What Scriptural version do you utilise?

[Virgil the Roman]

What scriptural version does your particular denomination utilise? I am curious. Formerly, I possessed an "NIV." However, no longer, as I currently possess the Douay-Rheims in lieu and replacement of, my former NIV. What particular versions do you conservative and confessional Lutherans use as quite accurate, literal, or faithful the original texts? I recognise the rift the rather chasm or dichotomy between your particular sects and the theology and beliefs of those of more, "Liberal" persuasion, so to speak.

I welcome constructive comments. And I started this to say, "Hello" to my friend, Mark. It has been years, since I lasted posted in any Lutheran sub-forum (then under my former username, Ravenonthecross.)

 

[JTornado1]

My Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod church used to have the Good News Bible aka Today's English Version. In late 1996, we switched to the NIV. When the new hymnals came out (which use the ESV), we switched to the ESV.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The "Good News Bible" sounds like a version that utilises "dynamic equivalence" rather than a particular brand of literalistic translating.

 

[alexnbethmom]

our church (LCMS) uses the ESV (what they used before, i'm not entirely sure, but i think it might have been the NIV)....

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I have been read that some Protestants prefer the RSV. They see it as quite reliable and trustworthy; or most faithful to the original scriptural sources extant. I am unaware, if you of the more "conservative" variety, utilise such a translation. Perhaps, it smacks too much "ecumenism" to you? I do not know.

 

[filosofer]

I recognise the rift the rather chasm or dichotomy between your particular sects and the theology and beliefs of those of more, "Liberal" persuasion, so to speak.

I welcome constructive comments.

Howdy, Mark. Good to have you here. Unfortunately your choice of words is not good, calling us "sects." Long topic of its own...

What scriptural version does your particular denomination utilise? I am curious. Formerly, I possessed an "NIV." However, no longer, as I currently possess the Douay-Rheims in lieu and replacement of, my former NIV. What particular versions do you conservative and confessional Lutherans use as quite accurate, literal, or faithful the original texts?

Many conservative Lutherans are moving to ESV. I am still not a strong supporter of it, but I do use it in our congregations that have it. I find the NASB95 and NKJV as the best of the formal equivalent translations. Behind that would be ESV, RSV (revised by RCC in 2002 for St. Joseph edition), and HCSB.

Of the dynamic equivalent translations, I find that AAT (Beck), GW, and NET usable. I tend to avoid NLT, NIV, TNIV, etc., although I have all of them, plus about 20 other translations. The best one was the original revision of Beck in 1988/1992 called the New Evangelical Translation, later changed to God's Word (GW).

This comes from 25+ years of translation of entire NT and some of the OT, as well as pastoring test congregations for the NET and later GW.

If I had only one translation, it would be NAS77 edition.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Thank you.

Denominations, then.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Originally, our Congregations used Luther's German Translation. As our Congregations began to transition into English worship, they addopted the widely available KJV. When I was quite young, the KJV was still used in Church, Sunday School, and Confirmation Class. Our English Liturgy was in "King James English" as well. Divine Service 3 in our new service book retains this "old" English, and we still use it regularly in our Parish. The Catechism that we used had all of the supporting passages taken from the KJV, and we had to memorize a whole whack of them!

About the time I entered Confirmation Class, we switched to the RSV; which was a bit confusing as the Catechism was still using KJV.

Sometime in the 80's we began using the NKJV, which just seemed to read "more like Scripture" than did the RSV, but the wording seemed somewhat complex. I believe at that time our Sems were using the NKJV as their standard "English" translation.

Of late, as others have already posted, we have switched to the ESV. I'm no Bible Scholar, but for me, I like it. It reads well, it's easy to understand, and the flow is far easier on my ears than the RSV was.

I still prefer reading the Psalms in the KJV; in my mind, those Psalms were the finest use the "old" language was ever put to! ...Try it, you'll like it!

 

[QuiltAngel]

The LCMS uses the ESV for many of the items they print, such as our Sunday worship bulletins. Only a few years ago it was the NIV. The catechism is available with the NIV or the ESB.

It is okay to use others. I mainly use the Lutheran Study Bible published by CPH which uses the ESV. When I am trying to figure something out, I will use several versions.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And I started this to say, "Hello" to my friend, Mark. It has been years, since I lasted posted in any Lutheran sub-forum (then under my former username, Ravenonthecross.)

Hi Virgil!

 

[DaRev]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the English Standard Version. It's a conservative revision of the RSV. The RSV is a very liberal, very Reformed biased translation. These problems within the RSV were removed and corrected when the ESV was published.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I still prefer reading the Psalms in the KJV; in my mind, those Psalms were the finest use the "old" language was ever put to! ...Try it, you'll like it!

I prefer my psalms in the Douay-Rheims, though. As, I very much prefer and trust that particular translation as accurate, orthodox, and it has the approbation of my Church. Although, the invitation was quite thoughtful.

 

[Tangible]

Like others have said, the materials printed by the LCMS use the ESV which I like very well. My local church seems to prefer the NIV for bible classes and catechetical training.

 

[RadMan]

I prefer my psalms in the Douay-Rheims, though. As, I very much prefer and trust that particular translation as accurate, orthodox, and it has the approbation of my Church. Although, the invitation was quite thoughtful.

We aren't into the Apocrypha that much since it isn't part of our canon.

 

[Aibrean]

We use the ESV. Our old LCMS church used the NIV and The Message.

Yet another reason why we no longer attend.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I suppose not. However, I am not "into the Apocrypha" as well. Keep in mind, what you term the "Apocrypha" to Catholics, it means the "Pseudepigrapha." However, I am into the "Deuterocanon" (which you, as Lutherans, do not include as part of the Scriptural canon. This, I know.).

 

[sea oat]

I only use the NRSV.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Okay....? Personally, I do not care for the NRSV; it is rather too modernist for my preferences. I mean to say it utilises too much "inclusive" terminology; twisting the meaning of scripture to the point of paranoia, for fear of being "biased" against women or sodomites.

 

[sea oat]

Okay....? Personally, I do not care for the NRSV; it is rather too modernist for my preferences. I mean to say it utilises too much "inclusive" terminology; twisting the meaning of scripture to the point of paranoia, for fear of being "biased" against women or sodomites.

The gender inclusive language is merely an annoyance at best. There's no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of it. And anyway, sometimes it's warranted, and truer to the original meaning. For example, there are times when "anthropos" meant something more like "person" rather than like "man."

Additionally, the footnotes at the bottom of the pages note when gender inclusive language was used. Readers can decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis.


I forgot to post that I use the NAB too. I own the Catholic Study Bible (the one edited by Senior & Collins, and published by Oxford) because I had to use it for one of my theology classes in undergrad, and I absolutely love it. It's very good imo.

 

[seajoy]

I like the NIV. It bothers my Baptist dad that I do. He's always putting me down for using it.