WELS creating their own Bible (and one other question)?

mrmccormo · Aug 13, 2011

Hi all! My wife is WELS. I am not (I am a Christian, though), and we both attend a WELS church in the area. Over the past few weeks, our pastor has made mention of the upcoming change in which translation of the Bible the WELS uses, and he said something like this (I'll paraphrase):

Me and several other pastors and leaders in the synod have been petitioning the president (I think he said) to create our own Bible translation. I told him that we've sent enough people through seminary with a firm education in the original Biblical languages, and perhaps its time that we make our mark and give our church a new Bible. The president said "I've been thinking the same exact thing".

Any comment on that? Understandably, I am out of the loop on this sort of thing because I'm not even WELS.

My other question was this: does the WELS believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life? Just curious.

jonathan1971 · Aug 13, 2011

I've always wondered why lutherans didn't use Luther's translation as a foundation for something equal to it in English.

I've heard good things about AAT(Becks bible) but haven't purchased one yet. I do have a copy of his translation of the new testament called God's Word to the Nation. I haven't spent much time in it but I did enjoy reading Appendixe C especially the part about the translation of the word Diatheke. You can find it on the net I just don't know where.

It would be nice if there was an english bible out there that was more lutheran in the translation instead of reformed. The more reformed bibles, I believe, have lead many into peitism because of the over emphasis on the word covenant. Maybe Beck's bible is the answer.

I would support a new translation if WELS took it on but that's easy for me to say especaiily since I'm not WELS.

filosofer · Aug 13, 2011

jonathan1971 said:
I've always wondered why lutherans didn't use Luther's translation as a foundation for something equal to it in English.

I've heard good things about AAT(Becks bible) but haven't purchased one yet. I do have a copy of his translation of the new testament called God's Word to the Nation. I haven't spent much time in it but I did enjoy reading Appendixe C especially the part about the translation of the word Diatheke. You can find it on the net I just don't know where.

It would be nice if there was an english bible out there that was more lutheran in the translation instead of reformed. The more reformed bibles, I believe, have lead many into peitism because of the over emphasis on the word covenant. Maybe Beck's bible is the answer.

I would support a new translation if WELS took it on but that's easy for me to say especaiily since I'm not WELS.

I was involved in testing in congregations the revisions of AAT (known as NET - New Evangelical Translation); it was a great working relationship with Hoerber (LCMS) and Kuske (WELS). The 1988/1992 edition for the NT was great. In 1992 that Bible Society changed personnel, direction, and translation philosophy. They then proceeded to produce the Gods Word (GW) translation in 1995.

The sad thing is that Gods Word to the Nations Bible Society holds the copyright for all the NET revisions (going back to 1985 when it began revising). So that means going back the AAT, with only minor revisions of Herman Otten and whoever helped him produce each edition (latest is 2000). That would be okay, but I have offered (necessary) corrections to Herman over the past seven years (hard copy and email) and have received nothing back even acknowledging that there is a problem with the specific translation or the options or that he even received it.

Even though I am not WELS, I would certainly support such a move by WELS if they produced their own translation.

Rich Shields
President, American Lutheran Theological Seminary (ALTS)
American Association of Lutheran Churches(AALC)

jonathan1971 · Aug 13, 2011

I wish they would...but I must admit my bias against the reformed.

It would be nice to see conservatives lutherans get together on this issue. Of course that would mean a change in the status quo, so would that make me a liberal?

DaRev · Aug 13, 2011

jonathan1971 said:
It would be nice to see conservatives lutherans get together on this issue.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe it will occur.

Of course that would mean a change in the status quo, so would that make me a liberal?

No, it would make you conservative since you would want things to revert to the way they used to be prior to the 60's.

PreachersWife2004 · Aug 14, 2011

as to your question about Mary's perpetual virginity...

It's adiaphora, meaning it's not a salvation issue. Luther probably believed in perpetual virginity; I seem to recall some of his works talking about it. Some Lutherans believe in it, some do not.

I do not, since the bible speaks about Jesus' brothers. And it wasn't in a "we're all brothers in Christ" sense. I can't see her being married to Joseph but never getting to reap the benefits of that marriage.

Luther073082 · Aug 15, 2011

PreachersWife2004 said:
as to your question about Mary's perpetual virginity...

It's adiaphora, meaning it's not a salvation issue. Luther probably believed in perpetual virginity; I seem to recall some of his works talking about it. Some Lutherans believe in it, some do not.

I do not, since the bible speaks about Jesus' brothers. And it wasn't in a "we're all brothers in Christ" sense. I can't see her being married to Joseph but never getting to reap the benefits of that marriage.

That is correct, the confessional Lutheran churchs do not have a doctrine on Mary's perpetual virginity and so either position is acceptable.

twin.spin · Aug 15, 2011

Bible Translation topic: WELS producing it's own version
From the Translation Evaluation Committee's supplemental Report for the 2011 WELS Convention: Page 2 line 59 -64

" The first question we tackled was: should the WELS produce its own translation? We came to the firm consensus that producing a WELS translation would not be feasible. Considering the size and scope of such a project-particularly in translating the Hebrew Old Testament-we felt we lacked sufficient resources to carry it out on our own. An additional problem in the eyes of some on the committee was the sense that coming up with our own WELS version might render us vulnerable to the accusation that we were some kind of sect with our own special Bible."

1) "producing a WELS translation would not be feasible"
2) " render us vulnerable to the accusation" (s)

At this time if I were to guess..WELS producing it's own version would be the equivalent of WELS producing a square communion wafer.
______________________________
Mary being perpetual virginity... based on the fact that:

we have Jesus being conceived before "they came together" Matthew 1:18
we have Matthew acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers Matthew 12:46-47
we have an unknown person acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers Matthew 12:46-47
we have Jesus going to his hometown and the people in the synagogue acknowledging Jesus' brothers by name Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and reference to sistersMark 6:3
we have Paul making the distinction of Jesus appearing to James and then to all the Apostles 1 Corinthians 15:7
we have Paul making the distinction seeing no other apostles, but James the Lord's brother (when most times believers\apostles where referred to "brothers)
Jude making the connection with James being a brother Jesus

I would conclude that the evidence is more than circumstantial that Mary did not remained a virgin after Jesus' birth

Luther073082 · Aug 15, 2011

twin.spin said:
Bible Translation topic: WELS producing it's own version
From the Translation Evaluation Committee's supplemental Report for the 2011 WELS Convention: Page 2 line 59 -64

" The first question we tackled was: should the WELS produce its own translation? We came to the firm consensus that producing a WELS translation would not be feasible. Considering the size and scope of such a project-particularly in translating the Hebrew Old Testament-we felt we lacked sufficient resources to carry it out on our own. An additional problem in the eyes of some on the committee was the sense that coming up with our own WELS version might render us vulnerable to the accusation that we were some kind of sect with our own special Bible."

1) "producing a WELS translation would not be feasible"
2) " render us vulnerable to the accusation" (s)

At this time if I were to guess..WELS producing it's own version would be the equivalent of WELS producing a square communion wafer.

Thats something I've certainly thought of with #2 as to why its probably not a good idea. I mean what groups actually go out and produce their own translations? The Jehovah's Witnesses did that. . .

Zecryphon · Aug 15, 2011

Luther073082 said:
Thats something I've certainly thought of with #2 as to why its probably not a good idea. I mean what groups actually go out and produce their own translations? The Jehovah's Witnesses did that. . .

I'm not buying their reasoning about producing their own translation. Yeah, they may not have the money to produce one, but they were never going to do that anyway. I do believe they may not have the money to produce their own study Bible like CPH did with the ESV.

They've been looking at using existing translations. Producing their own translation has never been on the table for serious consideration. The TEC is pushing heavily for the NNIV, which I object to based on how it weakens some key passages of Scripture. The WELS can adopt other translations to use. They can use Beck's AAT, they can use the NKJV, they can use the ESV, which would make the most sense as this is what CPH is using in their publications and whether the WELS likes it or not a lot of us do buy books from CPH. So by using the ESV as their new translation, we wouldn't have to read two different translations. The ESV when reading CPH publications and something else when reading WELS publications. There'd be a harmony.

The WELS needs a translation for worship and printing in their publications, that's it. They're not looking for an official translation that will be used in all things. They're not looking for a new devotional or personal study translation. I'm still gonna use the ESV for personal study and devotions and I'm getting a copy of the AAT this weekend, so I can take a look at that.

Luther073082 · Aug 15, 2011

Zecryphon said:
I'm not buying their reasoning about producing their own translation. Yeah, they may not have the money to produce one, but they were never going to do that anyway. I do believe they may not have the money to produce their own study Bible like CPH did with the ESV.

They've been looking at using existing translations. Producing their own translation has never been on the table for serious consideration. The TEC is pushing heavily for the NNIV, which I object to based on how it weakens some key passages of Scripture. The WELS can adopt other translations to use. They can use Beck's AAT, they can use the NKJV, they can use the ESV, which would make the most sense as this is what CPH is using in their publications and whether the WELS likes it or not a lot of us do buy books from CPH. So by using the ESV as their new translation, we wouldn't have to read two different translations. The ESV when reading CPH publications and something else when reading WELS publications. There'd be a harmony.

The WELS needs a translation for worship and printing in their publications, that's it. They're not looking for an official translation that will be used in all things. They're not looking for a new devotional or personal study translation. I'm still gonna use the ESV for personal study and devotions and I'm getting a copy of the AAT this weekend, so I can take a look at that.

Do you think perhaps if they went with ESV, there would be a concern that the WELS would look like Missouri's little brother in a sense?

Zecryphon · Aug 15, 2011

Luther073082 said:
Do you think perhaps if they went with ESV, there would be a concern that the WELS would look like Missouri's little brother in a sense?

No, because Missouri has nothing to do with this. Nothing they've done has caused this issue in the WELS. This is all Biblica and Zondervan. But because of this they now do have an opportunity to create less of a division between the two synods. I have not liked reading the NIV in the WELS and then the ESV when reading publications from CPH. I would love for there to be an opportunity to not have to read two different translations depending upon what I'm doing. The WELS have cited that switching now from the current 1984 NIV to something else is going to cause problems for people who have memorized verses from the NIV. The WELS hasn't always used the NIV. They used something else before the NIV was released. So did they bring out this argument of memorization problems when they switched from whatever they were using prior, to the '84 NIV? I don't know I wasn't there. But I was surprised that a synod as conservative as the WELS was using a translation seen mostly in the Evangelical/Non-Denom churches.

It's a weak argument in my opinion that's being used so they can push through the NNIV which does more harm than good in my opinion. I agree there is no perfect translation out there, all have their strengths and weaknesses, but from what I've seen of the NNIV, the weakness in that translation are just too dangerous to our doctrine to accept this as our next translation.

Studeclunker · Aug 15, 2011

twin.spin said:
At this time if I were to guess..WELS producing it's own version would be the equivalent of WELS producing a square communion wafer.

Hey, a Wendy's communion wafer (LOL)!

______________________________
Mary being perpetual virginity... based on the fact that:

we have Jesus being conceived before "they came together" Matthew 1:18

we have Matthew acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers Matthew 12:46-47

we have an unknown person acknowledging Jesus' mother and brothers Matthew 12:46-47

we have Jesus going to his hometown and the people in the synagogue acknowledging Jesus' brothers by name Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and reference to sistersMark 6:3

we have Paul making the distinction of Jesus appearing to James and then to all the Apostles 1 Corinthians 15:7

we have Paul making the distinction seeing no other apostles, but James the Lord's brother (when most times believers\apostles where referred to "brothers)

Jude making the connection with James being a brother Jesus

I would conclude that the evidence is more than circumstantial that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth

This is confusing. First you make a strong case for Jesus' earthly siblings out of Mary, then you jump to the opposite conclusion.

I have heard it explained that the term 'Brothers and Sisters' was also used in those days in regards to one's close cousins. So the people mentioned in Matthew would have been the children of Mary and Joseph's siblings. However, there is no scriptural referrence to said parental siblings at all. Nor does scripture mention who the mother of these 'cousins' is/are.

Then I've heard the theory that Joseph would likely have been afraid to defile Mary in a normal Connubial relationship. Or of his being a bit overawed by her role as the Mother of the Messiah. This theory is based on Joseph's knowledge that Jesus was to be the Messiah. Yet, they don't seem to have thought of Him much differently than most parents do toward their children. Witness the time Jesus, at twelve years old, stayed in the Temple whilst His parents travelled homeward with their relatives. Two days later, they found He wasn't with their party and they panicked, returned to Jerusalem and searched the city. When Joseph and Mary found Jesus, they rebuked Him for wandering off and causing them anxiety and worry. Jesus' response was, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" Thus, scripture doesn't entirely support the theory of Joseph recognizing Mary as quite the Mother of God.

So, though scripture is not specific about Mary's continued virginity, it is also not quite specific about weather the Brothers and Sisters mentioned are actually half-siblings, from Joseph through Mary, or first cousins. It's just one of those things the writers didn't seem to find important enough, or that they felt was already adequately explained.

Zecryphon · Aug 15, 2011

Studeclunker said:
Hey, a Wendy's communion wafer (LOL)!

Or White Castle.

Studeclunker · Aug 15, 2011

Luther073082 said:
Thats something I've certainly thought of with #2 as to why its probably not a good idea. I mean what groups actually go out and produce their own translations? The Jehovah's Witnesses did that. . .

I would agree with the above. However, I also don't quite understand why the need for yet another translation when we have so many more than adequate translations currently available. This proliferation of english language translations is getting to the point of being a touch rediculous.

Zecryphon · Aug 15, 2011

Studeclunker said:
I would agree with the above. However, I also don't quite understand why the need for yet another translation when we have so many more than adequate translations currently available. This proliferation of english language translations is getting to the point of being a touch rediculous.

I agree. I also don't see the NNIV as a new translation, but as a revision of an existing translation.

filosofer · Aug 15, 2011

Studeclunker said:
This proliferation of english language translations is getting to the point of being a touch rediculous.

What do you mean proliferation? There are only 76 English translations available on the market today. What proliferation?

Zecryphon · Aug 15, 2011

filosofer said:
What do you mean proliferation? There are only 76 English translations available on the market today. What proliferation?

twin.spin · Aug 16, 2011

Studeclunker said:
Hey, a Wendy's communion wafer (LOL)!

This is confusing. First you make a strong case for Jesus' earthly siblings out of Mary, then you jump to the opposite conclusion.

I have heard it explained that the term 'Brothers and Sisters' was also used in those days in regards to one's close cousins. So the people mentioned in Matthew would have been the children of Mary and Joseph's siblings. However, there is no scriptural referrence to said parental siblings at all. Nor does scripture mention who the mother of these 'cousins' is/are.

Then I've heard the theory that Joseph would likely have been afraid to defile Mary in a normal Connubial relationship. Or of his being a bit overawed by her role as the Mother of the Messiah. This theory is based on Joseph's knowledge that Jesus was to be the Messiah. Yet, they don't seem to have thought of Him much differently than most parents do toward their children. Witness the time Jesus, at twelve years old, stayed in the Temple whilst His parents travelled homeward with their relatives. Two days later, they found He wasn't with their party and they panicked, returned to Jerusalem and searched the city. When Joseph and Mary found Jesus, they rebuked Him for wandering off and causing them anxiety and worry. Jesus' response was, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" Thus, scripture doesn't entirely support the theory of Joseph recognizing Mary as quite the Mother of God.

So, though scripture is not specific about Mary's continued virginity, it is also not quite specific about weather the Brothers and Sisters mentioned are actually half-siblings, from Joseph through Mary, or first cousins. It's just one of those things the writers didn't seem to find important enough, or that they felt was already adequately explained.

Ya ... Somehow I forgot to put in the "did not" as in Mary did not remain a virgin. Those who argue otherwise ...really want to do so out for others reasons.

mrmccormo · Aug 16, 2011

twin.spin said:
Ya ... Somehow I forgot to put in the "did not" as in Mary did not remain a virgin. Those who argue otherwise ...really want to do so out for others reasons.

Did you know that Martin Luther passionately believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary? He taught it and preached it his entire life.

WELS creating their own Bible (and one other question)?

Newbie

Guy Extraordinaire

Senior Veteran

Guy Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

by his wounds we are healed

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον

Well-Known Member

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency