote on. They are also investigating the costs and feasibility of a translation their own, but I don't see that happening.

 

[Zecryphon]

I didn't get to watch much. The part I did see was talk of putting together a list of possible translations to vote on. They are also investigating the costs and feasibility of a translation their own, but I don't see that happening.

I was able to watch a little bit of the convention live the other day, they were at that time talking about their mission work around the world. I also caught a little bit of the translation discussion and the head of the Translation Evaluation Committee did say that they were kinda saying that the 2011 NIV is the best choice out there and they haven't seen anything that would do a better job as a translation. They did recognize the weaknesses of the NNIV but there's no translation that they know of that wouldn't bring it's own weaknesses with it.

One thing I did hear was that maybe they should wait until the 2013 convention to make a decision, so the congregations can have a chance to work with the NNIV and see if it actually is a suitable translation. My feeling is that the WELS, for whatever reason, has liked the NIV for the past 20 years and wants to stick with it, even though the New NIV weakens some messianic prophecies and has quite a bit of gender neutral language in it. I was hoping they'd opt for the ESV as this would make sense since a lot of WELSians do buy books and other resources from CPH, which uses the ESV as the translation in their publications. So us WELSers wouldn't have to be reading two translations, everything would be smooth.

I think waiting two years might be a mistake because at that time we HAVE to make a decision and the WELS could decide that in 2011 they were right, the NNIV is the best available translation out there and now we are going to go with it, because we have no other option.

 

[twin.spin]

One of our members who just retired who was a editor from NPH stated that there is a substantial cost involved plus the extra work involved in switching translations that was also being considered.

Part of the reality is that WELS is financially not in a position to incur any extra costs nor devote manpower than necessary to do such. There is more than just the Bible that is weighed into the decision. Every thing that has the NIV 84 is going to need to be changed .... the Meditations, Sunday school material, grade school material, Catechism ect.

It was told to us that there was a cut off date for anything new being published to not be using the 84 edition (he wasn't sure if that date has been reached). He noted that the committee claimed after it's research that it was a 2 for 1 about the NNIV...meaning for every 2 "improvements" there was 1 "worse".

It appears that this committee took all things into consideration when it reached it's decision. IMO...part of why the recommendation was because it would be the path of least resistance. From what I was able to detect (though not verbally directly) this impact is more affecting NPH. Everything new published from a certian date forward can not have the NIV84 in it.

I guess we're talking deep enough expenses that could do NPH under if a full change is done under the current economic realities. And I know that Synod really likes the fact it does has as much influence as they do with NPH.

 

[Zecryphon]

The date hasn't been reached yet. Biblica who I believe owns Zondervan is the one saying that after 2013, the 84 NIV will no longer be printed. At the WELS convention that just happened last week, they did not approve the NNIV for use synod wide at this time. It seems people want to have the same amount of time to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of this Bible translation that the TEC has had. Here is a video from the convention that explains it much better:

WELS Convention video wrap day four | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

My personal opinion is that if the WELS is so financially strapped for cash and producing a translation of our own is not a feasible option, just adopt an already existing Lutheran Study Bible, the one CPH recently released. But I think their reasoning behind that is that since the majority of contributors were LCMS, we will not use that Bible or translation, even though it actually makes sense since a lot of WELS people do buy books and materials from CPH which uses the ESV translation and this would make it easier for people because they wouldn't be reading two different translations depending on which publishing house put out the book they're reading.

The TEC did say that there is no perfect translation out there. All have their strengths and weaknesses. But the TEC feels that there are more improvements in the NNIV than there are weaknesses and since it reads smoothly it is suitable for public reading and worship. Here is a site that deals with the specific weakened verses in the NNIV:

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

 

[filosofer]

But I think their reasoning behind that is that since the majority of contributors were LCMS, we will not use that Bible or translation,

I don’t think that is the reason.

I have never been a big fan of the ESV. I would choose NKJV or NAS or AAT. I sympathize with WELS leaders and their dilemma regarding translations. And the NIV 2011 edition is better than the NIV 1984 edition. Check out Acts 3:21 and a few others that were sticking points for conservative Lutherans back when NIV was first considered.

Regarding gender issues, interestingly ESV has the same tendencies but it is much more inconsistent than NIV.

The date hasn't been reached yet. Biblica who I believe owns Zondervan is the one saying that after 2013, the 84 NIV will no longer be printed.

I think it is even stronger than not printing; I don’t think they will allow the use of the copyright to the 1984 edition.

 

[Zecryphon]

I don’t think that is the reason.

Yeah some people in the WELS just don't like the ESV translation, such as my pastor.

I have never been a big fan of the ESV. I would choose NKJV or NAS or AAT. I sympathize with WELS leaders and their dilemma regarding translations. And the NIV 2011 edition is better than the NIV 1984 edition. Check out Acts 3:21 and a few others that were sticking points for conservative Lutherans back when NIV was first considered.

I think those are the other three translations on the table for the TEC to evaluate in the next two years. There is no difference I can see in Acts 3:21 between the NNIV and the NIV. They read the same. Now in the ESV this passage is harder to understand, but says the same thing, you just need a higher reading level to grasp it. But why was this verse a sticking point when the NIV 1984 was being considered? What translation had WELS been using prior to this?

* The following excerpts were taken from:

http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Assessment Comments June 29.pdf

Some of the verses that a lot of people in the WELS feel are significantly weakened, to the point where the NNIV is not suitable for the WELS synod are:

Genesis

Gen 2:24

NIV 2011 turns this important passage into a description of marriage. NIV 1984 captured its true sense as the prescription of marriage, as indeed Jesus’ quoting of it confirms (Mt 19:5). I don’t know if this instance alone should make NIV 2011 “unusable for WELS,” but the passage is an important sedes doctrinae. However, if there are other sedes passages in other books that are compromised by NIV 2011 in a similar way, NIV 2011 may be unusable for us.

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.

Regarding gender issues, interestingly ESV has the same tendencies but it is much more inconsistent than NIV.

This next set of verses seem to deal with the gender inclusive or gender neutral language issue.

Deuteronomy

5:23—“leading men” to “leaders”
This passage refers to the leaders of Israel approaching Mount Sinai. This was a group of men who approached God. Other than Deborah and wicked queens, the leaders of God’s people were men. In my opinion this is a GN change to reflect our modern culture.

20:8—“is any man afraid . . . his brothers” to “is anyone afraid . . . his fellow soldiers”

This change seems to reflect the modern fact of women on the front lines. Were women in the front lines of battle at that time? In this verse note the new NIV uses “his” to refer to “fellow soldiers.” Was this an oversight? If not, why not use the words “men” and “brothers.”

21:5; 31:9—“the sons of Levi” to “the Levitical priests”
There were no women priests. “Sons of Levi” is how the original reads. Removing the masculine nature of the priests seems to fall into error of applying modern ideas about church leadership to the Hebrews.

10:22—“fathers to ancestors”—
The seventy mentioned were all males. They were the “fathers” of the tribes and clans. Of course, ancestors in another context is an OK translation. But in the context of an attempt to be gender neutral, one cannot help but comment on the attempt to remove the gender specific nature of its use here.

1:35—“not a man of” to “no one from”
Even if Heb. ish can in some cases be made gender neutral, in this verse the reference is to the “men.” Only the men twenty years and older were counted in the census. The specific exception to Caleb and Joshua underline this. This verse in Deuteronomy refers back to Numbers 14:28-30: “So tell them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the LORD, I will do to you the very things I heard you say: In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.’”

21:23—“bury him” to “bury it”
A person’s body is still that person, and does not become less than that. This seems to be a knee-jerk translation that avoids the English gender issue.

5:9—“sin of the fathers” to “sin of the parents”
The original word is “fathers.” I have no objection to including mothers in the concept, but this changes the meaning of the word. Also, the plural can imply that the sin is being (or must be) performed by both parents.

24:16x2—“Fathers shall not be” to “Parents shall not be” and “each is to die for his own” to “parents will
die for their own”
At best, the individual nature of guilt is watered down. At worst, a person may understand that both parents have to be involved.

16:19—“righteous” to “innocent”
“Righteous” conveys much more than innocent. The latter simply stresses a moral state, while righteous contains the idea of being a believer in the Lord and acting in line with one’s faith.

14:7—“coney” to “hyrax” Coney is obscure enough, but what’s a hyrax?

19:2—omit “centrally located” Is this a variant from BHS. Otherwise the Heb. has this phrase.

20:5—“not dedicated it” to “not yet begun to live in it”
Heb. is dedicated. The altered translation seem to be a matter of interpretation on the translator’s part.

1 Timothy

Taken together, these weaknesses cause me to doubt the advisability of using the NIV 2011, particularly if there are similar weakness spread through the rest of the reviews.

1:10 – changes a noun into a participle

1:16 – unlimited to immense = something without bounds has become something that it just ‘real big’

1:18 – end of sentence changes from the good fight to how you fight

1:19 – changed from an aorist – they shipwrecked – to the passive idea that they are victims of a shipwreck.

2:6 – the testimony to this has been witnessed to – seems to be a change to being people-focused rather than God-focused. The testimony to the ransom was given at the time God decided

2:9 – from have authority to assume authority – although it’s a hapax, reverting to the ursuping thought of KJV is not an improvement when the use in secular Greek is considered. I can be given an authority that I should not have. Consider a real-life comment regarding the vote of women in a voters’ assembly: “We men will give them the right to vote. Then they won’t have usurped (read now assumed) the authority.”

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.

3:1 – from If anyone sets his heart on being…he to Whoever aspires to be – disregards the context. 3:2-4 set the context for the he not the generic whoever.

3:2 – from must be to is to be – disregards the .

3:2 – from the husband of but one wife to faithful to his wife is another step away from the Greek

3:12 - from the husband of but one wife to faithful to his wife is another step away from the Greek

3:16 – from the mystery of Godliness is great to the mystery from which true Godliness springs is great – adds words to the text and interjects meaning

5:8 – from If anyone does not provide for his relatives to Anyone who does not provide for their relatives – loses the conditional of the Greek, mismatches singular and plural to avoid a male pronoun.

5:10 – from saints to Lord’s people – becomes an interpretation rather than a translation and loses a good and important word. I think we need to protect, just as we do with the words justify and redeem and sanctify, cf The Apostles’ Creed.

I think it is even stronger than not printing; I don’t think they will allow the use of the copyright to the 1984 edition.

I believe you're right. I wonder if that extends to the electronic editions of the 1984 NIV as well. To read the whole report and see what else has been weakened and what has been strengthened in the NNIV, in invite everyone to read this link:

http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Assessment Comments June 29.pdf

It's a 49-page report I believe, but probably well worth the effort.

 

[filosofer]

Regarding Acts 3:21

:
21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything

Notice that it tends to support the idea of the locatedness of Jesus as being only in heaven. This was often used in arguments about whether Jesus Christ could be present in the sacrament of the altar.

21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything

The NIV 2011 reflects better the Greek text. Check out NAS, NKJV, (even HCSB) and others on this text.

For another text, consider John 20:23 where both NIV 1984/NIV 2011 and ESV get it wrong.

 

[twin.spin]

I think it is even stronger than not printing; I don’t think they will allow the use of the copyright to the 1984 edition.

This was my understanding as well...which is why this also affects many of the printed material that comes through NPH that effects the schools at all levels of education to how sermons are currently formulated that is done per 3yr cycles from the synod.

This is not like going to your bookshelf and picking out a certian translation and "walla" problem solved. If the EVS were to be used, there are alot of copywrite permissions needed to be granted that probably would not need to be required by using the NNIV.

Maybe an issue that hasn't been made public is that certian translation rights holders aren't as co-operative or have made agreements that limit themself to be more exclusive to one group over another ... I don't know.

Whose to say that one group of translators has an attitude that since being they weren't good enough for the WELS before, that simply because WELS finds itself between a hard place and a rock... their translation is now acceptable and agree to grant usage.

Again, I don't know...maybe as one person said that because LCMS has EVS that no way is the WELS going to use the same. It could be a pride thing..each church body wanting to be unique from the other.

 

[DaRev]

Again, I don't know...maybe as one person said that because LCMS has EVS that no way is the WELS going to use the same.

Which is really a stupid reason since many from WELS/ELS were involved in the formation of The Lutheran Study Bible which uses the ESV text. One would think that the WELS would be favorable to utilizing a resource that they were directly involved with.

 

[seajoy]

Again, I don't know...maybe as one person said that because LCMS has EVS that no way is the WELS going to use the same. It could be a pride thing..each church body wanting to be unique from the other.

A pride thing? What an awful thing to say. You must not like your synod too much to put our Pastors in that kind of light.

 

[seajoy]

Which is really a stupid reason

Just because twinspin says this is the case, doesn't mean it is so.

 

[twin.spin]

A pride thing? What an awful thing to say. You must not like your synod too much to put our Pastors in that kind of light.

three thoughts:
1) Ya... a pride thing. It just so happens that under that robe and behind the pulpit are sinful human beings. Now if you can 100% guarantee that such a possibility of sinful human nature couldn't surface, then you're all up in arms for no reason.

But apparently I happen to have this "stupid" reason theory that simply because one walks the halls of a sem or synodical office that doesn't mean certian traits of sinful human behavior are left at the door.

Take what I said as one of many theoretical possibilities.

But just don't forget that when the hymnal debate was going on..it was suggested why not use what the LCMS had and one of the reasons stated at the meeting I attended was......that the WELS wanting to be unique from the LCMS.
________________________________________________

2) However... maybe you aren't taking it into "putting the best construction" to the statement. To take pride in the fact that one doesn't want to sound the same as another church body that has waivered in its doctrinal holding to the truth is probably a good thing.

It is confusing enough as it for those who bounce in between the two...why compound it by using the same translation

_____________________________________________________

3) I didn't say this was the case...I was speaking in theoretical terms.

However I don't hold the position that WELS has pastors that consists of sinful human beings but for the life of me has yet to see actions\positions that WELS has done\hold that reflect such human failures.......

 

[twin.spin]

Which is really a stupid reason since many from WELS/ELS were involved in the formation of The Lutheran Study Bible which uses the ESV text. One would think that the WELS would be favorable to utilizing a resource that they were directly involved with.

I'll have to research several things......

1. if WELS was "offically" involved or people that happened to be wels
2. if The Lutheran Study Bible has the same significance as a Bible translation that is primarily used by a synod
3. if it's really a "stupid" reason that one church body want to differentiate from another.

Apparently The Lutheran Bible Study isn't on the forefront of WELS pastors of "must have" list in the churches for people to have...for if WELS was as heavily involved as you claim we were, they would be promoting it in like the Meditations, Forward in Christ, WELS Connection and the Peoples Bible.

I do recall our pastor mentioning something once about the TLSB ... but it doesn't seem that he was too overly impressed. I think he said if we want a study bible, we should get the NIV 84 version while still able to.

 

[ratchet30]

My pastor has his church using the Concordia Self Study Bible. He definitely doesn't like the ESV because of the awkward sentence structure and thinks its weak on translating idioms into English.